DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No. US-11069279-B2 OR US-11289000-B2 OR US-11315466-B2 OR US-11341890-B2 OR US-11410593-B2 OR US-11436967-B2 OR US-11501419-B1 OR US-11651718-B2 OR US-11694592-B2 OR US-12148343-B2 OR US-12148344-B2 OR US-12444337-B2 and are further provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of copending Application No. 18/946,304, 19/327,556, and 19/353,027.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application is either anticipated by, or the obvious variation of, various claims of above cited US patents or patent application.
This is because independent claim 1/12/17 recites a system for encoding and decoding an image signal. The system comprises an encoder, decoder, the encoder feeds its output to the decoder. Independent Claim 1 further claims applying a ½ gamma function the luminance of encoder output. Independent Claim 12 further claims a watermark engine in the encoder, a watermark detection engine and a watermark subtraction engine in a decoder. Independent Claim 17 further claims a gamma function in the encoder and a gamma to linear converter in the decoder. Those limitations recited in independent Claim 1/12/17 have been either directly or indirectly disclosed by above cited US patent or patent application. e.g.
1. the limitations related to ½ gamma function as recited in Claim 1 of instant application have been either directly or indirectly disclosed by US patent No. US-11289000-B2, US-11315467-B1, US-11436967-B2, US-11694592-B2, US-12148344-B2.
2. the limitations related to watermark as recited in Claim 12 of instant application have been either directly or indirectly disclosed by US patent No. US-11289000-B2, US-11315467-B1, US-11694592-B2, US-12148344-B2 and US patent Application 19/353,027.
3. the limitations related to gamma function as recited in Claim 17 of instant application have been either directly or indirectly disclosed by US patent No. US-11069279-B2 OR US-11289000-B2 OR US-11315466-B2 OR US-11315467-B1 OR US-11341890-B2 OR US-11410593-B2 OR US-11436967-B2 OR US-11501419-B1 OR US-11651718-B2 OR US-11694592-B2 OR US-12148343-B2 OR US-12148344-B2 OR US-12444337-B2 and US patent application 18/946,304 and 19/327,556. Other dependent claims are either claimed in above cited US patents or patent applications or can be obvious combined with reference cited in below art rejections since those references are in the same field of application and same combine motivations can be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramasubramonian discloses a system for encoding and decoding an image signal (Fig.1: notice encoding 104 and decoding device 112), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an encoder, wherein the encoder includes at least one encoder processor and at least one encoder memory (Fig.1: encoder engine 106 and Storage 108); and
a decoder, wherein the decoder includes at least one decoder processor, at least one decoder memory (Fig.1: decoder engine 116 and storage 118);
PNG
media_image2.png
327
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one encoder input is image data related to the image signal (Fig.1: notice the input to the encoder is from a video source 102);
wherein the encoder and the decoder are in communication (Fig.1: notice the communications link 120);
wherein at least one encoder input is image data related to the image signal (Fig.1: notice the input to the encoder is from a video source 102);
wherein the encoder is operable to process the at least one encoder input, thereby creating at least one encoder output (Fig.1);
wherein the at least one encoder output is a set of values in a color space, wherein the set of values in the color space includes two colorimetric coordinates and a luminance ([0005]: a video encoding device (or other transmission-side device) can determine the color volume of content being encoded, and can generate a content color volume message with content color volume information describing the color volume of the video content. [0095]: Color volume may be specified in different color spaces, including, but not limited to XYZ, xyY, LAB, and LUV color spaces. For example, color volume in the xyY color space is defined by a color gamut of the video content (in an x-dimension and a y-dimension) and the minimum and maximum luminances (Y) that are occupied by the video content or that a display is capable of representing);
wherein the at least one encoder output is transmitted to the decoder, thereby creating at least one decoder input (Fig.1);
wherein the decoder is operable to process the at least one decoder input, thereby creating at least one decoder output (Fig.1).
Ramasubramonian fails to disclose wherein a ½ gamma function is applied to the luminance related to the at least one encoder output.
However Edgar discloses applying a gamma function to luminance Y of YUV image signals (Fig.4 and notice at step 332, the linear luminance value is applied a ½ gamma function therefore converted to a luma value. For detail description, see col.4 line 16-col.5 line 24 ).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Edgar into that of Ramasubramonian and to include a gamma function in the encoder and a gamma to linear converter in the decoder and further to add the limitation of wherein a ½ gamma function is applied to the luminance related to the at least one encoder output in order to preserve the luminance detail at edges as suggested by Edgar (col.7 line 59).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramasubramonian further discloses wherein the decoder is in communication with at least one viewing device, and wherein the at least one decoder output is transmitted to the at least one viewing device ([0088]: The decoding device 112 may output the decoded video to a video destination device 122, which may include a display or other output device for displaying the decoded video data to a consumer of the content).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein the encoder further includes at least one encoder formatter, wherein the at least one encoder formatter is operable to provide the at least one encoder output formatted for serial digital interface (SDI), high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI), Ethernet, and/or fiber and wherein the decoder further includes at least one decoder formatter, wherein the at least one decoder formatter is operable to provide the at least one decoder output formatted for serial digital interface (SDI), high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI), Ethernet, and/or fiber ([0085]: A wired network may include any wired interface (e.g., fiber, ethernet, powerline ethernet, ethernet over coaxial cable, digital signal line (DSL), or the like. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one encoder/decoder formatter, wherein the at least one encoder/decoder formatter is operable to transmit standard image data through above wired network in formats those communication protocols accept).
Claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2001/0021260 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar fails to disclose wherein the encoder further includes a watermark engine, and wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark.
However Chung, in the same field of endeavor, discloses An MPEG2 moving picture and encoding/decoding system to provide digital copy protection of digital moving picture data. The MPEG2 moving picture encoder discrete cosine transforms a video input signal and uses a digital watermark inserter to embed digital watermark information on a frequency domain of the discrete cosine transformed video input signal. The MPEG2 moving picture decoder receives the encoded video output signal from the MPEG2 moving picture encoder and removes the embedded visual watermark information to locally decode the encoded video signal (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chung into that of Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar and to include the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes a watermark engine, and wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark so that a duplicator cannot edit or remove a digital product illegally and arbitrarily as taught by Chung ([0068]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Chun Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Diroo et al. (US 2007/0199039 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramasubramonian discloses The video source may include a video capture device, such as a video camera, a video archive containing previously captured video, and/or a video feed interface to receive video from a video content provider ([0193]). However, Ramasubramonian as modified fails to disclose wherein the encoder further includes an encoder flash card reader and/or the decoder further includes a decoder flash card reader.
However Diroo discloses it had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flash card reader to store video data ([0037]: In a particular embodiment, the user can issue a command to the set-top box device 124 to write the video content to a removable secondary storage medium. The user can insert a removable secondary storage medium, such as a flash card memory device, into one of the secondary storage interfaces 176. [0061]: In a particular embodiment, the set-top box device 232 can include a first secondary storage interface 248 and a second secondary storage interface 250, such as flash card reader-writer devices). Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Diroo into that of Ramasubramonian as modified and to add the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes an encoder flash card reader and/or the decoder further includes a decoder flash card reader in order to support video archive containing previously captured video or video feed from a video content provider.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Buckley et al. (US 2016/0227993 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar discloses including a ½ gamma function in the encoder. But Ramasubramonian as modified fails to disclose wherein the encoder further includes a Look-Up Table (LUT), wherein the LUT is operable to transform the at least one encoder input to the set of values in the color space.
However Buckley discloses using a look-up table (LUT) to perform gamma conversion had been a known practice in the image processing field ([0079]: To address this common gamma encoding, the control logic 400 may store a gamma correction lookup table (LUT) from which it can quickly retrieve appropriate intensity values given a set of LCD gamma encoded pixel values). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Buckley into that of Ramasubramonian as modified and to include the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes a Look-Up Table (LUT), wherein the LUT is operable to transform the at least one encoder input to the set of values in the color space in order to quickly get intended results as suggested by Buckley.
Regarding Claim 9, Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar discloses including a ½ gamma function in the encoder. But Ramasubramonian as modified fails to disclose wherein the decoder further includes a look-up table (LUT), wherein the LUT is operable to apply a gamma function and/or a curve to the at least one decoder input.
However Buckley discloses using a look-up table (LUT) to perform gamma conversion had been a known practice in the image processing field ([0079]: To address this common gamma encoding, the control logic 400 may store a gamma correction lookup table (LUT) from which it can quickly retrieve appropriate intensity values given a set of LCD gamma encoded pixel values). Decoding is just an inverse function of encoding. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Buckley into that of Ramasubramonian as modified and to include the limitation of wherein the decoder further includes a look-up table (LUT), wherein the LUT is operable to apply a gamma function and/or a curve to the at least one decoder input in order to quickly get intended results as suggested by Buckley.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Navy (US 2012/0117365 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramasubramonian discloses a video processing system with an encoder and a decoder (Fig.1). Ramasubramonian further discloses embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof ([0061]).
It would only need a routine skill for a POSITA to have recognized the benefit of software/firmware updating in order to handle software/firmware bugs or fix security issues after software/firmware being installed and running. Furthermore, Navy discloses updating firmware through a programming port had been widely implemented before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Fig.2, [0002]: The flash memory 113 is configured to store the firmware codes for being executed by the CPU 110. The programming port 112 is a data programming interface for allowing a flash programming tool (not shown) to update the flash memory 113 and [0003]: FIG. 2 shows an example of performing firmware update to the micro-controller unit 100 of a power supply unit shown in FIG. 1 by a specific programming tool 200. It is to be noted that similar circuit elements are labeled with the same reference numerals throughout the specification. As shown in FIG. 2, a specific programming tool 200 is connected to the micro-controller unit 100 through the programming port 112 for programming the flash memory 113). Therefore it would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the teaching of Navy into Ramasubramonian as modified and to add the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes an encoder operations programming port and/or the decoder further includes a decoder operations programming port, wherein the encoder operations programming port is operable to provide updates to firmware and/or software on the encoder, and wherein the decoder operations programming port is operable to provide updates to firmware and/or software on the decoder in order to meet customer’s requirements for bug fixing and allow customers to load their own software/firmware since it is a widely used and confirmed working method for firmware/software update.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Betts et al. (US 8,837,562 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ramasubramonian as modified fails to discloses wherein the at least one viewing device is at least two viewing devices, and wherein the decoder is operable to send the at least one decoder output to the at least two viewing devices simultaneously.
However Betts discloses wherein the at least one viewing device is at least two viewing devices, and wherein the decoder is operable to send the at least one decoder output to the at least two viewing devices simultaneously (Fig.1 and col.6 lines 6-12: In the remote computing system configuration depicted in FIG. 1, workstation 2 is configured in dual-display mode and display information associated with both displays is transmitted to client terminal 13-1. Display information associated with the first of the two displays is decoded by the computer card 20-1 and displayed on display element 14-1; display information associated with the second of the two displays is decoded by the computer card 20-1 and transmitted to the client terminal 13-2 using a standard display protocol standard, such as Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or DisplayPort (DP), for display on display element 14-2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Betts into that of Ramasubramonian as modified and to add above limitation in order to support a dual displaying mode.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramasubramonian discloses a system for encoding and decoding an image signal (Fig.1: notice encoding 104 and decoding device 112), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an encoder, wherein the encoder includes at least one encoder processor, at least one encoder memory (Fig.1: encoder engine 106 and Storage 108), and
a decoder, wherein the decoder includes at least one decoder processor, at least one decoder memory (Fig.1: decoder engine 116 and storage 118),
PNG
media_image2.png
327
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one encoder input is image data related to the image signal (Fig.1: notice the input to the encoder is from a video source 102);
wherein at least one encoder output is a set of values in a color space, wherein the set of values in the color space includes two colorimetric coordinates and a luminance ([0005]: a video encoding device (or other transmission-side device) can determine the color volume of content being encoded, and can generate a content color volume message with content color volume information describing the color volume of the video content. [0095]: Color volume may be specified in different color spaces, including, but not limited to XYZ, xyY, LAB, and LUV color spaces. For example, color volume in the xyY color space is defined by a color gamut of the video content (in an x-dimension and a y-dimension) and the minimum and maximum luminances (Y) that are occupied by the video content or that a display is capable of representing);
wherein the at least one encoder output is transmitted to the decoder (see Fig.1: notice the communications link 120);
wherein the decoder is operable to process at least one decoder input, (Fig.1).
Ramasubramonian fails to disclose the encoder further includes a watermark engine, wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark and the decoder further includes a watermark detection engine, and a watermark subtraction engine, wherein the decoder is operable to process and wherein the decoder requires the digital watermark in processed image data sent from the encoder to provide the at least one decoder output.
However Chung, in the same field of endeavor, discloses An MPEG2 moving picture and encoding/decoding system to provide digital copy protection of digital moving picture data. The MPEG2 moving picture encoder discrete cosine transforms a video input signal and uses a digital watermark inserter to embed digital watermark information on a frequency domain of the discrete cosine transformed video input signal. The MPEG2 moving picture decoder receives the encoded video output signal from the MPEG2 moving picture encoder and removes the embedded visual watermark information to locally decode the encoded video signal (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chung into that of Ramasubramonian and to include a watermark engine to the encoder, wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark and further to include a watermark detection engine and a watermark subtraction engine to the decoder, wherein the decoder is operable to process at least one decoder input, the watermark detection engine is operable to detect the digital watermark, and the watermark subtraction engine is operable to remove the digital watermark and wherein the decoder requires the digital watermark in processed image data sent from the encoder to provide the at least one decoder output so that a duplicator cannot edit or remove a digital product illegally and arbitrarily as taught by Chung ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramasubramonian further discloses wherein the encoder and the decoder are in communication over a network (Fig.1).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Chung et al. (US 2001/0021260 A1) as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramasubramonian modified by Chung fails to disclose wherein the encoder further includes a gamma function, wherein the gamma function is applied to the luminance to create a luma.
However Edgar discloses applying a gamma function to luminance Y of YUV image signals (Fig.4 and notice at step 332, the linear luminance value is applied a ½ gamma function therefore converted to a luma value. For detail description, see col.4 line 16-col.5 line 24 ).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Edgar into that of Ramasubramonian modified by Chung and to include the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes a gamma function, wherein the gamma function is applied to the luminance to create a luma in order to preserve the luminance detail at edges as suggested by Edgar (col.7 line 59).
Regarding Claim 16, Ramasubramonian modified by Chung fails to disclose the encoder further includes a ½ gamma function, wherein the ½ gamma function is applied to the luminance to create a luma.
However Edgar discloses applying a gamma function to luminance Y of YUV image signals (Fig.4 and notice at step 332, the linear luminance value is applied a ½ gamma function therefore converted to a luma value. For detail description, see col.4 line 16-col.5 line 24).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Edgar into that of Ramasubramonian modified by Chung and to include the limitation of the encoder further includes a ½ gamma function, wherein the ½ gamma function is applied to the luminance to create a luma in order to preserve the luminance detail at edges as suggested by Edgar (col.7 line 59).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A).
Regarding Claim 17, discloses a system for encoding and decoding an image signal (Fig.1: notice encoding 104 and decoding device 112), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an encoder, wherein the encoder includes at least one encoder processor, at least one encoder memory (Fig.1: encoder engine 106 and Storage 108), and a
a decoder, wherein the decoder includes at least one decoder processor, at least one decoder memory (Fig.1: decoder engine 116 and storage 118),
PNG
media_image2.png
327
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the encoder and the decoder are in communication (Fig.1. Notice the communications link 120);
wherein at least one encoder input is image data related to the image signal (Fig.1: notice the input to the encoder is from a video source 102);
wherein at least one encoder output is a set of values in a color space, wherein the set of values in the color space includes two colorimetric coordinates and a luminance ([0005]: a video encoding device (or other transmission-side device) can determine the color volume of content being encoded, and can generate a content color volume message with content color volume information describing the color volume of the video content. [0095]: Color volume may be specified in different color spaces, including, but not limited to XYZ, xyY, LAB, and LUV color spaces. For example, color volume in the xyY color space is defined by a color gamut of the video content (in an x-dimension and a y-dimension) and the minimum and maximum luminances (Y) that are occupied by the video content or that a display is capable of representing);
wherein the at least one encoder output is transmitted to the decoder (see Fig.1);
wherein the decoder is operable to process at least one decoder input, thereby creating at least one decoder output (Fig.1).
Ramasubramonian fails to discloses the encoder further includes a gamma function, wherein the encoder is operable to process the at least one encoder input using the gamma function, thereby creating at least one encoder output and the decoder further includes a gamma to linear converter.
However Edgar discloses applying a gamma function to luminance Y of YUV image signals (Fig.4 and notice at step 332, the linear luminance value is applied a ½ gamma function therefore converted to a luma value. For detail description, see col.4 line 16-col.5 line 24 ).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Edgar further discloses a gamma to linear converter at the decoder side (Fig.1 notice the converter 352 which is to reverse the ½ gamma function at the encoder side).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Edgar into that of Ramasubramonian modified by Chung and to include a gamma function in the encoder and a gamma to linear converter in the decoder and further to add the limitation of wherein the encoder is operable to process the at least one encoder input using the gamma function, thereby creating at least one encoder output in order to preserve the luminance detail at edges as suggested by Edgar (col.7 line 59).
Regarding Claim 20, Edgar further discloses wherein a gamma function or a ½ gamma function is applied to the luminance related to the at least one encoder output to create a luma (Fig.4 and notice at step 332, the linear luminance value is applied a ½ gamma function therefore converted to a luma value. For detail description, see col.4 line 16-col.5 line 24).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2017/0339418 A1) in view of Edgar (US 5,543,820 A) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2001/0021260 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar fails to disclose wherein the encoder further includes a watermark engine, and wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark.
However Chung, in the same field of endeavor, discloses An MPEG2 moving picture and encoding/decoding system to provide digital copy protection of digital moving picture data. The MPEG2 moving picture encoder discrete cosine transforms a video input signal and uses a digital watermark inserter to embed digital watermark information on a frequency domain of the discrete cosine transformed video input signal. The MPEG2 moving picture decoder receives the encoded video output signal from the MPEG2 moving picture encoder and removes the embedded visual watermark information to locally decode the encoded video signal (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chung into that of Ramasubramonian and to include the limitation of wherein the encoder further includes a watermark engine, and wherein the watermark engine is operable to modify the at least one encoder input to include a digital watermark so that a duplicator cannot edit or remove a digital product illegally and arbitrarily as taught by Chung ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramasubramonian modified by Edgar fails to disclose wherein the decoder requires a digital watermark in the at least one decoder input to provide the at least one decoder output.
However Chung, in the same field of endeavor, discloses An MPEG2 moving picture and encoding/decoding system to provide digital copy protection of digital moving picture data. The MPEG2 moving picture encoder discrete cosine transforms a video input signal and uses a digital watermark inserter to embed digital watermark information on a frequency domain of the discrete cosine transformed video input signal. The MPEG2 moving picture decoder receives the encoded video output signal from the MPEG2 moving picture encoder and removes the embedded visual watermark information to locally decode the encoded video signal (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chung into that of Ramasubramonian and to include the limitation of wherein the decoder requires a digital watermark in the at least one decoder input to provide the at least one decoder output so that a duplicator cannot edit or remove a digital product illegally and arbitrarily as taught by Chung ([0068]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and Terminal Disclaimers have been filed and approved to overcome above Double Patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of wherein the color space is an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) xyY color space as claimed in Claim 11 and the limitation of wherein the digital watermark is outside of the ITU-R BT.2020 color gamut and is not visible and is not detectable when displayed on a viewing device with the ITU-R BT.2020 color gamut as claimed in Claim 14. Regarding Claim 11, the closest prior art, Edgar (US 5,543,820 A), discloses applying gamma function to YUV. However, it fails to disclose applying gamma function to xyY color space and encoded xyY is transmitted to the decoder. Regarding Claim 14, no prior art discloses the watermark is outside the ITU-R BT.2020 color gamut and is not visible and not detectable when displaying on a viewing device with the ITU-R BT.2020 color gamut.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights