DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Priority is acknowledged from Provisional application PRO 63/607,270 with a filing date of 12/07/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 12/05/2024 and 06/10/2025 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 6-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite receiving an image having a first dynamic range, determining the first dynamic range fails to meet a criteria, downsampling a region of the image, blurring the downsampled region of the image, upsampling the blurred region of the image, generating a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image, and generating a transformed image having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of “determining the first dynamic range fails to meet a criteria", as claimed, only involves mental processes, such as the determination that the first dynamic range fails to meet a criteria. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "… receiving an image having a first dynamic range… downsampling a region of the image; blurring the downsampled region of the image; upsampling the blurred region of the image; generating a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image; and generating a transformed image having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve”, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity involving applying the abstract idea without a technological improvement. The other additional recited element in certain other claims are a processor and a computer-readable storage medium, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claims 11 and 21.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, and 22 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the first dynamic range associated with a high dynamic range standard and the second dynamic range associated with a standard dynamic range as recited in Claim 2 or the first dynamic range being greater than a dynamic range of a display intended for display of the image as recited in Claim 3 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps or steps that could be completed within the human mind and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (US 20190295504 A1) in view of Li (CN 113888437 A) and Liu et al. (US 20240303791 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Xiong teaches "A method comprising: receiving an image having a first dynamic range"; (Xiong, Claim 8, teaches receiving data for an HDR digital image, i.e., receiving an image having a first dynamic range);
"determining the first dynamic range fails to meet a criteria"; (Xiong, Abstract and Claim 1, teaches a display screen including a plurality of pixels operating at a lower dynamic range of brightness values wherein a peaking display brightness value is below a maximum brightness value within data for an HDR digital image, i.e., the first dynamic range being the HDR image fails to meet a criteria being the peaking display brightness value of the display is below a maximum bright values within data for the HDR image).
However, Xiong does not explicitly teach “downsampling a region of the image; blurring the downsampled region of the image; upsampling the blurred region of the image; generating a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image; and generating a transformed image having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Li teaches "downsampling a region of the image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches performing down-sampling processing on the LLHDR image and the foreground recognition result to obtain the LLHDR down-sampled image and the down-sampled foreground result of the same size, i.e., downsample a region of the HDR image);
"blurring the downsampled region of the image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches the blurring process is performed to obtain a down-sampled blurred image, i.e., blurring the downsampled region of the image);
"upsampling the blurred region of the image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches the down-sampled blurred image is up-sampled to obtain a background blurred image of the same size as the LLHDR image, i.e., upsampling the blurred region of the image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong by including the downsampling of the image, the blurring of the downsampled image, and the upsampling of the blurred image taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the blurring effect (Li, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the blurring effect of the image).
However, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li does not explicitly teach "generating a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image; and generating a transformed image having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Liu teaches "generating a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image"; (Liu, Paras. 31 and 33-36, teaches an upsampling operation is performed on the video sequence at an appropriate rate based on a size for displaying and then the histogram statistics is performed frame by frame on the upsampled video sequence wherein each image frame has respective statistical information such as linear RGB values and the reference luminance information in which an overall compression ratio and mid luminance information of the image frame are obtained based on the statistical information and wherein a compression curve of the image frame is determined based on the overall compression ratio and the mid luminance information in which the compression curve is for example a ToneMapping curve, i.e., generate a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image being the upsampled images comprising statistical information and luminance information used to determine the curve);
"and generating a transformed image having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve"; (Liu, Paras. 35 and 85, teaches a tone mapping curve is used to map the color from an original luminance being the HDR image to a target luminance being the LDR wherein the mapping result is displayed through a medium and wherein the curve in the metadata can be directly applied to calculate the compression ratio of each pixel, to adjust the dynamic range, i.e., a transformed imaged is generating having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone mapping curve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong and Li by including the generation of a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region and transforming the image using the tone-mapping curve taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the representation of the displayed images (Liu, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the ability to represent the brightness, darkness, and color ranges of the displayed images).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the first dynamic range is associated with a high dynamic range standard, and the second dynamic range is associated with a standard dynamic range standard"; (Xiong, Claims 1 and 4, teaches adaptive HDR tone mapping for a received HDR image and the system prepares the HDR image for display at a lower dynamic range wherein the lower dynamic range is a standard dynamic range, i.e., first dynamic range is high dynamic range and the second dynamic range is the standard dynamic range).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first dynamic range does not meet the criteria includes determining the first dynamic range is greater than a dynamic range of a display intended for display of the image"; (Xiong, Abstract and Claim 1, teaches a display screen including a plurality of pixels operating at a lower dynamic range of brightness values wherein a peaking display brightness value is below a maximum brightness value within data for an HDR digital image, i.e., the first dynamic range being the HDR image fails to meet a criteria being the peaking display brightness value of the display is below a maximum bright values within data for the HDR image as the first range is greater than a dynamic range of a display intended for displaying the image).
Claim 11 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, and Liu references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claim 12 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, and Liu references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claim 13 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, and Liu references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu teaches "An apparatus comprising: a camera configured to generate a first image having a first dynamic range"; (Xiong, Claim 8 and Para. 25, teaches a camera and receiving data for an HDR digital image);
"a display configured to display a second image having a second dynamic range"; (Xiong, Abstract, teaches a display screen including a plurality of pixels operating at a lower dynamic range of brightness values, a graphics processor executing code instructions to prepare data of an HDR digital image for display at the lower dynamic range, i.e., display configured to display a second image having a second dynamic range);
"and a processor configured to: downsample a region of the first image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches performing down-sampling processing on the LLHDR image and the foreground recognition result to obtain the LLHDR down-sampled image and the down-sampled foreground result of the same size, i.e., downsample a region of the HDR image);
"blur the downsampled region of the first image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches the blurring process is performed to obtain a down-sampled blurred image, i.e., blurring the downsampled region of the image);
"upsample the blurred region of the first image"; (Li, Pg. 10 Para. 12, teaches the down-sampled blurred image is up-sampled to obtain a background blurred image of the same size as the LLHDR image, i.e., upsampling the blurred region of the image);
"generate a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the first image"; (Liu, Paras. 31 and 33-36, teaches an upsampling operation is performed on the video sequence at an appropriate rate based on a size for displaying and then the histogram statistics is performed frame by frame on the upsampled video sequence wherein each image frame has respective statistical information such as linear RGB values and the reference luminance information in which an overall compression ratio and mid luminance information of the image frame are obtained based on the statistical information and wherein a compression curve of the image frame is determined based on the overall compression ratio and the mid luminance information in which the compression curve is for example a ToneMapping curve, i.e., generate a tone-mapping curve based on the upsampled region of the image being the upsampled images comprising statistical information and luminance information used to determine the curve);
"transform the first image using the tone-mapping curve to generate the second image"; (Liu, Paras. 35 and 85, teaches a tone mapping curve is used to map the color from an original luminance being the HDR image to a target luminance being the LDR wherein the mapping result is displayed through a medium and wherein the curve in the metadata can be directly applied to calculate the compression ratio of each pixel, to adjust the dynamic range, i.e., a transformed imaged is generating having a second dynamic range by transforming the image using the tone mapping curve);
"and render the second image on the display"; (Xiong, Abstract, teaches a display screen including a plurality of pixels operating at a lower dynamic range of brightness values, a graphics processor executing code instructions to prepare data of an HDR digital image for display at the lower dynamic range wherein the display screen displays the plurality of pixels according to the first adaptive tone map modification, i.e., render the second image on the display).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Xiong, Li, and Liu references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 21. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 21 is met by Xiong in view of Li and Liu.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu teaches "The apparatus of claim 21, the processor further configured to: receive a trigger to store the first image; and cause the first image to be stored in a memory associated with the apparatus"; (Liu, Para. 112, teaches the memory is configured to store various types of data to support the operation of the electronic device including data such as pictures and video, i.e., receive a trigger for storing the first image in memory associated with the apparatus/device).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Xiong, Li, and Liu references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 22. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 22 is met by Xiong in view of Li and Liu.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Seeger et al. (US 6577762 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an offset; and applying the offset to the upsampled region of the image”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Seeger teaches "The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an offset"; (Seeger, Claims 1 and 10, teaches computing one or more offset values);
"and applying the offset to the upsampled region of the image"; (Seeger, Claims 1 and 10, teaches creating a background image of the pixmap image by upsampling background image of the block average image, computing one or more offset values, and generating a background threshold surface based upon the background image of the pixmap image and the one or more offset values, i.e., offset is applied to the upsampled region of the image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong, Li, and Liu by including the determination of an offset and applying it to the upsampled image taught by Seeger. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves results from the surface thresholding (Seeger, Col. 11 lines 22-27, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the results from the background surface thresholding).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Seeger references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Seeger references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Bai et al. (US 20150070570 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the tone-mapping curve includes generating a tone-mapping curve for each pixel of the upsampled region of the image".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bai teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the tone-mapping curve includes generating a tone-mapping curve for each pixel of the upsampled region of the image"; (Bai, Para. 70, teaches a local tone mapping curve may be defined for each pixel location in the image, i.e., generating a tone mapping curve for each pixel of the image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong, Li, and Liu wherein the image is an upsampled image by including the generation of a tone-mapping curve for each pixel of the image taught by Bai. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the noise of the images (Bai, Para. 2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the signal to noise ratio of the images).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Bai teaches "The method of claim 5, wherein the generating of the tone-mapping curve for each pixel includes: generating a knee point for a selected pixel"; (Bai, Paras. 43-45, teaches the curve construction comprising obtaining a knee value that separates a linear segment from a non-linear segment);
"and generating the tone-mapping curve as a first curve to the knee point and a second curve after the knee point"; (Bai, Paras. 45 and 47, teaches the samples to the left of the knee point represent the linear portion incorporating the EV gain and samples to the right of the knee point represent the non-linear segment of the curve, which aims to compress the dynamic range, i.e., tone-mapping curve has a first curve to the knee point and a second curve after the knee point).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Bai references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, applies to claim 6. Thus, the method recited in claim 6 is met by Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Bai.
Claim 15 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Bai references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Bai references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claim 16 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Bai references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Bai references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Cote et al. (US 20130321700 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the downsampling of the region of the image includes downsampling a non-overlapping region of the image based on a logarithm of a maximum luminance".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cote teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the downsampling of the region of the image includes downsampling a non-overlapping region of the image based on a logarithm of a maximum luminance"; (Cote, Paras. 533 and 554-556, teaches luminance computation logic includes maximal luminance and the logarithmic luminance in which thumbnail generation logic receives maximal luminance or logarithmic luminance as input and may pass this signal to downsampling logic to downsample the selected image data by downsampling each block of the image frame using one of four downsampling modes to produce the one or more thumbnails wherein a downsampling mode includes maximum pixel mode to select the maximum pixel value in each block to represent each pixel of the output thumbnail, i.e., downsampling a region of the image includes downsampling non-overlapping regions of the image based on logarithm of a maximum luminance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong, Li, and Liu by including the downsampling of a non-overlapping region based on a logarithm of maximum luminance taught by Cote. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it accounts for noise in the signal (Cote, Para. 6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to adequately account for noise in the image signal).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Cote references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Cote references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Shaw (US 20030021488 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu does not explicitly teach “The method of claim 1, wherein the transforming of the image includes: computing an original luminance of a pixel of the image as a weighted sum of pixel’s red, green and blue components; applying the tone-mapping curve to the original luminance of the pixel to generate a new luminance, computing a ratio of the new luminance to the original luminance; and multiplying the red, green and blue components by the ratio”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Shaw teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the transforming of the image includes: computing an original luminance of a pixel of the image as a weighted sum of pixel’s red, green and blue components"; (Shaw, Para. 43, teaches a luminance value is the linear combination of the linearized RGB values which have their values multiplied by respective coefficients, i.e., computing luminance of a pixel as a weighted sum of pixel's red, green, and blue components);
"applying the tone-mapping curve to the original luminance of the pixel to generate a new luminance"; (Shaw, Paras. 17 and 44, teaches an original luminance value is obtained and the shadow and highlight-based tone functions are applied to it to obtain a new luminance value wherein tone curves are derived from the highlight and shadow values, i.e., applying tone-mapping curves to the original luminance to generate a new luminance);
"computing a ratio of the new luminance to the original luminance"; (Shaw, Para. 44, teaches a ratio of the new luminance value to the original luminance value);
"and multiplying the red, green and blue components by the ratio"; (Shaw, Para. 44, teaches new RGB values can be obtained by multiplying the original linearized RGB values by the ratio of the new luminance value to the original luminance value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong, Li, and Liu by including the computation of an original luminance as a weighted sum of RGB components, applying a tone-mapping curve to the original luminance, computing a ratio of the new luminance to the original luminance, and multiplying the RGB components by the ratio taught by Shaw. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it achieves a desired image quality (Shaw, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to achieve a desired image quality).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Shaw references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Shaw references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Li, Liu, and Ming et al. (US 20150170389 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Xiong in view of Li and Liu does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the transforming of the image includes applying a gamut mapping algorithm to the transformed image".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ming teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the transforming of the image includes applying a gamut mapping algorithm to the transformed image"; (Ming, Para. 6, teaches tone mapping, which converts the tonal value of an image from a high dynamic range (HDR) to a lower dynamic range (LDR), and gamut mapping, which converts the LDR image from the RGB (red, green, blue) color space to the CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) color space, i.e., applying gamut mapping to a transformed image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xiong, Li, and Liu by including the gamut mapping of the transformed image taught by Ming. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it maps the color space to the output device (Ming, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to using gamut mapping to the color space of the output device).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 10. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Ming references, presented in rejection of Claim 10, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Xiong, Li, Liu, and Ming references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Xiong, Paragraph 29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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. The following is the Examiner' s stated reason for indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of limitations recited in Claim 7. Regarding Claim 7, Jung et al. (US 20190080670 A1) teaches "The method of claim 6, wherein the generating of the knee point includes: determining a local maximum of luminance for the selected pixel"; (Jung, Paras. 64 and 69, teaches a term representing a current maximum value of luminance in one or some number of pixels of the cell wherein the local maximum pixel luminance value may be used by the local tone mapping, i.e., determine a local maximum of luminance for the selected pixel).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ikizyan ("HDR Dynamic Tone Mapping with Enhanced Rendering Control"), Figures 1 and 5 and Section 1, teaches a tone mapping curve in two sections being a linear segment and a Bezier curve as an Nth order Bernstein polynomial connected by a knee point in which the coefficients of the Bernstein polynomial along with the coordinates of the knee point are part of the dynamic metadata that defines the scene-specific tone mapping curve as opposed to explicitly generating the knee point as the logarithm of the local maximum of luminance for the pixel. Furthermore, Seifi et al. (US 20180167597 A1), Para. 129, teaches the initial value of the 80% of the maximum luminance of the target display is considered as the knee point of the tone-mapping curve as opposed to explicitly generating the knee point of the tone mapping curve as the log of the local maximum of the luminance. Thus, neither Ikizyan nor Seifi explicitly teaches "and generating the knee point as log(local maximum of luminance)".
Therefore, none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of: "and generating the knee point as log(local maximum of luminance)" with the rest of the claim limitations as described above. Claim 17 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with steps and elements corresponding to the elements and steps recited in Claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
