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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 comprises two sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the transmitted rendered data includes processed xyY data" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-20 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 12.
Double Patenting
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-11341890-B2 OR US-11403987-B2 OR US-11410593-B2 OR US-11475819-B2 OR US-11532261-B1 OR US-11587491-B1 OR US-11631358-B2 OR US-11651718-B2 OR US-11682333-B2 OR US-11694592-B2 OR US-11721266-B2 OR US-11869408-B2 OR US-11978379-B2 OR US-12008942-B2 OR US-12136376-B2 OR US-12148343-B2 OR US-12148344-B2 OR US-12236826-B2 OR US-12243464-B2 OR US-12387651-B2 OR US-12394348-B2 OR US-12444337-B2 OR US-12462723-B2 OR US-12462773-B1 OR US-12475826-B2 OR US-12555507-B2 and are further provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of copending Application No. 18/747,872, 18/934,807, 18/946,280, 18/946,304, 19/028,51 0, 19/290,973, 19/290,994, 19/327,556, 19/360,450, 19/361,588, 19/536,906.
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 1/9/12 recites a system/method for processing an image signal in CIE Yxy color space. The system/method further transmits the processed image to at least one viewing device. Those limitations recited in independent Claim 1/9/12 have been either directly or indirectly disclosed by above cited US patent or patent application. Other dependent claims are either disclosed by above cited US patents or patent applications or are general color image processing method which are within routine skills of a PHOSITA.
Due to the size of double patent rejection, the Examiner does not list claim by claim comparison. If Applicant has any concern or question, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner for detail explanation.
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.
Claim 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Evans discloses a system for displaying an image signal ([0044]: In one embodiment, it may be desirable to apply the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device not in the GPU but actually in the MPU of the display itself. For instance, where there are multiple displays (or remote displays), each may have a different output profile), comprising:
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory (Fig.4: CPU 410);
a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Fig.4: GPU 414); and
PNG
media_image1.png
425
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a display engine (Fig.4 and [0055]: As previously described, in one aspect, embodiments of the present invention provide for the coordination of a CPU, a GPU or videoDACs and, if desired, a Micro-Processing Unit MPU, as more fully described below with reference to FIG. 4. To ensure greater efficiency and thus improve speed and performance of image processing, it may be desirable to move one or more of the color conversion computations downstream, that is, away from the CPU and into the GPU or videoDACs and/or the MPU);
wherein the GPU and the display engine are in communication ([0044]: In one embodiment, it may be desirable to apply the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device not in the GPU but actually in the MPU of the display itself. For instance, where there are multiple displays (or remote displays), each may have a different output profile. Evans indirectly discloses the MPU includes a display);
wherein image data related to the image signal is input into the GPU (Fig.2 step 210: INPUT COLOR DATA FROM THE INPUT DEVICE TO THE GPU);
wherein the GPU is operable to process the image data, thereby creating rendered image data (Fig.4: notice data is transmitted from GPU 414 to Output Component 430);
wherein the image data corresponds to a set of values in an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) xyY color space, and wherein the set of values in the CIE xyY color space includes two colorimetric coordinates (x and y) (Evans does not explicitly recite the image data corresponds to a set of values in CIE xyY color space. However Evans discloses the image data can be transformed from original color space to the CIE XYZ connection space. See [0051]: As with the destination profile, each color channel forms a separate column in the color matrix and the color matrix specifies the transform from the color space to the CIE XYZ connection space. Since CIE xyY color space can be directly derived from the tristimulus values X,Y, and Z of CIE XYZ space, Evans teaches or suggests the image data corresponds to CIE xyY space);
wherein the rendered image data is transmitted to the display engine (Fig.4: notice the output of GPU 414 is transmitted to the MPU 432);
wherein the display engine is operable to process the rendered image data, thereby creating formatted image data; and wherein the formatted image data is operable to be transmitted to at least one viewing device ([0032]: if a user wishes to view media content received from a digital camera on a laptop computer monitor, the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) color combinations for every pixel on the screen must be mapped to a set of color-representative numbers that are specific to the laptop monitor to get a true and accurate color reproduction on the monitor. See Fig.4: notice the output of MPU 432).
Evans fails to disclose wherein the transmitted rendered data includes processed xyY data, wherein the processed xyY data includes a first channel related to a first colorimetric coordinate (x) of the two colorimetric coordinates (x and y), and a second channel related to a second colorimetric coordinate (y) of the two colorimetric coordinates (x and y).
However Drzaic discloses a display engine may receive CIE Yxy image data ([0051]: At block 94, the color controller 28 may receive color data for each pixel in each frame of the image data. In one embodiment, the color data may be represented as International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Yxy coordinates) and control the color space in which images may be depicted on the display 10 ([0024]. See Fig.1: the color controller 29 is mapped to the cited display engine).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Drzaic into that of Evans and to include the limitation of wherein the transmitted rendered data includes processed xyY data, wherein the processed xyY data includes a first channel related to a first colorimetric coordinate (x) of the two colorimetric coordinates (x and y), and a second channel related to a second colorimetric coordinate (y) of the two colorimetric coordinates (x and y) in order to generate a result that colors depicted in the display and observed by a viewer may be closer to the intended values in the ambient light environment as suggested by Drzaic ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 8, Evans discloses wherein the at least one viewing device is a display ([0044]: In one embodiment, it may be desirable to apply the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device not in the GPU but actually in the MPU of the display itself. For instance, where there are multiple displays (or remote displays), each may have a different output profile. Where this is the case, application of the inverse matrix and/or inverse tone curve of the output device in the MPU optimizes performance. Also see Fig.4: and the output devices 434A/B are displays). The Examiner takes Official Notice that a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop screen, a light emitting diode (LED) display, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a miniLED display, a microLED display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a quantum dot display, a quantum nano emitting diode (QNED) device, a personal gaming device, a virtual reality (VR) device and/or an augmented reality (AR) device, an LED wall, a wearable display, and at least one projector had already been available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 Evans as modified to add the limitation of wherein the at least one viewing device includes a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop screen, a light emitting diode (LED) display, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a miniLED display, a microLED display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a quantum dot display, a quantum nano emitting diode (QNED) device, a personal gaming device, a virtual reality (VR) device and/or an augmented reality (AR) device, an LED wall, a wearable display, and at least one projector in order to support all available display system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0130519 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Evans modified by Drzaic fails to discloses wherein the formatted image data includes Serial Digital Input (SDI), DisplayPort, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), fiber, and/or ethernet formatted data.
However Hu teaches a viewing device may receive image data in standard digit video signals in the format such HDMI etc. ([0027]: Master GPU 232a may provide the combined final rendered video image (e.g., as frame buffer data) by output digital video signals 242 (e.g., HDMI, DVI, SVGA, VGA, etc.) to integrated display 240 (e.g., LED display, LCD display, or other suitable type of display device) of system 200). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Hu into that of Evans and to include the limitation of wherein the formatted image data includes Serial Digital Input (SDI), DisplayPort, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), fiber, and/or ethernet formatted data in order to drive an attached display device such as LED or LCD as suggested by Hu ([0005]: wherein the formatted image data includes Serial Digital Input (SDI), DisplayPort, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), fiber, and/or ethernet formatted data).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0147832A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Evans fails to explicitly disclose wherein the display engine and the GPU are included on a video card.
However Kim discloses it had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a video card ([0085]: The electronic device 500 may further include a plurality of ports for communicating with a video card, a sound card, a memory card, a universal serial bus (USB) device, other electronic devices, etc.). Kim and Evans are in the same field of application. 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 Kim'832 into that of Evans as modified and to include a video card in order to accelerate video processing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Safaee-Rad et al. (US 2017/0140556 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Evans modified by Drzaic fails to explicitly disclose wherein the GPU is included in the at least one viewing device.
However Safaee-Rad discloses it had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the GPU included in a display ([0043]: it is understood that display device 12 may include a CPU, GPU, and/or a display processing unit). 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 Safee-Rad into that of Evans as modified and to add the limitation of wherein the GPU is included in the at least one viewing device in order to provide an all-in-one display.
. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of State et al. (US 2007/0220525 A1) and Steinberg et al. (US 6904168 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Evans modified by Drzaic fails to explicitly disclose wherein the GPU includes a render engine, at least one render pipeline (RP), a programmable pixel shader, a programmable vector shader, a vector array processor, a curvature engine, and/or a memory cache.
However State discloses it had been known to a POSITA that the GPU includes a render engine, at least one render pipeline (RP) ([0013]: FIG. 1 shows a generic graphics pipeline 100 for a rendering engine …), a programmable pixel shader ([0056]: `Fragment Shaders` or `Pixel Shaders` can take over much of the job of fragment processing), a programmable vector shader ([0056]: Vertex shaders` or `vertex programs`, can optionally be supplied to the graphics library to perform some or all of the functions of vertex processing …), a vector array processor ([0178]: Data Pointers 520 are provided in the enclosing Task 500 to specify the base addresses of the input and output vector arrays), ([0218]: vertex processing may keep a cache of already-processed vertices, as vertices may be shared by contiguous primitives. [0217]: This graphics pipeline can also support application-provided vertex programs and pixel shaders. These programs are simply part of the graphics CONTEXT, and the Code Generator 314 now creates vertex, setup, and pixel Operation 810 routines using these programs as a source of semantics, instead of the usual fixed function definitions).
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 State into that of Evans as modified and to add above limitation in order to provide all known GPU functions for users to select according to their needs.
Evans modified by Drzaic and State fails to disclose including a curvature engine.
However including a curvature engine had been a known technology when rendering nature human body as taught by Steinberg (col.6 lines 63-67: Alternatively, each or some of the sub-engines may be concatenated. For example, the skin-tone sub engine may classify some regions. This information along with the image will be then sent to the curvature engine and the latter will examine only images marked by the former engine). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Steinberg into that of Evans as modified and to include a curvature engine in order to render a nature body shape.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yee (US 2007/0118821 A1), Botzas (US 20110148910 A1), Kim et al. (US 2011/0255608 A1) and Borer et al. (US 2017/0006273 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Evans further discloses wherein the display engine includes ([0045]: In another embodiment, application of the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device may be performed in a graphics card, that is, in an additional set of chips in the graphics card called video Digital to Analog Converters (videoDACs). VideoDACs are made up of at least a one-dimensional lookup table so they can apply the inverse tone curve of the output device and, in some cases, application of the inverse matrix as well. It may be desirable to perform such functions in the videoDACs if, for instance, the display(s) being utilized don't support that functionality), at least one image data converter ([0051]: each color channel forms a separate column in the color matrix and the color matrix specifies the transform from the color space to the CIE XYZ connection space), (Fig.2 and [0043]: With reference back to FIG. 2, once the color data has been converted to color-converted linear data by having the color matrix of the input profile and the inverse color matrix of the output profile applied thereto (whether or not concatenated with one another), the inverse or degenerated tone curve of the output profile is applied to the linear color-converted color data to convert such data into mapped color data. Such is indicated at block 222), ([0030]: As previously mentioned, embodiments of the present invention relate to methods for mapping color data (for instance, color data derived from image data or media content) from a color profile associated with a source device, e.g., an actual device such as a digital camera or a virtual device such as sRGB, to a color profile associated with an output or destination device, e.g., a monitor or other display. The terms "media content" and "image data" are utilized interchangeably herein and refer to any data or content which a user may visually perceive. By way of example only, and not limitation, media content/image data may include a photograph, a video, or anything viewable on a user's desktop (e.g., windows, borders, tiles, buttons, and the like. A skilled person would have recognized to include a video bus in order to support video application), and/or at least one output formatter and/or encoder (Fig.4 and [0058]: Once the GPU 414 (or videoDACs) has processed the color data received, the mapped color data may be provided to an output component 430 capable of outputting the mapped color data to one or more desired output devices.. The mapped color data is the result of the output formatter and/or encoder).
Evans modified by Drzaic fails to disclose wherein the display engine includes a raster scaler.
However Yee discloses it had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a raster scale to scale a raster image to a particular display size ([0051]: A raster scaler (220) scales the raster image (205) to a particular display size). 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 Yee into that of Evans modified by Drzaic and to include a raster scaler to the display engine in order to properly adjust an image size to fit the display size as taught by Yee ([0051]).
Evans modified by Drzaic and Yee fails to disclose that the display engine further includes a scaler and/or limiter and a sampling selector.
However including a scaler and/or limiter and a sampling selector had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the displaying field as disclosed by Botzas ([0117]: scaler 150 may perform some gamut clamping to force the RwGwBwWw coordinates into the allowable range) and Kim ([0040]: color format selector 520 selects an optimal color format among the 4:4:4, 4:2:2, and 4:2:0 formats).
Botzas and Kim are in the field of display. 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 Botzas and Kim into that of Evans modified by Drzaic and Yee and to add a scaler and/or a limiter in order to provide a suitable image size according to the display size and a sampling selector in order to compress video for reducing bus burden.
Evans modified by Drzaic, Yee, Botzas and Kim fails to disclose a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT).
However Borer discloses it had been known that including a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) ([0030]: The functions may be implemented as a 3D look up table). 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 Borer into that of Evans as modified and to include a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) in order to avoid complicated real time computation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Borer et al. (US 2017/0006273 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Evans modified by Drzaic fails to disclose a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT).
However Borer discloses it had been known that including a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) ([0030]: The functions may be implemented as a 3D look up table). 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 Borer into that of Evans as modified and to include a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) in order to avoid complicated real time computation.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Yee (US 2007/0118821 A1), Botzas (US 20110148910 A1), Kim et al. (US 2011/0255608 A1) and Borer et al. (US 2017/0006273 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Evans discloses a system for displaying an image signal ([0044]: In one embodiment, it may be desirable to apply the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device not in the GPU but actually in the MPU of the display itself. For instance, where there are multiple displays (or remote displays), each may have a different output profile), comprising:
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory (Fig.4: CPU 410);
a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Fig.4: GPU 414); and
a display engine (Fig.4 and [0055]: As previously described, in one aspect, embodiments of the present invention provide for the coordination of a CPU, a GPU or videoDACs and, if desired, a Micro-Processing Unit MPU, as more fully described below with reference to FIG. 4. To ensure greater efficiency and thus improve speed and performance of image processing, it may be desirable to move one or more of the color conversion computations downstream, that is, away from the CPU and into the GPU or videoDACs and/or the MPU); and
wherein the GPU and the display engine are in communication ([0044]: In one embodiment, it may be desirable to apply the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device not in the GPU but actually in the MPU of the display itself. For instance, where there are multiple displays (or remote displays), each may have a different output profile. Evans indirectly discloses the MPU includes a display);
wherein the display engine includes ([0045]: In another embodiment, application of the inverse matrix of the output device and/or the inverse tone curve of the output device may be performed in a graphics card, that is, in an additional set of chips in the graphics card called video Digital to Analog Converters (videoDACs). VideoDACs are made up of at least a one-dimensional lookup table so they can apply the inverse tone curve of the output device and, in some cases, application of the inverse matrix as well. It may be desirable to perform such functions in the videoDACs if, for instance, the display(s) being utilized don't support that functionality), at least one image data converter ([0051]: each color channel forms a separate column in the color matrix and the color matrix specifies the transform from the color space to the CIE XYZ connection space), (Fig.2 and [0043]: With reference back to FIG. 2, once the color data has been converted to color-converted linear data by having the color matrix of the input profile and the inverse color matrix of the output profile applied thereto (whether or not concatenated with one another), the inverse or degenerated tone curve of the output profile is applied to the linear color-converted color data to convert such data into mapped color data. Such is indicated at block 222), ([0030]: As previously mentioned, embodiments of the present invention relate to methods for mapping color data (for instance, color data derived from image data or media content) from a color profile associated with a source device, e.g., an actual device such as a digital camera or a virtual device such as sRGB, to a color profile associated with an output or destination device, e.g., a monitor or other display. The terms "media content" and "image data" are utilized interchangeably herein and refer to any data or content which a user may visually perceive. By way of example only, and not limitation, media content/image data may include a photograph, a video, or anything viewable on a user's desktop (e.g., windows, borders, tiles, buttons, and the like. A skilled person would have recognized to include a video bus in order to support video application), and/or at least one output formatter and/or encoder (Fig.4 and [0058]: Once the GPU 414 (or videoDACs) has processed the color data received, the mapped color data may be provided to an output component 430 capable of outputting the mapped color data to one or more desired output devices. The mapped color data is the result of the output formatter and/or encoder);
wherein image data related to the image signal is input into the GPU (Fig.2 step 210: INPUT COLOR DATA FROM THE INPUT DEVICE TO THE GPU);
wherein the GPU is operable to process the image data, thereby creating rendered image data (Fig.4: notice data is transmitted from GPU 414 to Output Component 430);
wherein the image data corresponds to a set of values in an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) xyY color space (Evans does not explicitly recite the image data corresponds to a set of values in CIE xyY color space. However Evans discloses the image data can be transformed from original color space to the CIE XYZ connection space. See [0051]: As with the destination profile, each color channel forms a separate column in the color matrix and the color matrix specifies the transform from the color space to the CIE XYZ connection space. Since CIE xyY color space can be directly derived from the tristimulus values X,Y, and Z of CIE XYZ space, Evans teaches or suggests the image data corresponds to CIE xyY space);
wherein the rendered image data is transmitted to the display engine (Fig.4);
wherein the display engine is operable to process the rendered image data, thereby creating formatted image data; and wherein the formatted image data is operable to be transmitted to at least one viewing device ([0032]: if a user wishes to view media content received from a digital camera on a laptop computer monitor, the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) color combinations for every pixel on the screen must be mapped to a set of color-representative numbers that are specific to the laptop monitor to get a true and accurate color reproduction on the monitor).
Evans fails to disclose wherein the display engine includes a raster scaler.
However Yee discloses it had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a raster scale to scale a raster image to a particular display size ([0051]: A raster scaler (220) scales the raster image (205) to a particular display size). 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 Yee into that of Evans and to include a raster scaler to the display engine in order to properly adjust an image size to fit the display size as taught by Yee ([0051]).
Evans modified by Yee fails to disclose that the display engine further includes a scaler and/or limiter and a sampling selector.
However including a scaler and/or limiter and a sampling selector had been known to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the displaying field as disclosed by Botzas ([117]: scaler 150 may perform some gamut clamping to force the RwGwBwWw coordinates into the allowable range) and Kim ([0040]: color format selector 520 selects an optimal color format among the 4:4:4, 4:2:2, and 4:2:0 formats). Botzas and Kim are in the field of display. 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 Botzas and Kim into that of Evans modified by Yee and to add a scaler and/or a limiter in order to provide a suitable image size according to the display size and a sampling selector in order to compress video for reducing bus burden.
Evans modified by Yee, Botzas and Kim fails to disclose a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT).
However Borer discloses it had been known that including a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) ([0030]: The functions may be implemented as a 3D look up table). 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 Borer into that of Evans as modified and to include includes a multi-column three-dimensional (3D) look-up table (LUT) in order to avoid complicated real time computation.
Regarding Claim 10, Evans further teaches or suggests wherein the at least one image data converter is operable to convert a native format to a non-native format ([0048]: Each color channel forms a separate column in the color matrix and the color matrix specifies the transform from the color space to the CIE XYZ connection space. Color channels such as RGB is a native format while CIEXYZ is a non-native format).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2007/0035752 A1) in view of Yee (US 2007/0118821 A1), Botzas (US 20110148910 A1), Kim et al. (US 2011/0255608 A1) and Borer et al. (US 2017/0006273 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Drzaic (US 2014/0063039 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Evans as modified fails to disclose wherein the transmitted rendered data includes processed xyY data.
However Drzaic discloses a display engine may receive CIE Yxy image data ([0051]: At block 94, the color controller 28 may receive color data for each pixel in each frame of the image data. In one embodiment, the color data may be represented as International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Yxy coordinates) and control the color space in which images may be depicted on the display 10 ([0024]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Drzaic into that of Evans and to include the limitation of wherein the transmitted rendered data includes processed xyY data in order to generate a result that colors depicted in the display and observed by a viewer may be closer to the intended values in the ambient light environment as suggested by Drzaic ([0007]).
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