UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/683,006
`
`08/22/2017
`
`Hiroshi YAHATA
`
`P53190
`
`8473
`
`04/04/2018
`7590
`125331
`Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
`of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VIRGINIA 20191
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ZHAO, DAQUAN
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2484
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/04/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`gbp atent @ gbp atent.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/683,006
`Examiner
`DAQUAN ZHAO
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2484
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/8/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:J Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180330
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 2/8/2018 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`For the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection, Applicant argues Yamamoto
`
`et al do not disclose “wherein the management information file includes attribute
`
`information indicating a first dynamic range, or a second dynamic range that is broader
`
`than the first dynamic range”. The Examiner disagrees.
`
`However, the co-pending applicant disclose these limitations. See claims 1 or 2
`
`of the co-pending Application.
`
`Applicant also argues, Yamamoto et al do not disclose the claimed management
`
`information file, it is submitted that Yamamoto et al cannot be reasonably interpreted to
`
`disclose or teach a video playback unit which reads out and plays a video stream based
`
`on such management information file. The Examiner disagrees.
`
`In the video Art, one ordinary skill in the art would recognize the management file
`
`can contain so much information, one such information is disclose in Yamamoto et al,
`
`“playlist” (using playlist to playback video”) . Although Applicant’s claimed recites “the
`
`management information file includes attribute information indicating a dynamic range”,
`
`the claim does not require playing back the video stream based on the dynamic range.
`
`80 the teaching of Yamamoto et al would read on the claimed video playback unit which
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`reads out and plays a video stream based on such management information file. Non-
`
`Statutory Double Patenting Rejection is maintained.
`
`For Rejection Under 35 U.S.C., Applicant argues Yamamoto et al fails to disclose
`
`“a management information file indicating attributes relating the entire recording
`
`medium”. The Examiner disagrees. The word “relating” is very broad. Yamamoto et al
`
`teach, see paragraph 104, “information representing the brightness characteristic and
`
`information used when converting an HDR video to an STD video or when converting
`
`an STD video to an HDR video... is recorded on the optical disc 11 in BD format”. The
`
`information is recorded on the optical disc 11 in BD format, the information can be
`
`interpreted as “related” to the entire disc 11 since the word “related” is very broad.
`
`Applicant also argues Yamamoto et al fails to disclose “HDMI negotiation is
`
`perform when the recording medium is inserted into the playback device” since
`
`Yamamoto et al fail to describe any negotiation. The Examiner disagrees.
`
`In the dictionary, the word “negotiation” means “mutual discussion and
`
`arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement”. For the instant application,
`
`since the machine can not make a “discussion” like humans do, the Examiner interprets
`
`the claimed “negotiation” as “communication” between two devices. Yamamoto et al
`
`teach, see paragraph 105, “The reproduction device 2 communicates with the display
`
`device through the HDMI cable 4 and acquires information related to display.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 4
`
`Double Parenting
`
`3.
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`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/AlA/25, or PTO/AlA/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-l.jsp.
`
`Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Co-Pending Patent Application No.15/682,992
`
`and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2016/0134832).
`
`For claims 1 and 3 of the instant application, Claim 1 of the Co-Pending all the
`
`limitations of the instant claims except “a video playback unit that reads out and
`
`plays the video stream based on the management information file”. Yamamoto et al
`
`teach “a video playback unit that reads out and plays the video stream based on
`
`the management information file” (e.g. paragraph 187-188, 191 and 195, and figure 5,
`
`using playlist to playback video). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the know
`
`data management structure to playback video to improve convenience for user.
`
`For claims 2 and 4 of the instant application, Claim 2 of the Co-Pending all the
`
`limitations of the instant claims except “a video playback unit that reads out and
`
`plays the video stream based on the management information file”. Yamamoto et al
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`teach “a video playback unit that reads out and plays the video stream based on
`
`the management information file” (e.g. paragraph 187-188, 191 and 195, and figure 5,
`
`using p|ay|ist to playback video). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the know
`
`data management structure to playback video to improve convenience for user.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
`application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
`patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being described
`
`by Yamamoto et al (US 2016/0134832).
`
`For claim 1, Yamamoto et al teach a playback device that reads out and plays
`
`contents from a recording medium (e.g. figure 1), wherein, recorded in the
`
`recording medium are
`
`at least one video stream that is encoded video information (e.g. paragraph 17
`
`“recorded coded data of a standard video”), and
`
`a management information file indicating attributes relating to the entire recording
`
`medium (e.g. paragraph 104, “Information representing the brightness
`
`characteristic and information used when converting an HDR video to an STD video or
`
`when converting an STD video to an HDR video...is recorded on the optical disc 11 in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 7
`
`BD format” so these information re relating the entire recording medium since these
`
`information are recorded in the medium),
`
`wherein the management information file includes attribute information indicating
`
`whether a dynamic range of luminance of an initial video stream, which is played
`
`first out of the at least one video stream when the recording medium is inserted into
`
`a playback device, is a first dynamic range, or a second dynamic range that is
`
`broader than the first dynamic range (e.g. A) paragraphs 101 -102, dynamic range of
`
`STD video is 0-100% and dynamic range of HDR video is e.g. 0-500%, paragraph 104
`
`teach “information representing the brightness characteristic of the master HDR video”
`
`or B) figure 52, “Refer to HDR flag and mode flag of clip information” in step 8222);
`
`the playback device comprising a processor (e.g. paragraph 244, “central
`
`processing unit) that reads out and plays the initial video stream based on the
`
`management information file (e.g. paragraph 105-108, “...when the video data obtained
`
`through decoding is data of an HDR video and when the display device 3 includes an
`
`HDR monitor, the reproduction device 2 outputs the data of the HDR video. On the
`
`other hand STD video is output).
`
`Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
`
`Claims 2 and 4 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above,
`
`wherein paragraph 105 disclose The reproduction device 2 communicates with
`
`the display device 3 through the HDMI cable 4 and acquires information related to
`
`the display corresponds to the claimed “HDMI negotiation is performed when the
`
`recording medium is inserted into the playback device”. Figure 52 disclose in step 8225
`
`“Store capability of monitor in PSR” which happens during the reproduction process and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/683,006
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 8
`
`the disc has to be inserted in the reproduction device during the reproduction
`
`processed.
`
`For claims 5-8, Yamamoto et al teach the at least one video stream and the
`
`management information file are stored separately (e.g. figure 5, “PLAYLIST” and
`
`“STREAM” are separated).
`
`There’s no new ground(s) of rejections. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE
`
`FINAL. See MPEG § 706.07 (a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy
`as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136 (a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`MONTHS from the mailing data of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing data of this action and the advisory action is not mailed
`until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period. Then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the data the advisory action is mailed, and any
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing data of
`
`the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`than SIX MONTHS from the data of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`1119.
`supervisor, Tran Thai Q, can be reached on (571)272-7382. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1 000.
`
`/DAQUAN ZHAO/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
`
`