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
`
`15/699,042
`
`09/08/2017
`
`Hiroshi YAHATA
`
`P53360
`
`8456
`
`08/07/2019
`7590
`125331
`Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
`of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`EXAMINER
`
`YANG, NIEN
`
`ART UNIT
`2484
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/07/2019
`
`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)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/699,042
`Examiner
`NIEN RU YANG
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2484
`
`AIA (FITF) 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 18 July 2019.
`[: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 aflowabie. 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 08 September 2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)D 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). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datew.
`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 20190802
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`1.
`
`This is a reply to the arguments filed on 07/18/2019, in which, no claim is
`
`amended. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the present application with claims 1 and 3
`
`being independent claims.
`
`When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the
`
`references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the
`
`examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any
`
`particular anticipated claim amendments.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 01, 2019 is in
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2, Applicant's
`
`arguments filed on 07/18/2019 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`On pages 4-5, Applicant argued that, “Applicant submits that the combination of
`
`limitations recited in pending claims 1-4 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claims 1-2 of co-pending US Patent
`
`Application No. 15/471,032 in view of NEWTON. For instance, the Official Action has
`
`not provided any rationale as to why a "playback device" directed to the "apparatus"
`
`statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as recited in Applicant's claims 1-2, and a
`
`"playback method" directed to the "process" statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`as recited in Applicant's claims 3-4 would have been rendered obvious by claims 1-2 of
`
`co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/471,032 that are directed to a "non-
`
`transitory recording medium" directed to the "article of manufacturing" statutory category
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §101. Additionally, Applicant submits that contrary to the assertion in
`
`the Official Action, Applicant submit that NEWTON's "playback device" is not properly
`
`combinable with the "non- transitory recording medium" claims 1-2 of co-pending U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 15/471,032. Furthermore, Applicant submits that since neither
`
`the scope of Applicant's pending claims 1-4, nor the scope of pending claims of co-
`
`pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/471,032 have been finalized, the alleged basis
`
`of the "provisional" rejection may not exist at the time of issue of the resulting patents.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the tables
`
`provided in double patenting rejection section distinguish the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/471,032. Although the claim 1 of the co-pending U.S. Patent Application does not
`
`claim for a playback device in the beginning that reads out and plays a content from a
`
`recording medium, features claimed about a recording medium in the instant application
`
`are similar or equivalent to the claim 1 of the co-pending U.S. Patent Application in view
`
`of Newton. Thus, the combination of limitations recited in pending claims 1-2 would
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 4
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view
`
`of claims 1-2 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/471,032 in view of Newton.
`
`Additionally, Appellant’s arguments simply pointed out that NEWTON's "playback
`
`device" is not properly combinable with the "non-transitory recording medium" claims 1-
`
`2 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/471,032 without an explanation why the
`
`combination is in error. The instant application claims “a playback device that reads out
`
`and plays a content from a recording medium”. Examiner cited Newton’s BD player as a
`
`playback device (see Newton, paragraph [0091]) with a motivation statement described
`
`in the nonstatutory double patenting section. Furthermore, when claims 1-2 of the
`
`application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 15/471,032 (application
`
`under examination versus a copending application), it is a provisional double patenting
`
`rejection. A provisional double patenting rejection will be converted to a double
`
`patenting rejection when the copending application applied as the double patenting
`
`reference issues as a patent. Therefore, for at least the explanations discussed above,
`
`the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered
`
`but are not persuasive.
`
`On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that this
`
`assertion is completely incorrect. The prior art KNIBBELER does not disclose the main
`
`feature of independent claim 1, which is discussed below in Section II. Based on a
`
`completely different data structure, the main function of KNIBBELER is to generate an
`
`HDR image from LDR image, or an LDR image from an HDR image. In contrast, in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`Applicant’s invention, both of HDR and LDR images and subtitles have previously
`
`prepared. Thus, the claimed invention does not generate HDR from LDR, or LDR from
`
`HDR.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully points out that reference Newton does
`
`disclose “both of HDR and LDR images and subtitles have previously prepared”.
`
`Newton discloses two separate versions of graphics data respectively for a low or
`
`standard luminance display mode and for a high luminance display mode (see Newton,
`
`paragraph [0070]: “One graphics stream is provided for LDR and the other one has at
`
`least substantially the same contents but is adapted for HDR. A HDR graphics
`
`indication may be provided in an attribute of the graphics stream. A linking mechanism
`
`between the LDR graphics stream and the corresponding HDR graphics stream may be
`
`provided to indicate which graphics stream is the HDR graphics stream corresponding
`
`to a particular LDR graphics stream, for example a pointer. The HDR version indication
`
`may be included in extension data of e.g. a PlayList file and may contain a link to the
`
`corresponding LDR version. Hence the reproducing device is enabled to select the
`
`respective one of both streams”). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are moot in view of
`
`the combination of Knibbeler and Newton described in the Office Action.
`
`On pages 7-11, Applicant argues that “KNIBBELER does not disclose the main
`
`feature of the “management region” and the “extended region”. The “management
`
`region” stores first playback control information specifying that the video stream of the
`
`high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-luminance range are to be
`
`played in combination. The “extended region” stores second playback control
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`information specifying that the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range are to be played in combination.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully points out that reference Newton does
`
`disclose “the management region stores first playback control information specifying
`
`that the video stream of the high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-
`
`Iuminance range are to be played in combination” (see Newton, paragraph [0025]: “the
`
`graphics processing control data comprises a subtitle process descriptor defining a
`
`HDR processing instruction when overlaying subtitle graphic data in the HDR display
`
`mode”). Newton also discloses “the extended region stores second playback control
`
`information specifying that the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range are to be played in combination” (see
`
`Newton, paragraph [0072]: “the HDR_Processing_definition segment contains two
`
`processing instructions: a Pop-up_process_descriptor 51 and a Subtitle_process
`
`descriptor 52. The segment may also contain HDR palettes 53 to be used when display
`
`mode is HDR.
`
`It is to be noted that the original palettes (now called LDR palettes) are
`
`provided in other segments as defined in the BD standard”). Therefore, Applicant's
`
`arguments are moot in view of the combination of Knibbeler and Newton described in
`
`the Office Action.
`
`Double Parenting
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 7
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-
`
`type 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 LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re
`
`Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438,
`
`164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory
`
`double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to
`
`be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of
`
`activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
`
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a
`
`terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with
`
`37 CFR 3.73(b).
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. copending Application No. 15/471,032
`
`(hereinafter “’1032”) in view of Newton et al. (US 20140125696 A1, hereinafter
`
`Newton).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 8
`
`Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
`
`from each other because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the
`
`patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 1 of this application:
`
`Claim 1 of this a lication
`
`Claim 1 of ‘1032
`
`A playback device that reads out and plays
`a content from a recording medium in
`which are recorded
`
`A nonvtransitory recording medium in
`which are recorded
`
`a video stream of standard-luminance
`
`a video stream of standard-luminance
`
`range, and a video stream of high-
`luminance range that is a broader
`luminance range than the standard-
`luminance ranoe,
`a subtitle stream of the standard-luminance
`
`range, and a video stream of high-
`luminance range that is a broader
`luminance range than the standard-
`luminance ranoe,
`a subtitle stream of the standard-luminance
`
`ola back control information are ola ed
`
`range, and a subtitle stream of the high-
`luminance range, and
`
`range, and a subtitle stream of the high-
`luminance range,
`and
`
`playlist file storing playback control
`information of the content, and including a
`management region and an extended
`reoion,
`
`a playlist file storing playback control
`information of a content, and including a
`management region and an extended
`reoion,
`
`the management region storing first
`playback control information specifying that
`the video stream of the high-luminance
`range and the subtitle stream of the high-
`luminance range are to be played in
`combination, and
`
`wherein the management region stores
`first playback control information specifying
`that the video stream of the high-luminance
`range and the subtitle stream of the high-
`luminance range are to be played in
`combination, and
`
`the extended region storing second
`playback control information specifying that
`the video stream of the standard-
`
`wherein the extended region stores second
`playback control information specifying that
`the video stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range and the subtitle stream of
`the standard-luminance range are to be
`played in combination,
`
`luminance range and the subtitle stream of
`the standard-luminance range are to be
`played in combination,
`
`wherein either video streams specified in
`the first playback control information or
`video streams specified in the second
`
`the playback device comprising:
`a video player that
`reads out and plays the video stream of the
`hioh-luminance ranoe and the subtitle
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 9
`
`stream of the high-luminance range, based
`on the first playback control information, in
`a case of playing the content as a content
`of the hioh-luminance ranoe, and
`
`luminance ranoe.
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of the
`standard-luminance range and the subtitle
`stream of the standard-luminance range,
`based on the second playback control
`information, in a case of playing the
`content as a content of the standard-
`
`It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations as
`
`recited claim 1 of the instant application in comparison to the limitations as recited in
`
`claim 1 of ‘1032.
`
`However, claim 1 of ‘1032 fails to teach the playback device comprising: a video
`
`player that reads out and plays the video stream of the high-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the high-luminance range, based on the first playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the high-luminance range,
`
`and reads out and plays the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range, based on the second playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the standard-luminance
`
`range.
`
`Newton from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the playback
`
`device comprising:
`
`a video player that
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of the high-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the high-luminance range, based on the first playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the high-luminance range
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 10
`
`(see Newton, paragraph [0091]: “a BD player, receives an input stream of video
`
`information, e.g. a BB data stream 192 having both LDR video data and HDR video
`
`data. The mode controller provides, to the extra graphics processor, mode data 153
`
`indicative of the display mode being any one of a LDR display mode and a HDR display
`
`mode.
`
`The mode controller also controls selection of either a LDR decoder 194 or a
`
`HDR decoder 199 for decoding the respective LDR video data stream or HDR video
`
`data stream via a video stream selection signal”) and (see Newton, paragraphs [0093]-
`
`[0095]: “the video signal is for transferring video information to the video processing
`
`device, the video information comprising low dynamic range [LDR] video data and/or
`
`high dynamic range [HDR] video data, and the video signal comprising both LDR
`
`graphics data and HDR graphics data comprised in the video information... the subtitle
`
`graphics data, and other graphics data like interactive graphics applications, may be
`
`included in said two versions in the video signal”), and
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range, based on the second playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the standard-luminance
`
`range (see Newton, paragraph [0092]: “The input stream may be a video data stream
`
`192 having both LDR video data and HDR video data. The system will automatically
`
`select the LDR video data stream to be decoded via the LDR decoder, but will control
`
`the extra graphics processing 197 in dependence of the display mode as determined by
`
`the mode controller”).
`
`The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use
`
`the playback method disclosed in Newton to have two separate versions of graphics
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 11
`
`data respectively for a low or standard luminance display mode and for a high
`
`luminance display mode and to enable a reproducing device to fully control the graphic
`
`function to select either the low or standard luminance version or the high luminance
`
`version to playback thus a video player can read out and play the video stream of the
`
`high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-luminance range based on the
`
`first playback control information in a case of playing the content as a content of the
`
`high-luminance range and can read out and play the video stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range and the subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range based on the
`
`second playback control information in a case of playing the content as a content of the
`
`standard-luminance range so that user can selectively playback video streams in
`
`accordance with a playback devices, a subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range,
`
`and a subtitle stream of the high-luminance range, which are used selectively in
`
`accordance with the playback environment.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 2 of this application:
`
`Claim 2 of this ao olication
`
`Claim 2 of ‘1032
`
`The playback device according to Claim 1,
`
`The non~transitory recording medium
`accordino to Claim 1,
`
`
`
`wherein part of the second playback
`control information has a common data
`
`wherein part of the second playback
`control information has a common data
`
`structure with the first playback control
`information.
`
`structure with the first playback control
`information.
`
`It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of ‘1032. In conclusion, claim 2 of the instant
`
`application is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘1032 in that claim 2 of ‘1032 contains all the
`
`limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. The instant application claim is broader
`
`or equivalent in every aspect than claim 2 of ‘1032 and is therefore an obvious variant
`
`thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 12
`
`from each other because claim 2 is generic to all that is recited in claim 2 of ‘1032. That
`
`is, claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘1032.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Knibbeler et al. (US 20140210847 A1, hereinafter Knibbeler) in view of Newton et
`
`al. (US 20140125696 A1, hereinafter Newton).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Knibbeler discloses a playback device that reads out and
`
`plays a content from a recording medium in which are recorded
`
`a video stream of standard-luminance range, and a video stream of high-
`
`luminance range that is a broader luminance range than the standard-luminance range
`
`(see Knibbeler, paragraphs [0090] — [0094]: “The system of FIG. 1
`
`is in some
`
`embodiments arranged to provide High Dynamic Range (HDR) video information to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 13
`
`display 107 and in other embodiments or scenarios is arranged to provide a Low
`
`Dynamic Range (LDR) image to the display 107...
`
`It should be noted that the difference
`
`between LDR and HDR images is not merely that a larger number of bits are used for
`
`HDR images than for LDR images. Rather, HDR images cover a larger luminance range
`
`than LDR images and typically have a higher maximum luminance value”),
`
`a subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range, and a subtitle stream of the
`
`high- luminance range (see Knibbeler, paragraphs [0266]—[0267]: “the original content
`
`features HDR video content and subtitles... The original histogram shows a peak in the
`
`low-luma range and another peak in the high luma range. This histogram for the subtitle
`
`content is very suitable for a LDR display as it will result in bright legible text on the
`
`display”), and
`
`playlist file storing playback control information of the content, and including a
`
`management region and an extended region (see Knibbeler, paragraphs [0144]—[0145]:
`
`“the system of FIG. 1 uses an augmentation to the BDROM TM specification which allows
`
`for transmission of a target display parameters. This data together with the assumed or
`
`actual information of the end-user display, is then used by the BDROMTM player to
`
`perform the dynamic range transform... One option for transmitting information on the
`
`parameters of the target display is by embedding data indicative of these parameters
`
`values in the BDROMTM data on the disc. An extension data structure in the playlist file
`
`(xxxxx.mpls) can be used for this. This extension data structure will have a unique and
`
`new identification”).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Knibbeler discloses all the claimed limitations with the
`
`exception of the management region storing first playback control information specifying
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 14
`
`that the video stream of the high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-
`
`luminance range are to be played in combination, and the extended region storing
`
`second playback control information specifying that the video stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range and the subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range are to be
`
`played in combination, the playback device comprising: a video player that reads out
`
`and plays the video stream of the high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the
`
`high-luminance range, based on the first playback control information, in a case of
`
`playing the content as a content of the high-luminance range, and reads out and plays
`
`the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the
`
`standard-luminance range, based on the second playback control information, in a case
`
`of playing the content as a content of the standard-luminance range.
`
`Newton from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the management
`
`region storing first playback control information specifying that the video stream of the
`
`high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-luminance range are to be
`
`played in combination (see Newton, paragraph [0025]: “the graphics processing control
`
`data comprises a subtitle process descriptor defining a HDR processing instruction
`
`when overlaying subtitle graphic data in the HDR display mode”), and
`
`the extended region storing second playback control information specifying that
`
`the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the
`
`standard-luminance range are to be played in combination (see Newton, paragraph
`
`[0072]: “the HDR_Processing_definition segment contains two processing instructions:
`
`a Pop-up_process_descriptor 51 and a Subtitle_process descriptor 52. The segment
`
`may also contain HDR palettes 53 to be used when display mode is HDR.
`
`It is to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 15
`
`noted that the original palettes (now called LDR palettes) are provided in other
`
`segments as defined in the BD standard”),
`
`the playback device comprising:
`
`a video player that
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of the high-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the high-luminance range, based on the first playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the high-luminance range
`
`(see Newton, paragraph [0091]: “a BD player, receives an input stream of video
`
`information, e.g. a BB data stream 192 having both LDR video data and HDR video
`
`data. The mode controller provides, to the extra graphics processor, mode data 153
`
`indicative of the display mode being any one of a LDR display mode and a HDR display
`
`mode.
`
`The mode controller also controls selection of either a LDR decoder 194 or a
`
`HDR decoder 199 for decoding the respective LDR video data stream or HDR video
`
`data stream via a video stream selection signal”) and (see Newton, paragraphs [0093]-
`
`[0095]: “the video signal is for transferring video information to the video processing
`
`device, the video information comprising low dynamic range [LDR] video data and/or
`
`high dynamic range [HDR] video data, and the video signal comprising both LDR
`
`graphics data and HDR graphics data comprised in the video information... the subtitle
`
`graphics data, and other graphics data like interactive graphics applications, may be
`
`included in said two versions in the video signal”), and
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range, based on the second playback control
`
`information, in a case of playing the content as a content of the standard-luminance
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 16
`
`range (see Newton, paragraph [0092]: “The input stream may be a video data stream
`
`192 having both LDR video data and HDR video data. The system will automatically
`
`select the LDR video data stream to be decoded via the LDR decoder, but will control
`
`the extra graphics processing 197 in dependence of the display mode as determined by
`
`the mode controller”).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Newton with
`
`the teachings as in Knibbeler. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to
`
`have the ability to use the playback method disclosed in Newton to have two separate
`
`versions of graphics data respectively for a low or standard luminance display mode
`
`and for a high luminance display mode and to enable a reproducing device to fully
`
`control the graphic function to select either the low or standard luminance version or the
`
`high luminance version to playback thus a video player can read out and play the video
`
`stream of the high-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the high-luminance range
`
`based on the first playback control information in a case of playing the content as a
`
`content of the high-luminance range and can read out and play the video stream of the
`
`standard-luminance range and the subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range
`
`based on the second playback control information in a case of playing the content as a
`
`content of the standard-luminance range so that user can selectively playback video
`
`streams in accordance w