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
`
`02/21/2020
`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
`
`02/21/2020
`
`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)
`
`

`

`017/09 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 06 January 2020.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) His/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1_—4 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. 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)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 08 September 2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:| 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)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD 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)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] 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 20200131
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1. 1 14
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Jan. 06,
`
`2020 has been entered.
`
`Remarks
`
`1.
`
`This is a reply to the amendments filed on 11/07/2019, in which, claims 1 and 3
`
`have been 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2, Applicant's
`
`arguments filed on 11/07/2019 have been fully considered. However, upon further
`
`consideration, Examiner respectfully submit that claim 1
`
`is rejected on the ground of
`
`nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US
`
`10,026,440 B2 in view of Newton et al. (US 20140125696 A1, hereinafter Newton).
`
`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
`
`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.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 4
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully submit that claim 1
`
`is rejected on the ground
`
`of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`US 10,026,440 B2 in view of Newton et al. (US 20140125696 A1, hereinafter Newton)
`
`(see the Double Patenting rejection, infra).
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been considered but
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`On page 9, applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that contrary to
`
`the Final Official Action’s assertion (ii) above, KNIBBELER’s paragraphs [0266]-[0267]
`
`do not disclose Applicant’s claimed subtitle stream with high luminance and standard
`
`luminance, as recited in Applicant’s claims 1 and 3. In KNIBBELER’s paragraphs
`
`[0266]—[0267], KNIBBELER discloses that the subtitle is suitable for LDR display, but is
`
`not suitable for an HDR display. Therefore, the subtitles must be adapted with tone
`
`mapping to be suitable for an HDR display. More specifically, KNIBBELER’s paragraph
`
`[0267] states: "This histogram for the subtitle content is very suitable for a LDR display
`
`as it will result in bright legible text on the display. However, on a HDR display these
`
`characters would be too bright causing annoyance, halo and glare. For that reason, the
`
`tone mapping for the sub-title graphics will be adapted as depicted in FIG. 16."
`
`(emphasis added). Therefore, KNIBBELER fails to disclose Applicant’s claimed feature
`
`relating to the subtitle streams with high and standard luminance. In Applicant’s
`
`independent claims 1 and 3, two different subtitle streams are recited regardless of the
`
`tone mapping.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. KNIBBELER not only discloses
`
`that the subtitle is suitable for LDR display, but also for an HDR display (see Knibbeler,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`paragraph [0259]: “The parameter Subtitle_process_descriptor specifies the additional
`
`processing of Subtitle graphics in case the target display category is different from the
`
`end-user display category”; and paragraph [0265]: “Subtitle_process_descriptor are
`
`provided in the following tables... Target Display = LDR Target Display = HDR”).
`
`KNIBBELER clearly defines subtitle_process_descriptor for target display of HDR or
`
`LDR. Therefore, KNIBBELER meets the claimed limitations and the rejection is
`
`maintained.
`
`On page 10, applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`KNIBBELER does not disclose, or suggest, the limitations: 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 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.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully submit that KNIBBELER is not used for the
`
`cited claim limitation but reference Newton was used (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”).
`
`On page 10-11, applicant argues that “Applicant submits that KNIBBELER’s
`
`vague references to an "extension date structure" and a "playlist file" do not correspond
`
`to Applicant’s features included in independent claims 1 and 3 that recite: play/ist file
`
`storms playback control information of the content, and including a management region
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`and an extended region, 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 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. Therefore, Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that while KNIBBERLER’s terminology provides a superficial resemblance to
`
`Applicant’s terminology, KNIBBERLER’s terminology fails to provide a substantive
`
`relationship to Applicant’s claimed functionality that requires a playlist file storms
`
`playback control information of the content, and including a management region and an
`
`extended region, with respective first playback control information and second playback
`
`control information.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully submit that Newton discloses the
`
`management region and the extended region stores first and 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.
`
`Newton discloses that it does store HDR and LDR playback control information in
`
`different regions (see Newton, paragraphs [0065]—[OO66]: “graphics segment consists of
`
`a segment descriptor and the segment data. The segment descriptor contains the type
`
`of the segment and the length. It is proposed to define a new segment type that carries
`
`information on how to process graphics when the video playback mode is set to HDR”).
`
`In addition, Newton discloses that extension data of a playlist file can be used to
`
`indicate the HDR graphics stream (see Newton, paragraph [0070]: “One graphics
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
`dai 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, Newton meets the claimed limitations and the rejection is maintained.
`
`On page 11, applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`KNIBBELER fails to disclose, or render obvious, the newly added limitation to
`
`independent claims 1 and 3 that recites: wherein either video streams specified in the
`
`first lQlayback control information or video streams specified in the second ,Qla yback
`
`control information are played, (emphasis added).”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully submits that Newton does disclose the newly
`
`added claim to allow either video streams specified in the first playback control
`
`information or video streams specified in the second playback control information are
`
`played (see Newton, paragraphs [0093]—[0095]: “Having two separate streams of
`
`graphics data, respectively for the LDR display mode and the HDR display mode,
`
`advantageously enables the source of the video to fully control the graphics functions
`
`for both display modes separately...
`
`In periods having said two versions of graphics
`
`data the reproducing device will select either the LDR version or HDR version
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 8
`
`depending on the display mode”). Therefore, Newton meets the newly added claim
`
`limitations.
`
`On page 13, applicant argues that “Applicant submits that NEWTON’s paragraph
`
`[0025] merely discloses that a HDR processing instruction is defined by a subtitle
`
`descriptor when overlaying subtitle graphic data. Applicant submits that this statement
`
`in NEWTON’s paragraph [0025] does notdisclose the limitations in Applicant’s
`
`independent claim 1 that recite: the management region stor ins 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, (emphasis
`
`added). Second, Applicant respectfully submits that contrary to the Final Official Action’s
`
`assertion (ii) above, NEVVTON’s paragraph [0072] does notdisclose Applicant’s
`
`claimed “e tended region”. The above-cited NEWTON’s paragraph [0072] includes the
`
`following statements:
`
`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.
`
`Applicant submits that these statements in NEVVTON’s paragraph
`
`[0072] do notdisclose the limitations in Applicant’s independent claims 1 and 3 that
`
`recite: 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. (emphasis added).”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Newton does disclose the
`
`management region and the extended region stores first and second playback control
`
`information specifying that the video stream of the standard-luminance range and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 9
`
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range are to be played in combination.
`
`Newton discloses that it does store HDR and LDR playback control information in
`
`different regions (see Newton, paragraphs [0065]—[OO66]: “graphics segment consists of
`
`a segment descriptor and the segment data. The segment descriptor contains the type
`
`of the segment and the length. It is proposed to define a new segment type that carries
`
`information on how to process graphics when the video playback mode is set to HDR”).
`
`In addition, Newton discloses that extension data of a playlist file can be used to
`
`indicate the HDR graphics stream (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
`
`dai 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, Newton meets the claimed limitations and the rejection is maintained.
`
`On page 14, applicant argues that “Applicant submits that neither KNIBBELER,
`
`nor NEWTON, nor the combination thereof, either discloses or renders obvious the
`
`claimed configuration of Applicant’s claimed playback device and playback method.
`
`NEWTON only provides a disclosure regarding signal levels of the video and subtitles in
`
`HDR or LDR. However, NEWTON does nofdisclose how to manage those signals in
`
`a management region and/or an extended management region with first and second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 10
`
`playback control information. More specifically, the combination of KNIBBELER and
`
`NEWTON do not render obvious Applicant’s claimed playlist file that includes a
`
`distinct management region that stores first playback control information specifying that
`
`(i) the video stream of the high-luminance range and (ii) the subtitle stream of the high-
`
`luminance range are to be played in combination, and a separate and a
`
`distinct extended region that stores second playback control information specifying that
`
`(i) the video stream of the standard-luminance range and (ii) the subtitle stream of the
`
`standard-luminance range are to be played in combination.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, in the claim limitations
`
`management region is not claimed as “a distinct management region” and extended
`
`region is not claimed as “a separate and a distinct extended region” as stated in the
`
`argument. Newton does disclose the management and extended regions store first and
`
`second playback control information specifying that a video stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range and the subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range are to be
`
`played in combination. Newton discloses that it stores HDR (first) and LDR (second)
`
`playback control information in different regions (see Newton, paragraphs [0065]—[0066]:
`
`“graphics segment consists of a segment descriptor and the segment data. The
`
`segment descriptor contains the type of the segment and the length. It is proposed to
`
`define a new segment type that carries information on how to process graphics when
`
`the video playback mode is set to HDR”). In addition, Newton discloses that extension
`
`data of a playlist file can be used to indicate the HDR graphics stream (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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 11
`
`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, the combination of KNIBBELER and
`
`NEWTON meets the claimed limitations and the rejection is maintained.
`
`Double Parenting
`
`4.
`
`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 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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 12
`
`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).
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,026,440 BZ (hereinafter
`
`“’6440”) in view of Newton et al. (US 20140125696 A1, hereinafter Newton).
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 1 of this application:
`
`Claim 1 of this a lication
`
`Claim 1 of ‘6440
`
`A playback device that reads out and
`A playback device that reads out and
`plays a content from a recording medium plays a content from a recording medium
`in which are recorded
`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-
`
`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 subtitle stream of
`the high- luminance range, and
`
`luminance range, and a subtitle stream of
`the high- luminance range,
`and
`
`playlist file storing playback control
`information of the content, and includino
`
`a playlist file storing playback control
`information of the content, and includino a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 13
`
`a management region and an extended
`reoion,
`
`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
`ola ed in combination, and
`
`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
`ola ed in combination,
`
`the extended region storing second
`playback control information specifying
`that the video stream of the standard-
`
`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,
`
`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
`playback control information are played,
`
`
`
`the recording medium further having
`recorded therein a management
`information file including a map region
`and an extended map region storing map
`information indicating a position of an
`independently decodable picture included
`in a video stream,
`
`the map region storing first map
`information indicating a position of an
`independently decodable picture included
`in the video stream of the high-luminance
`ranoe,
`
`and the extended map region storing
`second map information indicating a
`position of an independently decodable
`picture included in the video stream of the
`standard-luminance ranoe
`
`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 ranoe, and
`
`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 and the first map information,
`in a case of playing the content as a
`content of the hioh-luminance ranoe, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 14
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of
`the standard-luminance range and the
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance
`
`reads out and plays the video stream of
`the standard-luminance range and the
`subtitle stream of the standard-luminance
`
`luminance ranoe.
`
`range, based on the second playback
`control information, in a case of playing
`the content as a content of the standard-
`luminance range.
`
`range, based on the second playback
`control information and the second map
`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 ‘6440.
`
`However, claim 1 of ‘6440 fails to teach wherein either video streams specified in
`
`the first playback control information or video streams specified in the second playback
`
`control information are played.
`
`Newton from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein either
`
`video streams specified in the first playback control information or video streams
`
`specified in the second playback control information are played (see Newton,
`
`paragraphs [0093]—[0095]: “Having two separate streams of graphics data, respectively
`
`for the LDR display mode and the HDR display mode, advantageously enables the
`
`source of the video to fully control the graphics functions for both display modes
`
`separately...
`
`In periods having said two versions of graphics data the reproducing
`
`device will select either the LDR version or HDR version depending on the display
`
`mode”).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention to utilize the teachings by Newton into claim 1 of ‘6640. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 15
`
`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 playing
`
`back video streams specified in a first playback control information separately from
`
`video streams specified in the second playback control information 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.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Newton further discloses the claimed wherein part of the
`
`second playback control information has a common data structure with the first
`
`playback control information (see Newton, paragraph [0057]: “The video information and
`
`the graphic processing control data are retrieved and coupled to a video processor 113.
`
`The video processor has a signal processing structure for generating a display signal
`
`114 by processing the video data for display in a specific display mode being any one of
`
`a LDR display mode and a HDR display mode, and processing graphics data for
`
`generating an overlay for overlaying the video data”).
`
`The motivation for combining claim 1 of ‘6440 and Newton has been discussed in
`
`claim 1 above.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 3 of this application:
`
`Claim 3 of this a lication
`
`Claim 2 of ‘6440
`
`luminance ranoe that is a broader
`
`A playback method of reading out and
`playing a content from a recording
`medium in which are recorded
`
`A playback method of reading out and
`playing a content from a recording
`medium in which is recorded
`
`a video stream of standard-luminance
`
`a video stream of standard-luminance
`
`range, and a video stream of high-
`luminance ranoe that is a broader
`
`range, and a video stream of high-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/699,042
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 16
`
`luminance range than the standard-
`luminance ranoe,
`a subtitle stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range than the standard-
`luminance ranoe,
`a subtitle stream of the standard-
`
`luminance range, and a subtitle stream of
`the hioh-luminance ranoe, and
`
`luminance range, a subtitle stream of the
`hioh-luminance ranoe, and
`
`a 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 the 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
`ola ed in combination, and
`
`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
`ola ed in combination,
`
`the extended region storing second
`playback control information specifying
`that