P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant initially expresses appreciation to the Examiner for the detailed Office Action
`
`provided. Applicant also expresses appreciation for the indication that the drawings are
`
`accepted, for the acknowledgment of the claim for foreign priority and receipt of the certified
`
`copy of the priority document, and for the acknowledgment and consideration of the Information
`
`Disclosure Statements filed on October 2, 2017, October 24, 2017, February 15, 2018,
`
`September 6, 2018, and May 1, 2019.
`
`Upon entry of the present paper, claim 3 will have been added. Thus, claims 1-3 will be
`
`pending in the present application, with claims 1 and 2 being in independent form.
`
`It is submitted that the amendments contain no prohibited new matter. For example, the
`
`amendments are submitted to be supported at least by 11[0043] of the present application as filed
`
`(11[0090] of corresponding US. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0372747).
`
`Applicant addresses the pending objection and rejections below and respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal thereof together with an indication of allowability of claims 1-3
`
`(i.e., all pending claims) in the next Official communication.
`
`Such action is respectfully
`
`requested and submitted to be appropriate for at least the reasons provided below.
`
`Nonstatutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 1-2 (i.e., all examined claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`obViousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Pat. Appl. No.
`
`15/699,068 in View of US. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0279883 to Ogawa et al. (hereinafter
`
`“OGAWA”). Page 3 of the Office Action indicates that a Terminal Disclaimer may be used to
`
`overcome the double patenting rejection.
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`5
`
`

`

`P53367.AO6
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`Without acquiescing in the propriety of the rejection, Applicant submits on even date
`
`herewith an executed eTerminal Disclaimer with respect to US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,068. The
`
`eTerminal Disclaimer is filed merely to remove any issue as to whether the claims of the present
`
`application and those of the above-mentioned application in any way conflict. Applicant does
`
`not, however,
`
`intend to make any representation as to whether any claim of the present
`
`application would have been obvious in view of any claim of the above-mentioned application,
`
`or whether a double patenting rejection would be appropriate if the eTerminal Disclaimer was
`
`not filed.
`
`The eTerminal Disclaimer is filed only to expedite allowance of the present
`
`application.
`
`At least in view of the above, it is submitted that the grounds of the above-captioned
`
`rejection are overcome, and it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejection
`
`Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US. Pat. Appl.
`
`Pub. No. 2014/0125696 to Newton et al. (hereinafter “NEWTON”) in view OGAWA. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`is directed to a non-transitory recording medium in which the
`
`following are recorded: a video stream of standard-luminance range, a video stream of high-
`
`luminance range, a subtitle stream of the standard-luminance range, and a subtitle stream of the
`
`high-luminance range. According to the claim,
`
`in part, a 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. An 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
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`6
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`played in combination.
`
`Further, a sub-playlist region stores playback control
`
`information
`
`relating to a sub-stream played at the same time with the video stream of the high-luminance
`
`range. Third playback control information, relating to an enhanced video stream for extending
`
`the luminance range of the video stream of the hi gh-luminance range, is stored in the sub-playlist
`
`region.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that any proper combination of NEWTON and OGAWA
`
`fails to render obvious at least the following features of independent claim 1: (i) the management
`
`region that stores the 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),
`
`(ii) the extended region that stores the 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), and (iii) the third playback control
`
`information (in the sub-playlist region) that relates to an enhanced video stream for extending the
`
`luminance range of the video stream of the hi gh-luminance range.
`
`Instead, NEWTON generally discloses a system for displaying video information in
`
`which an overlay is adaptable to a preferred display mode.
`
`(See, e.g., NEWTON at fl[0008]).
`
`According to NEWTON, the video information comprises low dynamic range [LDR] video data
`
`and/or high dynamic range [HDR] video data.
`
`(NEWTON at fl[0010]). The video information
`
`further comprises graphics processing control data, which comprises a subtitle process descriptor
`
`defining a HDR processing instruction for overlaying subtitle graphic data in an HDR display
`
`mode.
`
`(NEWTON at fl[0010] and fl[0025]). The video information further appears to be
`
`provided with an LDR graphics stream and an HDR graphics stream. (NEWTON at fl[0070]).
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`7
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`In this regard, according to NEWTON, a video processor adapts processing to overlay the
`
`LDR graphics stream or the HDR graphics stream depending on a specific display mode (being
`
`any one of a LDR display mode and a HDR display mode).
`
`(See, e.g., NEWTON at fl[0057]).
`
`Accordingly, while NEWTON discloses HDR video data, an HDR graphics stream, LDR
`
`video data, and an LDR graphics stream, NEWTON does not appear to disclose any management
`
`region and extended region in which first and second playback control information, that specify
`
`playback of the HDR items in combination or the LDR items in combination, are stored.
`
`The Office Action cites to fl[0025] and fl[0072] of NEWTON as disclosing such
`
`management region and extended region, as recited by independent claim 1. With regard to
`
`fl[0025], NEWTON discloses “graphics processing control data comprises a subtitle descriptor
`
`defining a HDR processing instruction when overlaying subtitle graphic data in the HDR display
`
`mode.” With regard to NEWTON’s paragrpah [0072]
`
`NEWTON discloses
`
`“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.” Applicant respectfully submit that these disclosures of NEWTON do n_0t appear to be
`
`particularly relevant to the recited “management region” and “extended region” of independent
`
`claim 1, as such disclosures are silent as to any regions in which the data/information are stored.
`
`Absent an explicit identification of any disclosure of a management region and an extended
`
`region in NEWTON, Applicant respectfully submits that NEWTON may not be properly
`
`interpreted as disclosing the same.
`
`{P53367 04014292DOC}
`8
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`For at
`
`least
`
`these reasons,
`
`it
`
`is submitted that NEWTON fails to disclose above-
`
`mentioned features (i) and (ii) of independent claim 1. Further, the Office Action acknowledges
`
`that NEWTON fails to disclose above-mentioned feature (iii) of independent claim 1.
`
`(See
`
`Office Action at page 13).
`
`With respect to OGAWA, it is respectfully submitted that this document fails to cure the
`
`deficiencies of NEWTON. Specifcially, this document appears to be silent as to regions in
`
`which control information for standard and high luminance Video streams is stored, and thus, it is
`
`submitted that this document may not be reasonsably interpreted to cure the deficiencies of
`
`NEWTON with respect to above-mentioned features (i) and (ii).
`
`In this regard, the Office
`
`Action asserts:
`
`Ogawa from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses a playlist
`storing playback control information of a content, and including a management
`region and an extended region (see Ogawa, paragraphs [0314]—[0316]: “playlist
`file 241 includes a main path 3001 and two sub-paths. .. The main path 3001 is a
`sequence of playitem information pieces... that defines the main playback path...
`a playback path is a different section of the file 2D 221 than is represented by the
`main path). (Office Action at page 13, lines 11-16)
`
`Contrary to the above-assertion, Applicant respectfully submits that OGAWA does n_ot
`
`disclose a playlist file that includes a management region and an extended region, with the
`
`management region storing first playback control information and the extended region storing
`
`second playback control information, as recited by independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant
`
`submits that 1111[03 14]—[03 16] of OGAWA reference the 2D playlist file 241, that merely includes
`
`the main path 3001 and the two sub-paths 3002 and 3003.
`
`(See, e.g., OGAWA at FIG. 30.) The
`
`assertion in the Final Official Action appears to interpret the main path 3001 and the two sub-
`
`paths 3002 and 3003 as relating to a management region and an extended region.
`
`In other words,
`
`the Office Action appears to be applying the main path 3001 as “the first playback control
`
`information” recited in independent claim 1 and the two sub-paths 3002 and 3003 as “the second
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`9
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`playback control information” recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1. OGAWA, however,
`
`discloses in 11[0316] (provided below) that the 2D video stream of main path and other 2D video
`
`stream of the two sub-paths are played back simultaneously.
`
`[0316] Each of the sub-paths 3002 and 3003 is a sequence
`of sub-playitem information pieces (hereinafter abbreviated
`as SUB_PI) that defines a playback path that can be associ-
`ated in parallel with the main playback path for the file 2D
`221. Such a playback path is a different section of the file 2D
`221 than is represented by the main path 3001, or is a section
`ofstream datamultiplexed1n anotherfile2DalongWiththe\
`correspondlng playback order.Thestream data indicatedby
`the playback path represents other 2D video images to be\
`played back simultaneously with 2D Video images played§
`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\
`back from the file 2D 221in accordance with themain path‘
`
`/nun/”1111111111100”,
`
`Thus, it is submitted that the main path 3001 and the two sub-paths 3002 and 3003 may
`
`not be properly interpreted to disclose the above-mentioned features of independent claim 1.
`
`Further, OGAWA appears to be silent as to any regions in which the main path 3001 and the two
`
`sub-paths 3002 and 3003. Even further, as generally mentioned above, OGAWA targets 2D, 3D,
`
`or 2D extension, but is completely silent regarding being applicable to standard-luminance range
`
`(e.g., SDR) and high-luminance range (e.g., HDR), which are recited in independent claim 1.
`
`Thus, it is again submitted that OGAWA fails to cure the deficiencies of NEWTON with respect
`
`to above-mentioned features (i) and (ii).
`
`Further, with respect to above-mentioned feature (iii) which is acknowledged as not
`
`being dislcosed in NEWTON, the Office Action relies upon 11[0125] of OGAWA. While such
`
`disclosure of OGAWA relates to an extended stream,
`
`it
`
`relates to resolution extension
`
`information 331 necessary for extending each full HD video frame included in the primary video
`
`stream 301 in the main TS to a 4K2K video frame.
`
`
`In other words, the extended stream extends
`
`resolution of the video stream.
`
`In contrast, the third playback control information of above-
`
`mentioned feature (iii) of independent claim 1
`
`relates to extending the luminance range.
`
`{P53367 04014292DOC}
`10
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that these features are not equivalent, and thus, that the skilled
`
`artisan would not arrive at above-mentioned feature (iii) even if NEWTON and OGAWA are
`
`combined in the asserted manner. Accordingly, it is further submitted that OGAWA fails to cure
`
`the acknowledged deficiencies of NEWTON with respect to above-mentioned feature (iii) of
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`For at
`
`least these reasons,
`
`it
`
`is submitted that the grounds of the above-captioned
`
`rejection of claim 1 are improper, and it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn in the next
`
`Official communication.
`
`Objection to Claim 2
`
`Claim 2 is indicated to be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome, which
`
`has been done.
`
`Thus,
`
`it
`
`is requested that
`
`this claim be allowed in the next Official
`
`communication.
`
`New Dependent Claims
`
`New dependent claim 3 is presented by the present paper to recite a further combination
`
`of features which is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the applied documents. This claims is
`
`submitted to be allowable in view of its dependency and further combination of recited features.
`
`At least in view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that each and every pending
`
`claim of the present application (1'. e., claims 1-3) meets the requirements for patentability. Thus,
`
`the Examiner is respectfully requested to withdraw the outstanding objection and rejections and
`
`to indicate the allowance of each and every pending claim in the present application.
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`ll
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the fact that none of the art of record, whether considered alone, or in any
`
`proper combination thereof, discloses or renders obvious the pending claims of the present
`
`application, and in further view of the above remarks, reconsideration of the Examiner's action
`
`and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested and submitted to be
`
`appropriate.
`
`The requisite fee for filing the eTerminal Disclaimer is submitted on even date herewith.
`
`However, if for any reason the requisite fee is not associated with this file or the submitted fee is
`
`inadequate,
`
`the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees for the eTerminal
`
`Disclaimer, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`Should an extension of time be necessary to maintain the pendency of this application,
`
`including any extensions of time required to place the application in condition for allowance by
`
`an Examiner's Amendment, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fee
`
`to Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`{P53367 04014292DOC}
`12
`
`

`

`P53367.A06
`
`US. Pat. Appl. No. 15/699,091
`
`If there should be any questions concerning this application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Hiroshi YAHATA et al.
`
`/James P. Bonnamy/
`Reg. No. 63,649
`James P. Bonnamy
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`
`Reg. No. 29027
`
`August 15, 2019
`GREENBLUWI & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703) 716-1191
`
`{P53367 04014292.DOC}
`l3
`
`