Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`REMARKS
`
`Initially, Applicant wishes to thank Primary Examiner Daquan Zhao for the examination
`
`of the present patent application. Additionally, Applicant would like to thank the Examiner for
`
`acknowledging Applicant’s claim for foreign priority, and that a certified copy of the priority
`
`document has been received in the parent Application 15/278,582. Applicant would also like to
`
`thank the Examiner for considering the references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement,
`
`filed May 1, 2019, as evidenced by the Examiner-signed copy of the Information Disclosure
`
`Statement attached to the Official Action.
`
`The Acceptability of the Drawings
`
`In reviewing the Official Action, Applicant noticed that the “Office Action Summary”
`
`(PTOL-326) did not provide an indication of the acceptability of the drawings. Applicant
`
`believes that the drawings are acceptable, and will proceed accordingly unless notified otherwise
`
`by the Examiner. However,
`
`in order to clarify the Official USPTO Record, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that an affirmative indication of the acceptability of the drawings be
`
`provided to Applicant in the next Official communication.
`
`Summary of the Official Action
`
`In the Official Action, the Examiner asserted the following rejections regarding pending
`
`claims 1-6:
`
`(1) Claims 1-4 and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`YAMAMOTO et al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0134832 A1, hereafter
`
`“YAMAMOTO”), and
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`REMARKS
`
`Initially, Applicant wishes to thank Primary Examiner Daquan Zhao for the examination
`
`of the present patent application. Additionally, Applicant would like to thank the Examiner for
`
`acknowledging Applicant’s claim for foreign priority, and that a certified copy of the priority
`
`document has been received in the parent Application 15/278,582. Applicant would also like to
`
`thank the Examiner for considering the references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement,
`
`filed May 1, 2019, as evidenced by the Examiner-signed copy of the Information Disclosure
`
`Statement attached to the Official Action.
`
`The Acceptability of the Drawings
`
`In reviewing the Official Action, Applicant noticed that the “Office Action Summary”
`
`(PTOL-326) did not provide an indication of the acceptability of the drawings. Applicant
`
`believes that the drawings are acceptable, and will proceed accordingly unless notified otherwise
`
`by the Examiner. However,
`
`in order to clarify the Official USPTO Record, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that an affirmative indication of the acceptability of the drawings be
`
`provided to Applicant in the next Official communication.
`
`Summary of the Official Action
`
`In the Official Action, the Examiner asserted the following rejections regarding pending
`
`claims 1-6:
`
`(1) Claims 1-4 and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`YAMAMOTO et al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0134832 A1, hereafter
`
`“YAMAMOTO”), and
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`2
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`(2) Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO
`
`in View of SU et al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0341675 A1, hereafter “SU”).
`
`Summary of the Present Response to the Official Action
`
`In the present response to the Official Action, Applicant respectfully traverses the
`
`rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO,
`
`and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO in
`
`View of SU. Thus, claims 1-6 are currently pending for reconsideration by the Examiner.
`
`The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`In the Official Action, claims 1-4 and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as
`
`being anticipated by YAMAMOTO. (See Official Action, pages 2-4.)
`
`In the present response, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO. Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that YAMAMOTO fails to anticipate pending claims 1-4 and 6, because YAMAMOTO
`
`does not disclose each and every limitation recited therein.
`
`More specifically with regard to Applicant’s independent claim 1, Applicant submits that
`
`YAMAMOTO at least fails to disclose the limitations that recite:
`
`wherein the management information file includes first attribute information,
`
`indicating whether a dynamic range ofluminance of the video stream is afirst dynamic
`
`range or a second dynamic range that is wider than the first dynamic range, and
`
`wherein, in a case where the first attribute information indicates the second
`
`dynamic range, the irst attribute in 0rmati0n also indicates a
`
`e 0 the second
`
`dynamic range
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`3
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`With regard to the above-cited limitation “the first attribute information also indicates a
`
`flye of the second dynamic range” recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1, the Official
`
`Action asserts that this limitation is disclosed in YAMAMOTO’s paragraph [023 7]. More
`
`specifically, the Official Action asserts YAMAMOTO’s “paragraph 237 disclose when HDR
`
`flag is l, HDR Video is recorded when HDR flag is l, HDR Video is recorded and when HDR
`
`flag is O, STD Video is recorded”.
`
`(See Official Action, page 3.)
`
`Contrary to the assertions in the Official Action, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`YAMAMOTO fails to disclose the above-cited limitation “the first attribute information also
`
`indicates a age of the second dynamic range” recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1.
`
`In Applicant’s claimed recording medium, the “first dynamic range” is SDR, and the
`
`“second dynamic range” that is wider than the first dynamic range is HDR. They represent the
`
`dynamic range of luminance of a Video stream.
`
`The “de of the second dynamic range” is information that represents how the
`
`maximum luminance of HDR is indicated. For example, the second dynamic range may have
`
`three types:
`
`M3 the luminance range of the Video stream is statically expressed (recited in
`
`dependent claim 2),
`
`M: the luminance range of the Video stream is statically and dynamically expressed
`
`(recited in dependent claim 3), and
`
`M: the luminance is expressed by a base Video stream, and an enhanced Video stream
`
`to enhance luminance of the base Video stream (recited in dependent claim 5).
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`4
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`In distinct contrast, YAMAMOTO’s paragraph [023 7] states that the HDR_fiag is a one-
`
`bit flag that represents the dynamic range, i.e., either HDR or STD, at which a master is being
`
`recorded. More specifically,
`
`if HDR_fiag=l, HDR Video as a master is being performed, and
`
`if HDR_fiag=0, STD Video as a master is being performed. Thus,
`
`YAMAMOTO’s paragraph [023 7] merely discloses using an HDR_fiag to indicate whether
`
`a master is being performed as an HDR Video or an STD Video.
`
`In other words, YAMAMOTO’s paragraph [023 7] does n_0t disclose “W 0: the second
`
`dynamic range”, where the second dynamic range (e. g., HDR) is a dynamic range that is wider
`
`than the first dynamic range (e. g., SDR). Consequently, this misinterpretation of
`
`YAMAMOTO’s paragraph [023 7] represents an erroneous factual finding that undermines the
`
`asserted anticipation rejection of pending claims 1-4 and 6.
`
`Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`YAMAMOTO fails to anticipate pending claims 1-4 and 6, because YAA/[AMOTO does not
`
`disclose each and every limitation recited therein.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO be withdrawn.
`
`The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`In the Official Action, claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
`
`over YAMAMOTO in View of SU. (See Official Action, pages 4-5.)
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of dependent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO in View of SU. Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`5
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`the combination of limitations recited in dependent claim 5, which depends upon independent
`
`claim 1, would not have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of YAMAMOTO and SU, for at least the reason
`
`that SU fails to remedy the distinct deficiencies of YAMAMOTO discussed above, and further
`
`for the additional limitations recited therein.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of dependent claim 5
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO and SU be withdrawn.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In conclusion, Applicant respectfully submits that pending claims 1-6 satisfy all of the
`
`regulatory and statutory requirements for patentability for at least the reasons discussed above.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the above-cited rejections be withdrawn.
`
`Additionally, Applicant requests that an indication of the allowability of pending claims 1-6 be
`
`provided in the next Official communication.
`
`Finally, Applicant has made a sincere effort to place the present patent application in
`
`condition for allowance. Thus, if the Examiner believes that there are any outstanding issues that
`
`may be readily resolved through a telephone call, including an Examiner ’s Amendment, the
`
`Examiner is invited to call the undersigned at the telephone number listed at the end of this
`
`response.
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`6
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/251,688
`
`Attorney Docket No. P56813
`
`W
`
`From the remarks provided above, Applicant respectfully submits that all of the pending
`
`claims in the present patent application are patentable over the references cited by the Examiner,
`
`either alone or in combination. Accordingly, reconsideration of the outstanding Official Action
`
`is respectfully requested, and an indication of the allowability of pending claims 1-6 is now
`
`believed to be appropriate.
`
`Applicant notes that no acquiescence as to the propriety of the Examiner’s rejections is
`
`made by the present amendment. Should there be any questions, the Examiner is invited to
`
`contact the undersigned at the below-listed telephone number.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Hiroshi YAHATA et a1.
`
`/Gary V. Harkcom/
`Reg. No. 62,956
`Gary V. Harkcom
`
`for
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`
`Reg. No. 29,027
`
`January 9, 2020
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703) 716-1191
`
`{P56813 04168516.DOCX}
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
