DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 15 OCTOBER 2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 18 have been amended. Claims 21-28 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20-28 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered and considered persuasive; however, Kotra (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0329794 A1) discloses the new limitations as outlined in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 22, 25, 27, and 28, each claim recites a further inclusion of fifth syntax element and seventh syntax element, yet each respective independent claim already recites a fifth syntax element and a seventh syntax element. It’s unclear whether they represent the same syntax elements or different syntax elements, particularly because the independent claims require the presence in the picture header and the dependent claims require the syntax elements alternatively in a slice header. Additionally, the antecedent basis of the syntax elements adds to the ambiguity. For examination purposes, the syntax elements will be treated as the same in each respective independent claim.
Regarding claims 23, 26, 27, and 28, each claim recites excluding syntax elements based on the first syntax element, yet not every syntax element depends on the first syntax element. For instance, the first syntax element is dependent on the second syntax element and therefore the second syntax element could be included regardless of the value of the first syntax element. Similarly, the eighth syntax element is not dependent on the first syntax element. It’s not clear by what mechanism the first syntax element is used for controlling said other syntax elements.
Regarding claims 23 and 26, each claim recites “the slice header” without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “a slice header.”
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23, 26-28, each claim recites excluding syntax elements based on the first syntax element; however, there is no disclosure in the original specification for such a limitation. For instance, the first syntax element is dependent on the second syntax element, therefore the second syntax element would not be excluded based on the first syntax element.
Examiner’s Note: The following rejection is based on the oldest filing date; however, priority has yet to be perfected. The most recent petition decision was dismissed. See petition decision dated 05/13/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-10, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345697 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0329794 A1 (hereinafter “Kotra”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a method of processing video data ([0001], “method for coding an image”), comprising:
performing a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video according to a rule ([0063], “encode input video/image […] The encoded data (encoded video/image information) may be output in the form of a bitstream;” [0064], “The receiver may receive/extract the bitstream and transmit the received bitstream to the decoding apparatus;” [0065], “The decoding apparatus may decode the video/image;” FIGS. 12 and 14 provide the steps for an encoding conversion and a decoding conversion, respectively),
wherein the rule specifies that whether a cross-component adaptive loop filter (CC-ALF) tool is enabled and whether an adaptive loop filter (ALF) tool is enabled are controlled by different syntax elements in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream ([0211], “in order to determine whether CC-ALF is used (applied), a sequence parameter set (SPS) may include a CC-ALF enable flag (sps_ccalf_enable_flag) […] an ALF enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) for determining whether ALF is used;” Table 9 includes a snippet of the SPS header including both syntax elements for controlling filtering),
wherein a first syntax element ccalf_enabled_flag indicates whether the CC-ALF tool is enabled ([0211], “in order to determine whether CC-ALF is used (applied), a sequence parameter set (SPS) may include a CC-ALF enable flag (sps_ccalf_enable_flag);” see Table 9),
wherein a second syntax element alf_enabled_flag indicates whether the ALF tool is enabled ([0211], “an ALF enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) for determining whether ALF is used;” see Table 9),
wherein whether the first syntax element ccalf_enabled_flag is present in the SPS depends on a value of the second syntax element alf_enabled_flag and a type of color format of the video (Table 9, “sps_alf_enabled_flag [¶] if ( ChromaArrayType != 0 && sps_alf_enabled_flag ) [¶] sps_ccalf_enabled_flag.” The CCALF is the first syntax element, which is conditioned on the ALF syntax and ChromaArrayType; [0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome”), and
wherein when the ALF tool is enabled for the video unit, chroma component Cb and chroma component Cr use a same eighth syntax element (Table 8, “if (sps_alf_enabled_flag) [¶] […] slice_alf_aps_id_chroma.” Note, slice_alf_aps_id_chroma is used for the entire block, which include the Cb and Cr chroma components, see [0051]);
wherein when the CC-ALF tool is enabled for both the chroma component Cb and the chroma component Cr of the video unit, different syntax elements are used to indicate the APS IDs that are referenced by chroma component Cb and chroma component Cr respectively (Table 8, “if (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag) [¶] […] if (slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id } […] if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id }.”), wherein the different syntax elements includes:
a fifth syntax element (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id }”), and
a seventh syntax element (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”).
Choi fails to expressly disclose an eighth syntax element included in a picture header;
a fifth syntax element included in the picture header; and
a seventh syntax element included in the picture header.
However, Kotra teaches an eighth syntax element included in a picture header ([0281] describes the picture header RBSP, including: “if ( sps_alf_enabled_flag ) […] pic_alf_aps_id_chroma”);
a fifth syntax element included in the picture header ([0281] describes the picture RBSP, including: “if ( pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) […]) pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id”); and
a seventh syntax element included in the picture header ([0281] describes the picture RBSP, including: “if ( pic_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) […]) pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a picture header for controlling ALF/CCALF parameters, as taught by Kotra ([0281]), in Choi’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi’s invention, by incorporating Kotra’s invention, to reduce slice signal redundancy by incorporating CCALF signaling in the picture header (Kotra: [0275]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the rule specifies that the one or more syntax elements are excluded from the picture header or the slice header in response to the type of color format of the video being 4:0:0 ([0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome.” Note, each of Tables 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 depends on sps_ccalf_enabled_flag, which is present in the higher level syntax of SPS based on ChromaArrayType. Each of the tables excludes the syntax elements when ChromaArrayType == 0 (i.e., color format is 4:0:0)).
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the conversion comprising encoding the video into the bitstream ([0063], “encode input video/image […] The encoded data (encoded video/image information) may be output in the form of a bitstream;” FIGS. 12 and 14 provide the steps for an encoding conversion and a decoding conversion, respectively).
Regarding claim 9, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream ([0064], “The receiver may receive/extract the bitstream and transmit the received bitstream to the decoding apparatus;” [0065], “The decoding apparatus may decode the video/image;” FIGS. 12 and 14 provide the steps for an encoding conversion and a decoding conversion, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10. Additionally, Choi discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon ([0307] describes processors and memories; [0309] describes a computer-readable recording medium embodiment).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 10; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 10; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 17, and 20-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345697 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0329794 A1 (hereinafter “Kotra”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0018055 A1 (hereinafter “Hendry”).
Regarding claim 21, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Choi and Kotra fail to expressly disclose wherein a third syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) specifies whether one or more syntax elements related to the CC-ALF tool are present in the bitstream.
However, Hendry teaches wherein a third syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) specifies whether one or more syntax elements related to the CC-ALF tool are present in the bitstream (Table 2 describes the PPS RBSP including “alf_present_in_ph_flag” and Table 4 describes the picture header RBSP including restricting ALF syntax elements based on “alf_present_in_ph_flag.” Note, Kotra discloses the same embodiment in [0371] and [0378], however, this embodiment is alluded to in the provisional and not expressly disclosed. Hendry’s disclosure of “alf_present_in_ph_flag” is the same flag in Kotra for restricting the same filters in the picture header and supports a person having ordinary skill in the art achieving Kotra’s disclosure of [0371] and [0378]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the PPS RBSP for controlling ALF parameters in a picture header, as taught by Hendry (Tables 2 and 4), in Choi and Kotra’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi and Kotra’s invention, by incorporating Hendry’s invention, to improve decoding efficiency (Hendry: [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi, Kotra, and Hendry disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the rule specifies that the one or more syntax elements are present in the bitstream when at least both of the following conditions are met:
the type of color format of the video is not 4:0:0 ([0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome.” Note, each of Tables 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 depends on sps_ccalf_enabled_flag, which is present in the higher level syntax of SPS based on ChromaArrayType), and
the first syntax element present in the SPS indicates that the CC-ALF tool is enabled ([0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome”).
Regarding claim 22, Choi, Kotra, and Hendry disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the one or more syntax elements (Note, Choi discloses slice header syntax in Table 8 and Kotra discloses equivalent syntax in the picture header in paragraph [0281], as per the rejection of claim 1) further includes:
a fourth syntax element, included in a slice header or the picture header, that indicates the CC-ALF tool for a chroma component Cb is enabled for a slice or a picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id }”);
a fifth syntax element included in the slice header, the fifth syntax element indicating an APS ID of an ALF APS referenced by the chroma component Cb of the slice or slices in the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id }”);
a sixth syntax element, included in the slice header or the picture header, that indicates the CC-ALF tool for a chroma component Cr is enabled for the slice or the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”); and
a seventh syntax element included in the slice header, the seventh syntax element indicating an APS ID of an ALF APS referenced by the chroma component Cr of the slice or the slices in the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”).
Regarding claim 23, Choi, Kotra, and Hendry disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the rule specifies that the one or more syntax elements are excluded from the picture header or the slice header in response to the first syntax element ccalf_enabled_flag present in the SPS indicating that the CC-ALF tool is disabled (Note, the “one or more syntax elements” that can be “excluded from the picture header or the slice header” and described as controlled by the CC-ALF SPS flag are the fifth syntax element and the seventh syntax element. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. Choi discloses Table 8, “if (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag) [¶] […] if (slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id } […] if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id }.” Note, when sps_ccalf_enabled_flag is false, none of the dependent parameters are signaled; same is true for Kotra’s picture header syntax elements).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations are the same as those in claim 21; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 21 applies equally as well to claim 24.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations are the same as those in claim 22; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 22 applies equally as well to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations are the same as those in claim 23; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 23 applies equally as well to claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations are the same as those in claims 21, 22, and 23; however, written in product form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 21, 22, and 23 applies equally as well to claim 27.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6; however, written in product form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations are the same as those in claims 21, 22, and 23. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 21, 22, and 23 applies equally as well to claim 28.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Examiner’s Note: The above rejection relying on Hendry is provided based on the priority being perfected. The below rejection is in view of the priority not being perfected.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 17, and 20-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345697 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0329794 A1 (hereinafter “Kotra”).
Regarding claim 21, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Kotra discloses wherein a third syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) specifies whether one or more syntax elements related to the CC-ALF tool are present in the bitstream (“alf_present_in_ph_flag” is disclosed in [0371] and [0378] for controlling ALF related syntax elements). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 21.
Regarding claim 5, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the rule specifies that the one or more syntax elements are present in the bitstream when at least both of the following conditions are met:
the type of color format of the video is not 4:0:0 ([0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome.” Note, each of Tables 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 depends on sps_ccalf_enabled_flag, which is present in the higher level syntax of SPS based on ChromaArrayType), and
the first syntax element present in the SPS indicates that the CC-ALF tool is enabled ([0219], “Referring to Table 9, when the ChromaArrayType is not 0 and the ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag) is 1, the SPS may include the CCALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag). For example, if ChromaArrayType is not 0, the chroma format may not be monochrome, and a CCALF-enabled flag may be transmitted through the SPS based on the case where the chroma format is not monochrome”).
Regarding claim 22, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the one or more syntax elements (Note, Choi discloses slice header syntax in Table 8 and Kotra discloses equivalent syntax in the picture header in paragraph [0281], as per the rejection of claim 1) further includes:
a fourth syntax element, included in a slice header or the picture header, that indicates the CC-ALF tool for a chroma component Cb is enabled for a slice or a picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id }”);
a fifth syntax element included in the slice header, the fifth syntax element indicating an APS ID of an ALF APS referenced by the chroma component Cb of the slice or slices in the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id }”);
a sixth syntax element, included in the slice header or the picture header, that indicates the CC-ALF tool for a chroma component Cr is enabled for the slice or the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”); and
a seventh syntax element included in the slice header, the seventh syntax element indicating an APS ID of an ALF APS referenced by the chroma component Cr of the slice or the slices in the picture (Table 8, “if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id”).
Regarding claim 23, Choi and Kotra disclose every limitation of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the rule specifies that the one or more syntax elements are excluded from the picture header or the slice header in response to the first syntax element ccalf_enabled_flag present in the SPS indicating that the CC-ALF tool is disabled (Note, the “one or more syntax elements” that can be “excluded from the picture header or the slice header” and described as controlled by the CC-ALF SPS flag are the fifth syntax element and the seventh syntax element. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. Choi discloses Table 8, “if (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag) [¶] […] if (slice_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag ) { […]) slice_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id } […] if ( slice_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag ) { […] slice_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id }.” Note, when sps_ccalf_enabled_flag is false, none of the dependent parameters are signaled; same is true for Kotra’s picture header syntax elements).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations are the same as those in claim 21; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 21 applies equally as well to claim 24.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations are the same as those in claim 22; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 22 applies equally as well to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations are the same as those in claim 23; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 23 applies equally as well to claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations are the same as those in claims 21, 22, and 23; however, written in product form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 21, 22, and 23 applies equally as well to claim 27.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6; however, written in product form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations are the same as those in claims 21, 22, and 23. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 21, 22, and 23 applies equally as well to claim 28.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 5 and 6 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481