DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 7 APRIL 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 8, 16, 19, and 21 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or added. Claims 8-27 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), Applicant alleges:
“That is, what Cheong decodes is a signaling bit, not a coding type. This signaling bit merely acts as a switch to select between two fixed, pre-stored schemes at the sub-block level. In contrast, claim 8 requires the decoding of the coding types themselves from the header. Because Cheong relies on pre-fixed, internal decoder configurations rather than header-derived coding types, Cheong does not teach or suggest the recited features.” (Remarks, p. 2.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed “coding type” is defined in the claim as, “…indicates how a value of a symbol encoded according to the respective coding type is to be decoded.” In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation is the coding type represents metadata for selecting a coding type in a decoder for the purpose of decoding the symbols. The origin of the tables, dictionaries, etc., whether pre-stored or signal, for applying the selected coding type is not limited therein. In addition, Cheong expressly discloses the tables of the coding schemes may be transmitted. See Cheong, ¶ [0035]. Therefore, Cheong’s signaling bit functions identically to the claimed coding type.
“Furthermore, even if Cheong’s signaling bits could be characterized as coding types – which Applicant does not concede to – they are not encoded in a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole or a header of a coding unit as claimed. Cheong explicitly describes its signaling bits as being allocated at the sub-block level within a single image block. Specifically, Cheong describes that “[t]he decoder circuitry 208… may be configured to decode a bit-stream of encoded image block based on header information that includes a set of signaling bits allocated to the plurality of sub-blocks (associated with an encoded image block).” (Cheong ¶[0042]). Cheong further describes that “[t]he total number of bits in the bit-stream of encoded image block may also include the enable bit and a number of the allocated set of signaling bits for the plurality of sub-blocks.” (Cheong ¶[0056]). Thus, in Cheong, the header information contains only sub-block-level signaling bits scoped to a single image block – not coding types encoded in a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole or a header of a coding unit. There is no disclosure in Cheong of any coding type or scheme selection signal at the level of the full compressed bitstream or at any coding unit level.” (Remarks, pp. 2-3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Concerning the “a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole,” it is unclear which header is being referred to. The bitstream itself does not have a header and each packet will include the headers pertinent to the content at the time of signaling a packet. The original specification utilizes the same language without imparting any guidance as to what such a header might be. Additionally, if the header is intending to be one for the entire video, such as the video parameter set (VPS), then additional non-disclosed handling would be required because VPS contains data common to the video and not dynamic at the block level. Concerning the “a header of a coding unit,” the broadest reasonable interpretation is a header containing metadata that is directed to a coding unit and/or one of its components. In this instance, the header of Cheong’s image block satisfies this condition.
Applicant further characterizes the signaling bits as pertaining to sub-blocks scoped to a single image block. Cheong discloses, “The bit-stream of encoded image block may include header information that may indicate the sequential encoding scheme applied at encoding of the image block.” See Cheong, ¶ [0025]. The encoded image block including sub-blocks does not exclude the header pertaining to the encoded image block or characterizing Cheong as decoding an image block with said header. Cheong’s disclosure of partitioning an image block into sub-blocks does not change the signaling bit is signaled in a header for the encoded image block and thus teaching the “header of a coding unit.”
“Since Cheong describes sub-block-level signaling bits used to select between two pre-stored, pre-fixed coding schemes within a single image block, and Yu describes only the definition of a symbol, the combination of Cheong with Yu does not teach or suggest decoding, from a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole or a header of a coding unit, respective coding types of symbols. Thus, claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-10 and 13-15 are not obvious over Cheong, Yu, or any combination thereof.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The disclosure of Yu is relied upon to establish the entropy encoded data in Cheong represents the claimed symbols. See Yu, ¶ [0006]. Therefore, the coding schemes in Cheong pertain to coding schemes for symbols.
With regard to claim 16, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), Applicant alleges:
“Claim 16, from which claims 17-20 depend, is amended to recite in part “wherein the header includes one or more coding types, each associated with at least one of the symbols, and wherein a position of a respective coding type in the header indicates which symbol of the symbols the respective coding type corresponds to.” The amended to claim 16 is supported at least by paragraphs [0028] and [0092] of the Application as filed. For reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 8, the combination of Cheong with Yu does not teach or suggest these features. To restate, Cheong decodes sub-block-level signaling bits from the header of an image block to select a pre-stored coding scheme – it does not decode coding types from a header, does not associate any coding type with a specific symbol, and does not use the position of anything in the header to indicate which symbol a coding type corresponds to. Yu merely provides a general definition of entropy coding (Yu ¶[0006]) and does not cure these deficiencies. Thus, claim 16 and its dependent claims 17-20 are not obvious over Cheong, Yu, or any combination thereof.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claim does not require any particular association. Each of the encoding schemes generates symbols that are properly entropy decoded based on the coding type. Therefore, the signaling bit that indicates a coding type is associated with at least one of the symbols, because the symbols are generated based on the coding type. Furthermore, Cheong’s use of sub-blocks does not affect the association of the signaling bit. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 21 and its dependent claims, Applicant reiterates the same points as above. The same Examiner’s response equally applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-15 and 21-27 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.
With regard to claims 8 and 21, the limitation, “a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole” is found verbatim in ¶[0093] of the specification; however, a merely mentioning the concept is not sufficient to reasonably convey possession at the time of filing. See MPEP § 2163(I). It is not clear what header is specified by “the compressed bitstream as a whole,” due to the bitstream itself not having a header. A person having ordinary skill in the art may consider a high-level syntax, such as video parameter set (VPS) or sequence parameter set (SPS), but neither of these headers are designed for handling dynamic data at the block level. The specification fails to provide a precise header or any guidance on how to create or modify an existing header. For these reasons, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With regard to claims 8 and 21, the limitation, “a header of a coding unit of the compressed bitstream” is not present in the original specification. The specification in ¶ [0093] describes a header of a largest coding unit and a header of a coding block, but not a coding unit. A coding unit can be considered the equivalent of a macroblock in HEVC, which is more similar to a header of a coding block or it could have been a typographical error and the intent was a largest coding unit. However, it remains unclear which header, if any, of the originally supported headers was the intent.
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 8-15 and 21-27 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.
With regard to claims 8 and 21, the limitation “a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole” is held to be indefinite. The “bitstream as a whole” does not have a header and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have understood which header could be referenced for dynamically signaling coding types of symbols. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “a header of the compressed bitstream as a whole.”
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) 8-10, 13-22, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 8, Cheong discloses a device ([0034], “EBC decoder circuit”) for decoding an image ([0035], “decode the bit-stream of encoded image block”), comprising:
a processor ([0042], “the decoder circuitry 208 may be a hardware encoder chip that may be implemented based on one of ASIC, programmable logic devices (PLDs), SOC, FPGA, digital signal processors (DSPs) or other specialized circuitries”) configured to:
decode, from a header of a compressed bitstream of the image ([0042], “decode a bit-stream of encoded image block based on header information”), respective coding types([0025], “The bit-stream of encoded image block may include header information that may indicate the sequential encoding scheme applied at encoding of the image block, to obtain the bit-stream of encoded image block.” [0055], “The enable bit may be a signaling bit that indicates whether a single coding scheme or different coding scheme is selected for all sub-blocks in the image block.” Note, the scheme is the coding type), and wherein:
a respective coding type of the respective coding types indicates how a value([0013], “The disclosed EBC circuitry selects a specific coding scheme from different coding schemes for different sub-blocks of the image block based on a comparison of total count of bits required to encode the image block according to different coding schemes.” Note, the decoder uses the header information for applying the correct scheme),
the respective coding types include a first coding type and a second coding type ([0050], “The encoder circuitry 206 may be configured to select the first coding scheme or the second coding scheme, for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks”),
the first coding type indicates that the value([0029], “the second coding scheme may be a fixed length coding (FLC).” [0050], “The second coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, PCM coding scheme or any fixed length coding scheme”), and
the second coding type indicates that the value([0029], “the first coding scheme may be a variable length coding (VLC).” [0050], “The first coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, an entropy coding scheme such as a Huffman coding scheme, an exponential Golomb coding scheme, a progressive Golomb coding scheme, a Golomb-Rice coding scheme, and a combination of the Huffman coding scheme and the exponential Golomb coding scheme”) wherein at least a maximum value of the range is decoded from the compressed bitstream ([0035], “the EBC circuitry 108 may be configured to generate the bit-stream of encoded image block such that the bit-stream may be decodable by different external decoders that may utilize different decoding schemes to decode the bit-stream of encoded image block. In such a case, the EBC circuitry 108 may be configured to add different coding tables (e.g., custom coding tables for Huffman encoding schemes, Exponential-Golomb encoding schemes, or signaling bit tables) and quantization tables, in header information or a different meta-stream associated with the bit-stream of encoded image block”); and
reconstruct the image ([0015], “decoding of media content (for example, encoded images and/or videos) and further playback of the decoded media content”), including to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, respective values([0032], “The EBC circuitry 108 may utilize the allocated signaling bit at the encoder stage to select an optimal entropy coding scheme for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks. Similarly, the allocated signaling bit may be utilized at the decoder stage to identify a coding scheme that was used at the encoder stage to entropy code each sub-block.” [0042], “decode a bit-stream of encoded image block based on header information”).
Cheong fails to expressly disclose the values represent symbols. Note, the term “symbols” represents the value converted into a codeword when entropy coding. The terminology of “symbols” is not used by Cheong and for the sake of completeness, another reference will be relied upon.
However, Yu teaches values represent symbols ([0006], “A process of converting a numerical value, or called a symbol, with an actual meaning into a codeword in a form of bit string is usually called entropy coding, which is a mature. The common entropy coding methods comprise: N-bit fixed-length coding, Exponential-Golomb, Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW) coding, Run-length encoding, Shannon coding, Huffman coding and arithmetic coding”).
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 entropy coded utilizing symbols, as taught by Yu ([0006]), in Cheong’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong’s disclosure, by incorporating Yu’s disclosure, to improve encoding and decoding efficiency (Yu: [0016]) and because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique of using symbols to a known decoding device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding claim 9, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, a number of the same number of bits ([0046-0049] and [0052] describes the encoding scheme is based on a number of bits, which are signaled and thus decoded); and
decode a symbol value using the number of the same number of bits ([0032], “the allocated signaling bit may be utilized at the decoder stage to identify a coding scheme that was used at the encoder stage to entropy code each sub-block.” Note, the coding scheme will utilize the respective number of bits for decoding).
Regarding claim 10, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the value is a color value of a pixel of the image ([0059] describes how the image block can correspond to a chroma block having a color model, such as RGB).
Regarding claim 13, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a respective decoding parameter associated with the respective coding type ([0035], “the EBC circuitry 108 may be configured to add different coding tables (e.g., custom coding tables for Huffman encoding schemes, Exponential-Golomb encoding schemes, or signaling bit tables) and quantization tables, in header information or a different meta-stream associated with the bit-stream of encoded image block”).
Regarding claim 14, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a specific range associated with the second coding type ([0031] describes the variable length coding having a dependent range of length dependent on the QP residual level).
Regarding claim 15, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a specified number of bits associated with the first coding type ([0031] describes the fix length coding as having the same code word length (e.g., specified number of bits) for all QP residual levels).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Additionally, Yu discloses wherein the respective coding types includes a trivial coding type indicating that all symbols of a symbol of the symbols in the compressed bitstream are a same value ([0006] describes a plurality of entropy coding methods, including run-length encoding, which is typically best suited for repeating symbols). The same motivation of claim 16 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 17, as outlined above. Additionally, Yu discloses further comprising: decoding the same value from the compressed bitstream ([0006] describes run-length encoding, which when decoded by a decoder, decodes the same value for the specified length). The same motivation of claim 16 applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies to claim 19. Additionally, Cheong discloses each [coding type] associated with at least one of the symbols, and wherein a position of a respective coding type in the header indicates which symbol of the symbols the respective coding type corresponds to ([0033], “The selective application of the entropy coding scheme may be done in accordance with the allocated signaling bit and a specified entropy coding for either “0” or “1” value of the signaling bit. For example, if the allocated signaling has “0” value, then the first coding scheme is applied, and if the allocated signaling has “1” value, then the second coding scheme is applied.” Note, the symbol is dependent on the coding type, establishing the association between the coding type and the at least one of the symbols. In addition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a position of a respective coding type in the header indicates” is the presence of the coding type at some expected position. Cheong discloses support for different codec standards, such as AVC and HEVC, which define headers having specific positions for expected bits. Therefore, in whichever position the signaling bit is placed in the header, it is the expected position for the signaling bit, which is used for selecting a coding scheme for processing the symbols).
Regarding claim 20, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the respective coding types include at least one fixed-number-of-bits coding type and at least one variable-number-of-bits coding type ([0050], “The first coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, an entropy coding scheme such as a Huffman coding scheme, an exponential Golomb coding scheme, a progressive Golomb coding scheme, a Golomb-Rice coding scheme, and a combination of the Huffman coding scheme and the exponential Golomb coding scheme. The second coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, PCM coding scheme or any fixed length coding scheme.” [0094], “the first coding scheme may include a variable length coding (VLC) scheme and the second coding scheme may include a fixed length coding (FLC) scheme”).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are the same as those in claim 9. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 22.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations are the same as those in claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 13 applies equally as well to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations are the same as those in claim 14. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations are the same as those in claim 15. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 15 applies equally as well to claim 27.
Claim(s) 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,970,809 B1 (hereinafter “Seiler”).
Regarding claim 11, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
decode a color value of a pixel using the range, wherein the color value is one of a red, green, or blue color channel value ([0019], “decode the encoded image block.” [0059] describes the coded image blocks are of an RGB model and each image block is one of the “R” component, “G” component, and “B” component).
Cheong and Yu fail to expressly disclose decode, from the compressed bitstream, the range, wherein a maximum value of the range is an alpha-channel value of the image, and wherein the image is a pre-multiplied image.
However, Seiler teaches decode, from the compressed bitstream, the range, wherein a maximum value of the range is an alpha-channel value of the image, and wherein the image is a pre-multiplied image (col. 12, l. 65 – col. 13, l. 31 describes RBG images can be sent with an alpha mask, also known as RGBA, or “the system may include a key requirement for image formats in which red, green, and blue values may use pre-multiplied alpha. In other words, each color value may be multiplied by its alpha value before being sent to headset system. As a result, if alpha equal to zero, all three of the color components may be zero as well.” Note, the alpha defines the transparency and when pre-multiplied, limits the range of values for each color component; hence, when alpha is zero, then all three color components are also zero).
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 pre-multiplied an alpha mask, as taught by Seiler (col. 13), in Cheong and Yu’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong and Yu’s disclosure, by incorporating Seiler’s disclosure, to improving coding efficiency by minimizing the need to transmit an extra channel and reducing the range of values needed to be coded.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations are the same as those in claim 11. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 23.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0155531 A1 (hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 12, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Cheong and Yu fail to expressly disclose wherein the respective coding types further include a third type indicating that the value of the symbol is to be decoded using probabilities in a dictionary.
However, Miller teaches wherein the respective coding types further include a third type indicating that the value of the symbol is to be decoded using probabilities in a dictionary ([0008] describes a code list and using a probability for the code list. Claim 32, “constructing a dictionary code for the input signal using a set of symbol strings and a probability distribution of the set of symbol strings.”).
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 dictionary with probabilities as an entropy coding scheme, as taught by Miller (claim 32), in Cheong and Yu’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong and Yu’s disclosure, by incorporating Miller’s disclosure, because it is an obvious combination of entropy encoding schemes according to known methods for yielding predictable results (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations are the same as those in claim 12. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 12 applies equally as well to claim 24.
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
Prosecution Insights