DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 04/13/2026 in which no claims are cancelled, no claims are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there is sufficient support in the Specification for the claim amendments dated 10/01/2025. Examiner disagrees. First, Examiner thanks Applicant for particularly pointing out the sections of the Specification Applicant believes supports the amendments. While the figures are part of the Specification, it is noted there is no other description in the written portion of the Specification regarding N-tap filters except what is recited in the figures. The claim specifically recites a first N-tap filter for processing a first reference frame and further recites shifting an output of the first N-tap filter to obtain a first predictor. Applicant cites to Applicant’s Figures 1, 5, 6, and 7. A review of Figure 1 shows no connection between an N-tap filter and a reference frame, describes nothing about what the filter is used for other than that it is used in a uni-direction prediction process, and shows no connection between an N-tap filter and obtaining a predictor. Except for minor differences, Applicant’s Figures 5–7 do not appear to be substantially different with regard to the amended features and therefore do not remedy the deficiencies explained, supra. The Federal Circuit guides that “[a] description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572 (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)). “[I]t is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure.... Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device'” Id. Applicant cites MPEP 2163. MPEP 2163 is very explicit that that Section of the MPEP is articulating guidelines, not substantive law, and that the substantive law controls. Examiner cites the law, supra. MPEP 2163 also explains possession is shown “by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations….” (emphasis added). Because the claimed invention with all of its limitations is not described, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is not met. Examiner remains open minded regarding this rejection, but finds Applicant must do more to show the claimed invention is as described in the Specification and show adequate support to Examiner.
On pages 2–3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends “the purpose and benefit of [the claimed] increased precision” is achieved by postponing the shift to the input bitdepth to after the weighting of the samples. The rejection relies on the combination of the teachings of Chen and Yu to teach this feature, but Examiner notes Ye (¶ 0126) also explicitly teaches this averred feature.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Yu’s teachings are too general to render specific claim language obvious. Examiner disagrees. Whether generic or not, the teachings of Yu, when combined with the teachings of the other references render Applicant’s invention obvious. The skilled artisan was aware of triangular prediction and taking two predictors and combining them using weighted prediction as evidenced by the teachings of Liao. The skilled artisan was also aware that an intermediate prediction signal resulting from N-tap filters produced a higher precision signal with increased bit depth and that it was advantageous to shift the high precision signal back down to the original bit-depth as evidenced by the teachings of Chen. And finally, the skilled artisan was aware that a higher precision bit depth signal can be the result of, i.e. after, performing weighted prediction thus teaching the temporal aspect of Applicant’s claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Yu. Therefore, in combination, the skilled artisan was in possession of the claimed invention drawn to triangular prediction resulting from weighted bi-prediction and an N-tap filter for fractional motion vectors (predictors) yielding a prediction signal at a higher bitdepth that should advantageously be reduced back down to the input (original) bit depth. It is noted that an alternative rejection could have been made utilizing the teachings of either Ye or Zhou, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action. On this record, the Examiner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the prior art, as a whole, teaches or suggests Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the invention is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant appears to contend the Office’s repeating of a KSR rationale amounts to using the claims as a roadmap, asserts that a motivation to combine the references must come from the references themselves, and that one must have a reason to modify the teachings of Chen, which requires an immediate shift rather than a postponed shift. Examiner disagrees. First, there is no limitation on the use of a single KSR rationale. This is especially true where the invention is nothing more than a mere aggregation of prior art elements that leads to an expected result. Second, KSR and other obviousness jurisprudence specifically repudiates the argument that a reason to combine must come from the art itself. Finally, Chen does not require an immediate shift and the skilled artisan would not interpret Chen so narrowly. Chen is primarily explaining that a shift from the high precision bitdepth back down to the original bitdepth is required, but does not take a strong position on when. Yu explains that the skilled artisan knew that subsequent bitdepth adjustments to avoid overflowing the supported bitdepth may be required after computing weighted averages in uni- and bi-prediction. For these reasons, the combination of prior art teaches the temporal ordering of the prediction being reduced back down to the original bit depth after weighted averaging the prediction signal as claimed. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded of error.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17–20, and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This is a new matter rejection. The independent claims recite features of a first N-tap filter for processing a first reference frame and further recites shifting an output of the first N-tap filter to obtain a first predictor. Previously, Applicant had failed to particularly point out applicable sections of the original disclosure supporting the current amendments. “New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirements.” MPEP 2163(I)(B). “[W]ith respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims.” MPEP 2163(II)(A). See also MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(b). In response to this rejection, Applicant cited to Examiner Applicant’s Figures 1, 5, 6, and 7. While it is true the figures state an “N-tap filter with integer coefficients,” because Applicant’s Specification is silent with respect to the particular limitations of the claimed N-tap filters, the amendments represent new matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). While the figures are part of the Specification, it is noted there is no other description in the written portion of the Specification regarding N-tap filters except what is recited in the figures. The claim specifically recites a first N-tap filter for processing a first reference frame and further recites shifting an output of the first N-tap filter to obtain a first predictor. Applicant cited to Applicant’s Figures 1, 5, 6, and 7. A review of Figure 1 shows no connection between an N-tap filter and a reference frame (admittedly, it does reference uni-prediction and the skilled artisan could connect uni-prediction with the use of reference frames), describes nothing about what the filter is used for other than that it is used in a uni-direction prediction process (is it for interpolating sub-pel, i.e. fractional, motion vectors?), and shows no connection between an N-tap filter and obtaining a predictor. Except for minor differences, Applicant’s Figures 5–7 do not appear to be substantially different with regard to the amended features and therefore do not remedy the deficiencies explained, supra. The Federal Circuit guides that “[a] description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572 (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)). “[I]t is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure.... Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device'” Id. Applicant cited to MPEP 2163. MPEP 2163 is very explicit that that Section of the MPEP is articulating guidelines, not substantive law, and that the substantive law controls. Examiner cites the law, supra, which pretty clearly explains that resort to the skilled artisan to fill in the gaps left by the description is not sufficient under a Written Description analysis. MPEP 2163 also explains possession is shown “by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations….” (emphasis added). Because the claimed invention with all of its limitations is not described, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is not met. Examiner remains open minded regarding this rejection, but finds Applicant must do more to show the claimed invention is as described in the Specification and show adequate support to Examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17–20, and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al., “CE10: Triangular prediction unit mode (CE10.3.1 and CE10.3.2),” JVET-K0144-v2, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 11th Meeting: Ljubljana, SI, 10–18 Jul. 2018 (herein “Liao”), Yu (US 2016/0255359 A1), Furht (US 2021/0168409 A1), and Chen (US 2015/0382009 A1).
Examiner notes Applicant’s published paragraphs [0035]–[0039] appear to describe the problem to be solved by the state-of-the-art triangular prediction process. Examiner finds Applicant’s claims do not even fully address the problem Applicant’s Specification describes as solving. For example, nowhere in the claims is there reference to triangular prediction. Secondly, Examiner finds Applicant’s Figs. 3–6 appear to be nothing more than a restatement of the prior art as Applicant admits in published paragraphs [0035]–[0039]. More specifically, as Applicant’s published paragraph [0037] explains, the prior art’s solution is depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 6 and restricts the bi-prediction to a uni-prediction process to decrease memory bandwidth. To the extent an invention is described, it appears the invention is Applicant’s Fig. 7, which examiner finds is not particularly claimed in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests a method, comprising: obtaining a first information indicating a splitting of a block of a picture with a geometric partition (Liao, Section 1: teaches the triangular partitioning and its direction are signaled in the bitstream) among more than two geometric partition patterns (It appears Liao only teaches the triangular partitioning from vertex to vertex in either positive or negative sloping segment line configurations, but does not teach more angles resulting in more partition patterns; However, in the same field of endeavor Furht does teach more than two patterns based on segmenting line; Furht, Fig. 9: teaches that there are several different geometric patterns based on angle of segmenting line; Furht, ¶ 0058: teaches signaling indices for indicating an angle along a partition line segment dividing two partitions); obtaining a second information indicating a direction of an edge with the geometric partition (Liao, Section 1: teaches the triangular partitioning and its direction are signaled in the bitstream); obtaining a third information indicating a position of an edge with the geometric partition (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)); processing a first reference picture with a first N-tap filter and shifting an output of the first N-tap filter to obtain a first predictor for the block of the picture with an output bit depth after uni-prediction (Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture; Chen, ¶ 0129: teaches that in HEVC, fractional interpolation for inter-prediction can use N-tap filters to determine an intermediate prediction signal that represents an increased bit-depth that is later shifted back to an output (original) bit-depth precision; Examiner notes Ye, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action also describes what Chen describes and further describes that the higher intermediate bit-depth precision can be used for averaging prior to rounding back down to the input bit-depth; Note this limitation represents new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)), wherein the output bit depth after uni-prediction is larger than a processing bit depth (Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth); processing a second reference picture with a second N-tap filter and shifting an output of the second N-tap filter to obtain a second predictor for the block of the picture (see previous limitation; Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture), with the output bit depth after uni-prediction (Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth; Examiner notes Ye, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action also describes what Chen describes and further describes that the higher intermediate bit-depth precision can be used for averaging prior to rounding back down to the input bit-depth); obtaining a weighted average of the first predictor and the second predictor; wherein a sample of the weighted average is obtained by applying a first weight to a sample of the first predictor and by applying a second weight to a co-located sample of the second predictor, wherein the first weight and the second weight are responsive to the first information, second information, the third information and to a position of the sample in the block (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)), and wherein a bit depth of the weighted average is larger than the output bit depth after uni-prediction; obtaining a third predictor for the block by shifting and clipping the weighted average to the processing bit depth (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1: teaches the weighting has 8 as a denominator, which is not an accident since 8-bit codecs are a common bit depth; see Pu, ¶ 0019 under the Conclusion Section of this action for support for this finding; Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth; Examiner notes Ye, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action also describes what Chen describes and further describes that the higher intermediate bit-depth precision can be used for averaging prior to rounding back down to the input bit-depth); and decoding the block of the picture using the third predictor generated by a geometric partition mode (Yu, ¶ 0009: teaches the algorithms described in the art are intended for decoder standardization).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao, with those of Yu, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor and because combining Liao’s weighted prediction technique with Yu’s teaching that weighted prediction can be processed at a higher bit depth and then rounded back down to the original bit depth represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao and Yu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao and Yu, with those of Furht, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice geometric partitioning in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Furht’s signaling of partitioning angle for triangular partitions with the triangular partitioning angles described in Liao represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao, Yu, and Furht used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao, Yu, and Furht, with those of Chen, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice geometric partitioning in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Chen’s N-tap interpolation filters and shifting an intermediate bitdepth to an output bitdepth with Yu’s shifting to an output bitdepth represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first predictor is obtained for at least a first part of the block; and the second predictor is obtained for at least a second part of the block (Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first weight and the second weight depend on a distance between the sample and an edge of the geometric partition of the block, wherein a position of the edge is derived from the first information and the second information (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 5, wherein the block of the picture comprises a luma component and two chroma components and wherein the first weight and the second weight further depend on the luma component or chroma component (Liao, Section 1: teaches the weighting factors are dependent on the samples being luma samples or chroma samples).
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 8, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 11, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 11 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 12, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 12 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 25 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 26 lists the same elements as claim 13, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 13 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pu (US 2015/0098503 A1) teaches weighted prediction is based on bit depth of the input video and that right shifts are used to control overflow from multiplication operations (see e.g. ¶¶ 0019 and 0056).
Sato (US 2017/0034525 A1) teaches that granularity finer than the bit depth is desirable for weighted prediction (e.g. ¶ 0064).
Park (US 2013/0107959 A1) teaches using distance and angle to define the split line for geometric partitioning (e.g. Fig. 6 and ¶ 0059).
Liao (US 2021/0051335 A1) (herein Liao-2) teaches triangle partitioning can be signaled using a partition mode index, an angle index, or a distance index (¶ 0349). Combining Liao-2’s signaling of partitioning distance for triangular partitions with the triangular partitioning angles described in Liao represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
Ye (US 2020/0221122 A1) teaches MVs calculated at fractional sample positions could have higher bit-depth than the input bit-depth and may be rounded down to the input bit-depth either prior to or after an averaging operation, i.e. the averaging operation can be performed at either the lower input bit-depth or higher intermediate bit-depth (¶ 0126).
Kim (US 2014/0140409 A1) teaches increasing bit depth for motion compensation and reducing the bit-depth back to picture bit-depth either before or after calculating the weighted average (¶ 0108).
Zhou (US 10,462,480 B2) teaches sub-pixel interpolation using e.g. an 8-tap filter (e.g. col. 21, ll. 1–52; col. 22, ll. 29–51) and additional shifting after weighed sample prediction “so that the interpolated sample values have the correct bit depth (col. 35, ln. 24–col. 36, ln. 19).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights