DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 6 FEBRUARY 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2026 and 02/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 6, 9, and 13 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 14 and 15 have been added. Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0183077 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294063 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065980 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”), Applicant alleges:
“Choi relates to video encoding and decoding using a layer identifier, which includes a first identifier and a second identifier, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B of Choi (reproduced below). For each layer, Choi does not disclose both (a) a layer ID and (b) a layer identifier that is different from the layer ID and generated based on the layer ID. The layer identifier for a layer in Choi is NOT generated based on a different layer ID for the same layer.” (Remarks, p. 2.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant reproduces FIGS. 3A and 3B of Choi to describe the layer identification means in Choi. A layer identifier in a NAL unit is made by combining a first identifier (e.g., nuh_layer_id) and a second identifier (e.g., temporal_id). See Choi, ¶¶ [0087-0090]. In addition to the NAL unit syntax for layer identification, the VPS layer identifier is identified with layer_id_in_nuh from the VPS extension RBSP. See Choi, FIG. 4 and ¶¶ [0157-0161]. The claimed layer-ID is the equivalent syntax element nuh_layer_id in standard HEVC and as such, the “index” that combines nuh_layer_id with temporal_id is different than the layer-ID. If it is Applicant’s position the read layer-ID would be Choi’s combination of nuh_layer_id with temporal_id, because Hong utilizes the NAL unit layer identifier, which would presumably be a combination of both, the layers in Choi are still identified with layer_id_in_nuh[i], based on the layer-ID and the extension flag. See Choi, FIG. 4, ¶ [0161]. Therefore, the limitation in question is met by Choi’s disclosure.
“Even if the references can be properly combined, merely for argument and Applicant does not concede, the combination still does not teach or suggest the above mentioned features or “response to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is less than the predetermined value … determine an index value for the first layer based on the at least one extension value, wherein the index value is different from the layer-ID,” as recited in the amended claim 2. (Emphasis added.)” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the “response to […]” limitation is a criterion for decoding and performing inter-layer prediction, and such decoding and inter-layer prediction is relied upon in each prior-art reference. Additionally, as explained above, the layers can be identified in a plurality of ways, using different syntax elements. See Choi, FIG. 4 and ¶¶ [0087-0090] and [0157-0161]. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 2-10 and 13-15 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 2, 6, 9, and 14, each newly recite wherein the index value is different from the layer-ID without providing proper support in the original disclosure. The Remarks states there is support; however, the Remarks does not provide any citation in the original disclosure as evidence. Upon review of the specification, there is no section describing the layer identifier being different for when packets are discarded and packets are extracted. Furthermore, because there appears to be no distinction of layer identifiers, the determination of the extension value and index can’t be positively recited as being in response to the layer ID being less than a predetermined value. The claim amendments filed on 05/13/2025 and 07/22/2025 also do not provide support to use as guidance for establishing compliance with the written description requirement.
Claim 15 is 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 claim 15, the claim essentially recites a method within a method and it’s unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim is. It is unclear whether the step of storing in claim 15 requires the manipulative steps for encoding defined in claim 14 or merely the resulting structure of the multi-layered data. The subject matter of claim 14 is also predominately descriptive of wherein clauses that do not give any meaning or purpose to the manipulative step of storing. That is to say, the act of storing in claim 15 can conceptually store any multi-layered data stream and therefore the wherein clauses are not given weight. See MPEP § 2111.04(I). In view of the above, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claim is. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as storing a multi-layered data stream with a video stream complying with the output of claim 14, but not require to perform the encoding steps of claim 14.
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) 2-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0183077 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294063 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065980 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses a device (FIG. 4, MANE 405 and decoder 405) configured to process a data stream representing video data ([0025], ll. 16-18, “The decoder (405) can receive the pruned bitstream (404) from the MANE(403), and decode and render it;” [0041], ll. 1-2, “a MANE or a decoder can prune a scalable bitstream based on the layer_id”), comprising:
a receiver (FIG. 11, computer system 1100 with network interface 1120; FIG. 4, MANE 403 receives signal 402 and decoder 405 receives signal 404) configured to receive a multi-layered data stream that represents a video coded into a plurality of layers ([0026], ll. 16-17, “receives a scalable bitstream of high complexity (many layers).” Note, the MANE receives it, but the decoder is also described as being capable to receive it); and
a processor (FIG. 11, computer system 1100 with processor(s) 1101), which when executes instructions ([0087], ll. 5-6, “software instructions can be executed on various types of computers”), is configured to:
read a layer-ID from the multi-layered data stream associated with a first layer of the multi-layered data stream ([0080], ll. 5-7, “interpreting the table of layer description, identify layer_id values for quality enhancement layers and react accordingly;” [0041], ll. 1-2, “a MANE or a decoder can prune a scalable bitstream based on the layer_id:” e.g., the layer_id is identified and read for pruning (discarding));
check as to whether the layer-ID of the first layer is less than or greater than a predetermined value ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” Note, in the 3-layer example, layer 1 is used as the predetermined value);
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is greater than the predetermined value, discard packets associated with the first layer in the data stream ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” NAL units are placed into respective packets as per [0006]); and
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is less than the predetermined value ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” Note, the values that are not equal to or greater than the value at which discarding begins are less than the value at which discarding begins. Furthermore, as per the above citations of [0025] and [0041], the discarding in [0065] is understood as the pruning operation by MANE or decoder and the resulting prune bitstream is forwarded for decoding. The pruned bitstream comprising the layers that are less than the predetermined value),
extract packets associated with the first layer from the data stream ([0026], ll. 9-11, “the decoder (405) may need to buffer and, to the extent possible, decode all NAL units it receives.” Note, NAL unit is received packetized from the bitstream),
reconstruct at least a portion of the first layer of the video using at least one frame of the reference layer (FIG. 6 shows the use of inter-layer dependencies for decoding a layer with a reference layer. In [0065] inter-layer prediction is maintained for lower layers. Note, as per the above citations of [0025] and [0041], the layers that maintained inter-layer relationship as described in FIG. 6 and [0065] are part of the decoding, the process of reconstructing the encoded content).
Hong fails to expressly disclose determine at least one extension value associated with an extension flag in the multi-layered data stream,
determine an index value for the first layer based on the at least one extension value, wherein the index value is different from the layer-ID and
extract an indication from the data stream, indicating whether inter-layer prediction of the first layer from a reference layer of the first layer is enabled, based on the index value for the first layer and an index value for the reference layer.
However, Chen teaches extract an indication from the data stream, indicating whether inter-layer prediction of the first layer from a reference layer of the first layer is enabled, based on the index value for the first layer and an index value for the reference layer ([0040], “When direct_dependency_flag[i][j] equals 0, this specifies that the layer with index j is not a direct reference layer for the layer index i. When direct_dependency_flag[i][j] equals 1, this specifies that the layer with index j may be a direct reference layer for the layer with index i.” Note, when a reference layer is specifies then the prediction is “indicated” as enabled as is required for the prediction of the layer. Furthermore, the extraction of an indication is performed on a to-be decoded layer, which is a layer not discarded in Hong’s disclosure).
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 utilized a flag for indicating the need to use a reference layer for predicting, as taught by Chen ([0040]), in Hong’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Hong’s invention, by incorporating Chen’s invention, to improve coding performance and reduce implementation complexity and cost (Chen: [0008]).
Hong and Chen fail to expressly disclose determine at least one extension value associated with an extension flag in the multi-layered data stream [for identifying layer information during decoding], and
determine an index value for the first layer based on the at least one extension value, wherein the index value is different from the layer-ID.
However, Choi teaches determine at least one extension value associated with an extension flag in the multi-layered data stream [for identifying layer information during decoding] ([0091], “The encoding apparatus may use a flag in order to indicate whether a layer identifier is expanded and expressed by using the second identifier. For example, the encoding apparatus may signal to the decoder apparatus whether the layer identifier is expanded by using the second identifier, by using layer_id_extension_flag.” Note, the decoder utilizes the layer identifier with the extension when performing operations requiring layer identification, see FIG. 4 and associated paragraphs [0157-0165]); and
determine an index value for the first layer based on the at least one extension value, wherein the index value is different from the layer-ID ([0140], “the inter-layer decoder 24 may interpret a temporal identifier as additional bits for expressing a layer identifier. For example, when a temporal identifier of 3 bits is used as additional bits for expressing a layer identifier, a bit length of a layer identifier of 6 bits may be expanded to 9 bits.” [0141], “The inter-layer decoder 24 may use a flag in order to determine whether a layer identifier is expanded and expressed by using the second identifier. For example, the decoding apparatus may determine whether the layer identifier is expanded by using the second identifier, by checking a value of layer_id_extension_flag.” The layer identifier of the first layer is an index with an extended range of bits based on the second identifier, which is the extension value identified by layer_id_extension_flag. [0157-0161] discloses identifying with VPS syntax element layer_id_in_nuh[i], which is also decoded with the flag layer_id_extension_flag. Note, layer_id_in_nuh[i] is distinct from nuh_layer_id and the extended nuh_layer_id is distinct from the unextended nuh_layer_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 extended the number of layer identifiers, as taught by Choi ([0040]), in Hong and Chen’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Hong and Chen’s invention, by incorporating Choi’s invention, to support additional layers for high-end devices with super multi-view image decoding (Choi: [0008]) and to improve compression efficiency when layer coding (Choi: [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Hong, Chen, and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Hong discloses wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first layer using inter-layer prediction such that the first layer is predicted at least from the reference layer, using depth information, alpha blending information, color component information, spatial resolution refinement, and/or SNR resolution refinement (Paragraph [0013] describes parameters used for decoding based on spatial layer, SNR scalable layer, and temporal scalable layers. Paragraph [0034] describes layers associated based on depth with a depth map for decoding. Note, claim includes “reference layer” as an option, which is possibly a typographical error; however, “reference layer” is already described as taught in claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Hong, Chen, and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Hong discloses wherein the layer-ID is a network abstraction layer-ID ([0031], ll. 1-2, “a NAL unit header includes a layer_id;” Note, [0005] discloses NAL is ‘Network Adaptation Layer’ is a less commonly used term to also mean ‘Network Abstraction Layer.’ Paragraphs [0004-0005] describe NAL originating from H.264 and specifically Annex G for scalability. H.264 Annex G contains a variation of the nal_unit syntax in FIG. 1 and identifies NAL as ‘Network Abstraction Layer.’).
Regarding claim 5, Hong, Chen, and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Hong discloses wherein the predetermined value is greater than zero (Paragraph [0065] utilizes a value of 1; however, any layer can be a cutoff and in FIG. 9 layer_id goes up to 16, any of which could be the predetermined value. Note, zero would not be the cutoff, because it would discard the lowest layer and there would be no video and the discarding of layers is described as highly complex enhancement layers or unsupported enhancement layers, not the base layer, see [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2; however, written in view of the encoder rather than decoder, which presents the same limitations written in the inverse. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4; however, written in view of the encoder rather than decoder, which presents the same limitations written in the inverse. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Hong, Chen, and Choi disclose every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the index value for the first layer is determined based on at least one extension value and a cluster value associated with the first layer; and the cluster value is generated based on a sub-field of the layer ID ([0140], “the inter-layer decoder 24 may interpret a temporal identifier as additional bits for expressing a layer identifier. For example, when a temporal identifier of 3 bits is used as additional bits for expressing a layer identifier, a bit length of a layer identifier of 6 bits may be expanded to 9 bits.” [0141], “The inter-layer decoder 24 may use a flag in order to determine whether a layer identifier is expanded and expressed by using the second identifier. For example, the decoding apparatus may determine whether the layer identifier is expanded by using the second identifier, by checking a value of layer_id_extension_flag.” The layer identifier of the first layer is an index with an extended range of bits based on the second identifier, which is the extension value identified by layer_id_extension_flag. [0158-0159] also discloses the extension of nuh_layer_id. Note, the first identifier of bits is the cluster value and the second identifier is the extension value, see FIG. 3B, thereby using a sub-field of the layer identifier).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 9; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Hong, Chen, and Choi disclose every limitation of claim 14, as outlined above. Additionally, Hong discloses storing the multi-layered data stream into which a video is encoded according to the method of claim 14 ([0094] describes incoming and outgoing communications through network interfaces 1120 and 1130, such as data packets are stored in memory 1103. FIG. 4 depicts bitstreams 402, 404 over a network link).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,349,066, U.S. Patent No. 10,616,591, U.S. Patent No. 10,869,047, and U.S. Patent No. 11,616,964 (collectively herein “Patents”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0183077 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”).
Regarding claim 2, Patents disclose every limitation except for
check as to whether the layer-ID of the first layer is less than or greater than a predetermined value;
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is greater than the predetermined value, discard packets associated with the first layer in the data stream; and
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is less than the predetermined value [extract and decode].
However, Hong teaches check as to whether the layer-ID of the first layer is less than or greater than a predetermined value ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” Note, in the 3-layer example, layer 1 is used as the predetermined value);
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is greater than the predetermined value, discard packets associated with the first layer in the data stream ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” NAL units are placed into respective packets as per [0006]); and
responsive to a determination that the layer-ID of the first layer is less than the predetermined value [extract and decode] ([0065], ll. 7-12, “if the MANE or decoder finds itself in need to discard NAL units belonging to layer (606) (identified by layer_id 1), then it is clear that the inter-layer prediction relationship (609) may not be maintained and, accordingly, the MANE or decoder can also discard NAL units with layer_id larger than 1, for example layer_id=2.” Note, the values that are not equal to or greater than the value at which discarding begins are less than the value at which discarding begins. Furthermore, as per the above citations of [0025] and [0041], the discarding in [0065] is understood as the pruning operation by MANE or decoder and the resulting prune bitstream is forwarded for decoding. The pruned bitstream comprising the layers that are less than the predetermined value).
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 layer-IDs for pruning a data stream, as taught by Hong, in Patents. One would have been motivated to modify Patents, by incorporating Hong, to minimize overhead and have a more error resilient coding system (Hong: [0030]).
Regarding claims 3-10 and 13-15, the same rationale as above applies.
Conclusion
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