DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is in response to communications filed 1/30/2026. Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn. Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection, the examiner is withdrawing the rejection.
However, it is noted that claims 2 and 4 are apparatus claims that no longer have any structural elements. Please review the specification for support of the limitations and provide structural elements for the apparatus claims.
Regarding the prior art rejection of Claims 2 and 4, the applicant argues that McCarthy does not describe a value of the first information in in a range of greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 52. The applicant argues that McCarthy does not specify an upper limit and is open to a risk overflow during calculation. The present application describes an upper limit to prevent such overflow by defining a limited value range of 0 to 52.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation requires that the value be in a range between 0 and 52. McCarthy teaches that a value is greater than 0 and while McCarthy does not have an upper limit, the value greater than 0 is an overlapping range with that claimed of between 0 and 52.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
The applicant argues that no upper limit would risk overflow but does not show how a range of 0 to 52 is critical. It appears any upper limit would not risk overflow. Therefore, McCarthy meets the limitation and Suzuki in view of McCarthy is maintained.
It is noted a second prior art rejection is given using a reference that also has no upper limit. This same response would apply for those arguments.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 4 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.
Claim 2 recites “a video decoding apparatus configured to…” and Claim 4 recites “ a video coding apparatus configured to….” Claims 2 and 4 are vague because they are directed to apparatus claims and require structural elements to perform the functions.
The claims are directed to a process, but are drafted as apparatus claims, which is considered “improper form.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki et al (US 2024/0314308 and hereafter referred to as “Suzuki”) in view of McCarthy et al (“Additional SEI messages for VSEI (Draft 1)” Document:JVET-Z20006-V1 – provided by the applicant on 07/15/2025)
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki discloses a video decoding apparatus comprising:
decode coded data to generate a decoded image (Figure 1, 31, Page 3, paragraph 0045); and
convert, using a neural network, a resolution of the decoded image to a specified resolution by using inverse conversion information,
decode first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters (Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is in a range of greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to, 52.
McCarthy discloses wherein decode first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural network (Page 14, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters), a value of the first information is in a range of greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to, 52 (Page 14, see equation 86) and definition of nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by McCarthy in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with McCarthy’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki discloses a video coding apparatus configured to:
generate inverse conversion information for inversely converting a resolution of a decoded image obtained by decoding coded data (Figure 1, 51, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238) and
code first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters, and a value of the first information (Page 2, paragraph 0044, Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227),
generate coded data including the inverse conversion information and the first information (Page 2, paragraph 0038, 0039, Figure 1, 41, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52.
McCarthy discloses wherein the resolution inverse conversion circuit decodes first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural network in the resolution inverse conversion apparatus is decoded (Page 14, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters), a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52 (Page 14, see equation 86) and definition of nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by McCarthy in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with McCarthy’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki discloses a method for generating coded data, the method comprising:
generating the coded data including inverse conversion information and first information (Page 2, paragraph 0038, 0039, Figure 1, 41, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238), wherein:
the inverse conversion information is information for inversely converting a resolution of a decoded image obtained by decoding the coded data, the first information indicates a maximum number of neural network parameters (Page 2, paragraph 0044, Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52.
McCarthy discloses wherein the resolution inverse conversion circuit decodes first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural network in the resolution inverse conversion apparatus is decoded (Page 14, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters), a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52 (Page 14, see equation 86) and definition of nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by McCarthy in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with McCarthy’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki in view of Deshpande et al (US 2025/0378588 and hereafter referred to as “Deshpande”).
The applied reference has a common assignee and/or common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki discloses a video decoding apparatus comprising:
decode coded data to generate a decoded image (Figure 1, 31, Page 3, paragraph 0045); and
convert, using a neural network, a resolution of the decoded image to a specified resolution by using inverse conversion information,
decode first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters (Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is in a range of greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to, 52.
Deshpande discloses wherein decode first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural network (Page 20, paragraph 0211-0213, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters), a value of the first information is in a range of greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to, 52 (Page 20, paragraph 0211-0213, definition of nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with Deshpande’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki discloses a video coding apparatus configured to:
generate inverse conversion information for inversely converting a resolution of a decoded image obtained by decoding coded data (Figure 1, 51, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238) and
code first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters, and a value of the first information (Page 2, paragraph 0044, Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227),
generate coded data including the inverse conversion information and the first information (Page 2, paragraph 0038, 0039, Figure 1, 41, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52.
Deshpande discloses wherein decodes first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural network, a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52 (Page 20, paragraph 0211-0213, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with Deshpande’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki discloses a method for generating coded data, the method comprising:
generating the coded data including inverse conversion information and first information (Page 2, paragraph 0038, 0039, Figure 1, 41, Page 2, paragraph 0041, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238), wherein:
the inverse conversion information is information for inversely converting a resolution of a decoded image obtained by decoding the coded data, the first information indicates a maximum number of neural network parameters (Page 2, paragraph 0044, Figure 1, 61, Page 2-3, paragraph 0046, Page 8, paragraph 0138 Page 14-15, paragraph 0238, Page 14, paragraph 0227).
Suzuki is silent on a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52.
Deshpande discloses decodes first information indicating a maximum number of neural network parameters of the neural networked (Page 20, paragraph 0211-0213, nnpfc_num_paramaters_idc, MaxNumParameters, Figure 1), a value of the first information is greater than, or equal to, 0 and less than, or equal to 52 (Page 20, paragraph 0211-0213, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to maintain performance for coding efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination with Deshpande’s greater than 0 is an overlapping range of 0 to 52, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2144.05, II.
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777…. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range.
See MPEP § 2131.03.
Conclusion
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 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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
October 28, 2025