DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on November 25, 2025. Claims 107-129 are pending and are examined.
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
The amendments made to original claims 107 and 125-126 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received October 31, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose “wherein respect to two parts in the plurality of parts, two pieces of motion information finally used for coding the two parts are allowed to be the same”. Specifically, Applicant argues that in Xiu, even when the base MVs of the two GPS partitions are identical, the refinements are ensured to be different such that the final MVs using for predicting are ensured to be different. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 107, 125, and 126.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art on record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 107-109, 113-114, 117-118, 123-124, and 126-129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2021/0392322 (“Chiang”).
With respect to claim 107, Chiang teaches:
A method for video processing, comprising:
deriving, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion information of a plurality of parts of the video unit from a same merge candidate (see Figs. 2-4B, 10, ¶¶24-26, 51-52, 63-64, 70, 72, describing that, during encoding/decoding, i.e., during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream, the system derives motion information for two partitions of a video block from a shared merge candidate list, i.e., derives motion information of a plurality of parts of the video unit from a same merge candidate); and
performing the conversion based on the derived motion information, wherein respect to two parts in the plurality of parts, two pieces of motion information finally used for coding the two parts are allowed to be the same (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, including, ¶¶70-73, describing encoding/decoding, i.e., performing the conversion, based on the derived candidate MV, wherein with respect to the two partitions, the motion information of the two partitions may be the same (same MVs, same reference list and same reference picture index or same, or same MVs and same reference picture) and is not modified for deriving a new candidate, rather is treated as the uniform uni-prediction CU, i.e., two pieces of motion information finally used for coding the two parts are allowed to be the same).
With respect to claim 108, Chiang additionally teaches:
further comprising:
using the motion information for the two parts, wherein the motion information comprises list X motion information, and the list X comprises any of a list 0 and a list 1; or
wherein deriving the motion information comprises: deriving the two pieces of motion information of the two parts from the same merge candidate, and the two pieces of motion information are the same; or
wherein the two pieces of motion information are different; or
wherein using the motion information for the two parts comprises: using the list X motion information for one of the two parts, and using a list Y motion information for the other part in the two parts (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above, describing that deriving the motion information comprises deriving the MVs of the two partitions from the same candidate and the two MVs, i.e., two pieces of motion information, are the same).
With respect to claim 109, Chiang additionally teaches:
wherein the video unit is partitioned by a GPM (Geometric Partitioning Mode) mode without MVD (Motion Vector Difference); or
wherein the video unit is partitioned by a difference-based partitioning mode, and the difference-based partitioning mode comprises a GPM mode with MVD, the GPM mode with MVD being referred to as GMVD; or
wherein the merge candidate comprises any of: a GPM/difference-based partitioning mode merge candidate, a normal merge candidate, and another extended/advanced merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above, including Fig. 10 and ¶¶62-64, 70, describing that the video unit may be partitioned by triangular partitioning, i.e., GPM, with or without modification from an MV offset, i.e., without MVD or with MVD).
With respect to claim 113, Chiang additionally teaches:
wherein the video unit comprises a GPM block, and the method further comprises:
in response to a determination that two pieces of motion information of two parts of the GPM block are derived from the same merge candidate, applying a group of rules to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above, including, ¶70, describing that in response to a determination that the MVs of both partitions of block, which as detailed in Fig. 10 may be triangular/GPM partitions, are derived from the same merge index/candidate, a set of conditions/rules may be applied, e.g., the block/CU is treated as uniform uni-prediction or the motion information is modified by a pre-defined or derived MVD/offset).
With respect to claim 114, Chiang additionally teaches:
wherein the group of rules comprise: coding at least one part of the video unit with GPM with MVD, or
wherein the group of rules comprise: in response to a determination that the two parts are both coded with GPM with MVD, determining that MVD of the two parts are not the same; or
wherein the group of rules comprise: in response to a determination that the two parts are both coded with GPM with MVD, verifying that a difference between two MVDs of the two parts is not equal to a threshold; or
wherein the difference comprises any of the difference and an absolute difference between two MVDs of the two parts, and the difference is less than or beyond the threshold (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 114 above, describing that the conditions/rules may include coding at least part of the video unit with triangular/GPM mode with an MV-offset/MVD).
With respect to claim 117, Chiang additionally teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: excluding, from the bitstream, at least one of motion candidate index for a GPM coded block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and ¶¶35, 70, describing that the candidate index may be derived rather than signaled, i.e., its candidate index is not signaled in the bitstream/is excluded).
With respect to claim 118, Chiang additionally teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: transmitting a first GPM merge index for a video block; and ceasing a transmission of a second GPM merge index; or
wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the two pieces of motion information of the two parts of the video unit are derived from the same merge candidate, ceasing a transmission of the second GPM merge index; or
wherein the method further comprises: transmitting only one GPM merge index for the video block; or
wherein the method further comprises: determining a mode for deriving the other GPM merge index based on whether all parts of the video unit use same merge candidate; or
wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the other GPM merge index is not presented, deriving the other GPM merge index for the other part from the transmitted GPM merge index; or
wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the other GPM merge index is not presented, inferring the other GPM merge index to be equal to the transmitted GPM merge index (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 117, including ¶¶35, 70, describing that one candidate index may be signaled for one partition and the other derived, i.e., transmitting a first merge index for a video block and ceasing a transmission of a second merge index; see also Fig. 10, showing that such partitions may be triangular/GPM).
With respect to claim 123, Chiang additionally teaches:
further comprising: applying the GPM/the difference-based partitioning mode independent of whether the maximum number of normal merge candidate is equal to one (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and including Fig. 10, ¶¶63, 70, which describes applying GPM/difference-based partitioning mode without consideration to, i.e., independent of, whether the max number of merge candidates is one).
With respect to claim 124, Chiang additionally teaches:
further comprising: modifying the motion information derived from a first merge candidate of a part in a coded block,
wherein the coded block is selected from any of a GPM coded block and a coded block according to a difference-based partitioning mode; or
wherein modifying the motion information comprises: in response to a determination that the motion information derived from the first merge candidate of the part in the coded block is the same to the motion information derived from a second merge candidate, modifying the motion information derived from the first merge candidate of the part in the coded block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above, including ¶¶70, describing that the MV, i.e., motion information derived from a first merge candidate, of a partition in a GPM coded block may be modified by a MV-offset and that this also may be done in response to the MVs/merge indices of the two partitions being the same).
With respect to claim 126, claim 126 recites the elements of claim 107 in non-transitory computer-readable medium format instead of method format. Xiu details that its method may be performed by a processor executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see ¶¶94-101). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 107 also applies to claim 126.
With respect to claim 127, Chiang teaches:
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (see Chiang ¶¶23, 54, 55, describing that the bitstream/signal may be stored in a buffer, i.e., non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
With respect to claim 128, Chiang teaches:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and ¶72, describing that the conversion may be encoding the video unit into the bitstream by an encoder).
With respect to claim 129, Chiang teaches:
wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and ¶72, describing that the conversion may be decoding the video unit from the bitstream by a decoder).
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.
Claims 110-112, 1115-116, and 121-122 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0115074 (“Xiu”), which corresponds to a priority application dated June 2020.
With respect to claim 110, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang discloses each and every element of independent claim 107. Chiang additionally discloses:
wherein deriving the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit from the same merge candidate comprises:
determining whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate …; and
in response to a determination that the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate, deriving motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit from the same merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and describing that the system may determine if the partitions may share a merge candidate list and whether the candidates may have the same motion information, if so, it may derive the motion information from the same merge candidate).
Chaing does not explicitly disclose determining whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate based on whether a non-zero motion vector difference is applied to a GPM block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiu discloses that it was known to determine whether the same merge candidate may be used based on whether a non-zero motion vector difference is applied to a GPM block (see ¶¶75-76, 83, 115-116, describing that the decision of whether the base MVs is allowed to be the same may be dependent upon the values of MVRs and whether they are zero).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with using a shared merge candidate list for multiple partitions and in what situations it is helpful to allow both partitions to use the same merge candidate. Such a person would also have understood that, as evidence by Xiu, one such situation would be when a non-zero MVD/offset is applied to the partitioned block. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, basing the decision of whether the same merge candidate may be used for both partitions in Chiang on whether their offset/MVR value is zero, as taught by Xiu, would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for basing the decision of whether the same merge candidate may be used for both partitions on whether the offset/MVR value applied to the block is zero within the list in the coding system of Chiang as taught by Xiu.
With respect to claim 111, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of dependent claim 110. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
wherein determining whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate comprises: in response to a determination that GPM with non-zero motion vector difference is used for the video unit, determining that the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate; or
wherein the GPM with non-zero motion vector difference comprises the difference-based partitioning mode, and the video unit comprises a video block; or
wherein determining whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate comprises: in response to a determination that the video block is coded by GPM without motion vector difference, determining that the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is not allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 110 above, describing that, in the combined system, if triangular/GPM partitioning is used and the MVD/offset is non-zero for the video unit, the MV is allowed to be derived from the same merge candidate).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 110 above also applies to claim 111.
With respect to claim 112, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of dependent claim 111. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
further comprises any of:
transmitting an indication of whether the difference-based partitioning mode is used for a video block before a motion candidate index; or
determining a mode for transmitting the candidate index based on usage of the difference-based partitioning mode, and wherein the motion candidate index comprises an GPM merge candidate index (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and Xiu ¶¶67, 75-76, 78, 83, Tables 4-5, describing that it was known for the system to transmit an indication of whether GPM-MVR, i.e., a difference-based partitioning mode, may be used for a video block and that this may be transmitted before the motion candidate index).
As detailed above, Chiang describes the use of a triangular/GPM partitioning mode, of signaling prediction information for such partitions, and that this may be done using MV-offsets, i.e., difference based partitioning. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the use of difference based partitioning modes and the mechanisms for indicating to the decoder that such a mode is used for coding. Such a person would also have understood that, as evidenced by Xiu, one such mechanism would include the transmission of an indication of such a mode prior to the transmission of the motion candidate index, allowing for the determining of the mode for transmitting the index accordingly. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu when such a mode is used, as taught by Xiu, would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism transmitting an indication of whether an offset/difference-based partitioning mode is used for a block prior to the transmission of the motion candidate index for that block and determining the mode for transmitting the index accordingly in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu as taught by Xiu.
With respect to claim 115, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of independent claim 107. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
transmitting a syntax element for the video unit, the syntax element specifying whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is derived from the same merge candidate, wherein the syntax element comprises a flag, and the video unit comprises a video block (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 110-112 above and Xiu ¶¶57, 60, 67-68, 75, 78, 85-87, showing and describing transmission of syntax elements including flags that specify whether information about the motion information for the partitions and their merge candidates and that the partitioning of a video unit comprising a video CU/block).
Examiner notes that although these references do not explicitly recite a flag that is marked true when the merge indices are identical for both partitions, Chiang/Xiu describe the checking of such conditions and the use of syntax/flags to indicate information in the bitstream, including information about merge candidates, modes, and rules/conditions (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood it to be well-known to use flags to indicate whether a checked condition is true or false (see, e.g., U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2014/0241437 ¶137, describing the processing of a special flag to indicate whether a checked condition is satisfied, and 2013/0279568 ¶93, describing that conditions may be indicated by ON/OFF flags, including conditions that compare information between neighboring regions).
Accordingly, to such a person, it would have been an obvious alternative to the decoder checking to see if merge_idx0 == merge_idx1 to signal a flag at the encoder indicating whether such a condition exists. Doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Accordingly, in view of the level of skill in the art, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses the syntax element specifying whether the motion information of the plurality of parts of the video unit is derived from the same merge candidate.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art recited with respect to claims 107 and 110 also apply to claim 115.
With respect to claim 116, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of dependent claim 115. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: coding the video unit with any of: GPM without MVD; and GPM with MVD, GPM with MVD being referred to as GMVD; or
wherein transmitting the syntax element further comprises: transmitting the syntax element based on a group of conditions; or
wherein the method further comprises: coding the syntax element with context based arithmetic coding; or
wherein the method further comprises: determining a number of candidate indices that are to be coded based on the syntax element (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 115 above, describing that the video unit may be coded with GPM with or without MVD or other MVR refinement).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 107, 110, and 115 also apply to claim 116.
With respect to claim 121, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of independent claim 107. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
further comprising: applying the same binarization process of GPM merge candidate index coding for all candidates that are to be coded, wherein the candidates correspond to the plurality of parts (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and Xiu ¶¶73, 84, describing that the same binarization process of the merge indices may be used for each partition).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the binarization of indices, including in coding systems that use partitioning, e.g., GPM/triangular partitioning. Such a person would also have understood that, as evidenced by Xiu, it was known that the indices for coding the partitioned candidates may be binarized in the same manner. This especially makes sense b/c, as detailed above, the candidates (and thereby their indices) are shared for the partitions. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using a common binarization process for coding both merge candidate indices for the two partitions in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for applying the same binarization process to code the merge candidate indices for each merge candidate and its corresponding GPM/triangular partition in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu as taught by Xiu.
With respect to claim 122, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang in view of Xiu discloses each and every element of independent claim 107. Chiang/Xiu additionally discloses:
wherein during the binarization process, the value of the input parameter for part-0 GPM merge candidate index and the value of the input parameter for part-1 GPM merge candidate index are same, wherein the value of the input parameter comprises cMax, and cMax = MaxNumGpmMergeCand - 1, MaxNumGpmMergeCand denotes the maximum allowed number of GPM merge candidates (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 121 above, and Xiu describing that the two partitions may share a merge candidate list and use the same candidate index – one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have expected that where a shared list is used, the maximum number of merge candidates is the same; see also Xiu ¶73, describing that in such a system, the input parameters for binarizing the merge candidate indices may include the maximum binarization value, which is equal to MaxGPMMergeCand-1).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the binarization of merge candidate indices for a merge candidate list and the inputs to such a binarization process. Such a person would also have understood that, as evidenced by Xiu, it was known that these input would include the maximum binarization value, which is equal to the number of candidates-1. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, such binarization inputs in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for including the maximum binarization value for the shared merge candidate list, which is equal to the number of candidates-1, as a binarization input in the coding system of Chiang/Xiu as taught by Xiu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 119-120 and 125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of the level of skill in the art.
With respect to claim 119, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang discloses all the elements of independent claim 107. Chiang additionally discloses:
further comprising: determining a motion vector of a merge candidate X at a position Px in a merge candidate list mergeCandList based on the transmitted GPM merge candidate index,
wherein X = mergeCandList[Px], and the transmitted GPM merge candidate index comprises merge_gpm _idx0 and merge_gpm _idx1 for all parts, and the all parts comprise part0 and part1 of a GPM block; or
wherein Px indicates the transmitted GPM merge candidate index and the transmitted GPM merge candidate index comprises any of: merge_gpm_idx0 and merge_gpm _ idx1 (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above and Chiang Figs. 2-4B, ¶¶13-15, 70, describing that the partitions may be triangular/GPM partitions with a partition for list 0 and a partition for list 1, and that the system may determine and transmit a MV of a merge candidate X at a position Px (see positions in Figs. 2-4B indicating the merge candidate index for each partition) in a merge candidate list based on the transmitted merge candidate index, where X is the position in the merge candidate list, the transmitted merge candidate index (e.g., triangular/GPM merge candidate index) comprises an index for list-0 and an index for list-1 for all parts, and the parts may comprise a first and second partition (e.g., partition 0 and partition 1) of a triangular/GPM block).
Examiner notes that the names of specific software variables, e.g., merge_gpm_idx0, mergeCandList, etc., are merely variables that would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be interchangeable with any other variable that indicates the same information. For example, Chiang uses merge_idx for L0 and L1, these would have been understood to be synonymous, and thereby interchangeable, with Merge_gpm_idx0 and merge_gpm_idx1 where GPM partitioning is used. Likewise, mergeCandList (described as a merge candidate list) and Px (e.g., shown by the position in the merge index charges of the cited figures) are synonymous with any other name for a merge candidate list a position within such list and thus, the specific names do not make such information patentable where the concepts are clearly shown.
With respect to claim 120, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chiang in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 119. Chiang additionally discloses:
wherein the method is always applied for a GPM coded block without MVD; or
wherein the method is applied to a GPM or a difference-based partitioning mode based on a condition; or
wherein the condition comprises a syntax element (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 107 and 119 above, including ¶70 describing that the method may be, i.e., always be, applied to a GPM coded block without MV-offset, i.e., MVD).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 119 so apply to claim 120.
With respect to claim 125, Chiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chiang discloses all the elements of independent claim 107. Chiang additionally discloses:
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non- transitory memory with instructions thereon (see ¶¶72, 76, describing a video encoder/decoder, i.e., apparatus for processing video data, comprising a processor performing software, i.e., instructions that would have been understood to be stored thereon for performing the described methods of the invention), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
derive, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion information of a plurality of parts of the video unit from a same merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above); and
perform the conversion based on the derived motion information, wherein respect to two parts in the plurality of parts, two pieces of motion information finally used for coding the two parts are allowed to be the same (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 107 above).
Although Chiang does not explicitly recite a computer-readable storage medium for storing the software executed by the processor, Chiang discloses a that the invention may be embodied in hardware and software and by program code integrated into video compression software executed by a processor (see ¶76). Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood such software to be stored in a non-transitory memory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481