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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at pages 2-3, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the restriction requirement mailed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The requirement to elect a species is successfully traversed. As a result, no pending claim is subject to a restriction requirement and claims 1-20 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 59 of the specification contains two misspellings of “HEVC”: “HVEC” and “HEVE”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, in part, “a histogram of a maximum value among an R value, a G value, and a B value for a plurality of frames included in the first video”. It is unclear if this means a histogram is calculated for each color channel, for each frame, or a single histogram for the plurality of frame, or something else. The meaning of “a histogram of a maximum value” is particularly unclear and confusing. Histograms can have a maximum bin or count value amongst a distribution of values, but a “histogram of a maximum value” is confusing. If the “maximum value” is meant to refer to one of the maximum luminances in claim 1, the claim is more confusing because luminance is measured in nits and RGB values are unitless scalar values. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 3 is interpreted the recite the same subject matter as claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed inventions absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20200145570 to Umeyama (hereinafter “Umeyama”) in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20200193935 to Van De Kerkhof et al. (hereinafter “Kerkhof”).
Regarding claim 1, Umeyama teaches an electronic device comprising:
at least one camera (Umeyama, par. 34, “imaging optical system 1102 forms an optical image”); and
at least one processor (Umeyama, par. 5, “at least one processor”),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a first video through the at least one camera (Umeyama, par. 35, “The imaging element 1102 captures an object image (a moving image representing the object)”; The moving image (video data) that is initially acquired is a first video.), wherein a maximum luminance (3000 nits. See FIG. 19) of the first video is a first luminance (Umeyama, par. 47, “a maximum value of a frame maximum brightness acquired with respect to one scene or, in other words, a maximum brightness value (a scene maximum brightness value) of the moving image data of the scene is acquired as a scene characteristic amount.”; The “brightness” is measured in nits, so “brightness” = “luminance”.),
identify a first tone mapping function (a tone curve for a first scene, e.g., tone curve 3702. See Umeyama at FIG. 22) for converting the first video into a second video (When a scene change is detected, scene-specific dynamic metadata is generated. See Umeyama at FIG. 4, step S1402. Umeyama at par. 62, “As a result, a display method of a moving image can be sequentially changed on the basis of dynamic metadata. For example, in HDR (high dynamic range) display using tone mapping, a tone map can be sequentially changed on the basis of dynamic metadata.” A second video is a tone-mapped scene of the first (input) video. Scene change may be determined from a variation in maximum brightness between consecutive frames. See id. at par. 65), wherein a maximum luminance of the second video is a second luminance (As an example, 1000 nits maximum display brightness. See id. at FIG. 22) that is lower than the first luminance (As an example, 1000 nits is lower than 3000 nits. See id. at FIG. 22. The tone mapping function depends on the “upper limit of a display apparatus”. See Umeyama at par. 239. A luminance value that exceeds the maximum supported display luminance is converted to a range with a lower maximum luminance value, such as a 3000 nit data luminance mapped to a display maximum of 1000 nits shown in FIG. 22.),
identify a second tone mapping function (another tone curve, e.g., tone curve 3701. See Umeyama at FIG. 22) for converting the first video into a third video (The tone curve 3702 produces the “second video” and the tone curve 3701 produces the “first video”. See Umeyama at par. 239, “The display apparatus changes the tone curve in accordance with dynamic metadata output from the imaging apparatus 3100.”),
store first metadata (Dynamic metadata for a first scene is first metadata. See Umeyama, par. 62, “information (dynamic metadata) which associates the scene maximum brightness value to each of the plurality of scenes is generated.”; par. 43, “a parameter specified in SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) ST 2094 may be transmitted as dynamic metadata. Specifically, Scene-MaxCLL (Maximum Content Light Level) specified in HDR10+ may be transmitted as dynamic metadata.”; pars. 93-99, “The storage unit 2101 is a random-access recording medium such as a CF (compact flash) card, and moving image data to which static metadata and dynamic metadata have been added is recorded in the storage unit 2101.”), which is based on the first tone mapping function (Umeyama, par. 62, “As a result, a display method of a moving image can be sequentially changed on the basis of dynamic metadata. For example, in HDR (high dynamic range) display using tone mapping, a tone map can be sequentially changed on the basis of dynamic metadata.”) and second metadata (Umeyama, par. 57, “The moving image data after adding metadata thereto is recorded in the storage unit 1109.”), which is based on the second tone mapping function (metadata specifies the tone-mapping function) to be correlated with the first video (The encoded video correlates or associates the metadata with each scene. See Umeyama at par. 57, “In this case, it is assumed that metadata is added as the SEI of HEVC. In addition, as the moving image data after adding the metadata thereto, an HEVC file generated by an encoding process of HEVC is recorded in the storage unit 1109.”), but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Kerkhof.
Kerkhof teaches wherein a maximum luminance (100 nits) of the third video is a third luminance that is lower (100 nits is lower than 1000 nits) than the second luminance (Kerkhof, par. 12, “there will for the coming years be a large installed base of people having a legacy SDR display of 100 nit PB_D, or at least some display which cannot make 5000 nit white ... and those people need to be able to somehow see the HDR movie too, and ideally as optimally as possible ... So there needs to be some mechanism to convert from a 5000 nit PB_C HDR image to a 100 nit SDR look image of the same scene.”; par. 19, “video coding system not only can handle the communication (encoding) of merely a single standardized HDR video (e.g. 10 bit perceptual quantizer used as luma code defining EOTF for the encoding), for a typical single kind of display in the field (e.g. images defined with PB_C=1000 nit, under the assumption that every end viewer having a 1000 nit PB_D display), but which can at the same time communicate and handle the videos which have an optimal look/grading for various possible other display types with various other peak brightnesses in the field, in particular the SDR image for a 100 nit PB_D SDR display.”).
Umeyama discloses HDR10+ video encoding that converts a video to a lower maximum luminance supported by a display using a tone mapping function indicated by metadata associated with specific frames and/or scenes of the video. Thus, Umeyama shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert a maximum scene or object luminance of the displayed video to a lower maximum value that is supported by the display, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, identifying a suitable tone mapping function based on the maximum supported display luminance. Kerkhof discloses HDR video encoding with dynamic metadata that converts a video to a lower maximum display luminance, specifically the SDR range. Kerkhof also discloses an equivalence between peak brightness and maximum luminance, and luma code values (YCbCr) and RGB code values. See id. par. 5. Thus, Kerkhof shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encode HDR10+ video using a tone mapping function to set the displayed maximum displayed luminance to be compatible with SDR displays or displays with a higher or lower maximum luminance, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, identifying a suitable tone mapping function based on the maximum supported display luminance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the HDR10+ video encoding process as disclosed by Umeyama with dynamic metadata that generates tone mapping curves for 100 nit, 1000 nit or any other realizable maximum display luminance as disclosed by Kerkhof, to thereby identify an HDR tone mapping function (e.g., 1000 nit maximum first tone mapping function) or an SDR tone mapping function (e.g., 100 nit maximum second tone mapping function) depending on the display’s capabilities to display the tone-mapped video whether it is in YCbCr or RGB format. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of supporting the “large installed base of people having a legacy SDR display” that “need to be able to somehow see the HDR movie too, and ideally as optimally as possible” as suggested by Kerkhof (par. 12).
Regarding claim 2, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second tone mapping function is defined individually for a plurality of frames included in the first video (Dynamic metadata can define a new tone mapping function for any number of frames and/or scenes. See Umeyama at par. 95, “Dynamic metadata is metadata indicating a brightness that varies depending on a frame or a scene of a moving image and, in the present embodiment, dynamic metadata is assumed to be metadata indicating a maximum brightness of each frame or each scene of a corresponding moving image.”).
Regarding claim 7, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify third metadata indicating a frame corresponding to a scene change within the first video (Umeyama, par. 250, “a timing where a frame maximum brightness varies between frames by an amount equal to or larger than a threshold is detected as a timing of a scene change.”), based on an amount of change in frame images of the first video (Umeyama, par. 260, “dynamic metadata is regenerated so as to indicate a scene maximum brightness with a timing where the photography frame rate has been changed and a timing where the frame maximum brightness varies by an amount equal to or larger than a threshold as timings of scene change. Specifically, among a period of the ordinary reproduction moving image 3811, a period from a time point 0 where reproduction is started to a time point t1 where the frame maximum brightness varies from a brightness La to a brightness Lb is detected as a period of one scene.”), and
store the third metadata to be correlated with the first video (Dynamic metadata is generated from the detected frame maximum brightness and stored in a storage unit 3107. See Umeyama at FIG. 16).
Regarding claim 8, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a resource condition of the electronic device (Maximum displayable luminance of the display. See Kerkhof at par. 5, “the to be rendered maximum display luminance for having the HDR image look optimal may be e.g. 1000 nit, 5000 nit, or 10000 nit.”), and
identify the third metadata (Dynamic metadata for constructing an appropriate tone curve is generated from the detected frame maximum brightness. See Umeyama at FIG. 16.), based on the resource condition (The display used to master the video content has an associated maximum luminance (resource condition). See Kerkhof at par. 15. All tone-mapping functions that convert the original dynamic range to a smaller dynamic range, including a second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on, are based on the original intent at the mastered peak luminance.). The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a plurality of pieces of third metadata having different scene change coefficients (Umeyama, par. 39, “the metadata generating unit 1106 generates information that associates the acquired scene characteristic amount to each scene as dynamic metadata.”), and
store a plurality of scene change coefficients corresponding to the plurality of pieces of third metadata to correspond to the plurality of pieces of third metadata (Storing metadata in a storage unit, where the See Umeyama at FIG. 16).
Claims 10, 11 and 15-17 substantially correspond to claims 1, 2 and 7-9 by reciting method steps substantially corresponding to the functions of the electronic device of claims 10, 11 and 15-17. The rationale for obvious is the same for each corresponding claim as indicated above.
Claims 3-6, 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeyama in view of Kerkhof and in further view of U.S. Pat No. 9916638 to Yeung et al. (hereinafter “Yeung”).
Regarding claim 3, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the second tone mapping function (SDR max luminance tone mapping function indicated by dynamic metadata - Kerkhof at FIG. 1), based on the third luminance (100 nits - Kerkhof at FIG. 1) and analysis of a histogram of a maximum value among an R value, a G value, and a B value (See Kerkhof at FIG. 4 and pars. 5 and 18, “automatically determined transformations ... based on analyzing ... luminance histogram”) for a plurality of frames included in the first video (Dynamic metadata (“characteristic amount”) is generated from the scene maximum brightness value. See Umeyama at pars. 56 and 207. The tone curve is specified by the dynamic metadata. See id. at par. 239.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Umeyama in view of Kerkhof does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Yeung.
Yeung teaches a tone mapping function in a Bezier curve form (Yeung, col. 5, ll. 5-17, “Transfer function, e.g. transfer curve 116 is characterized by HDR metadata 122, which comprises a metadata set 124 comprised of static metadata (not shown) and dynamic metadata. Dynamic metadata of metadata set 124 can include one or more anchors (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more) and one or more knee points (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more) for the Bézier curve tone mapper. These parameters allow one or more fixed points to be set and/or control a slope of the curve in one or more regions. Metadata set 124 further includes image characteristics (e.g., average maximum of color components, fraction of bright pixels, and the like) and target display characteristics (e.g., maximum luminance, and actual peak luminance).”).
Umeyama and Kerkhof are analogous for the reasons provided above.
Yeung discloses HDR tone mapping with static and dynamic metadata and using Bezier curves as tone-mapping functions. The Bezier tone curves are defined by knee points and anchors in the metadata and are used to reproduce the encoded video on an HDR or SDR display. See Yeung at FIG. 1B. Thus, Yeung shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store Bezier curve parameters in static or dynamic metadata, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, identifying a suitable tone mapping function based on the maximum supported display luminance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the metadata generated by the HDR10+ encoding process of Umeyama in view of Kerkhof to include parameters that are used to reconstruct suitable Bezier curves as tone curves at the display as disclosed by Yeung, to thereby optimize the encoded video based on the maximum supported display brightness. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of storing the tone curve in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 4, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Yeung.
Yeung teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the second tone mapping function by non-linearly scaling the first tone mapping function. (Yeung, col. 5, ll. 31-44, “As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the sigmoidal transfer function, e.g. sigmoidal transfer curve 114, determined from source content metadata 110, is used to compute a best fit (or perceptually reasonable fit) to transfer function, e.g. transfer curve 116 by metadata transformation unit 126. Fit can be determined by, as examples, multivariate linear regression, simple linear regression, sum of squares, offset absolute values, least squares (linear or non-linear), root-mean-square error, average absolute deviation, or mean squared error. The resulting fit defines at least one metadata parameter of dynamic metadata of metadata set 124. The fit characterizes the linear portion 118, non-linear portion 120, or both. In other words, necessary anchor and knee points for an appropriate Bézier curve can be computed.” The source content can be mapped to a higher or lower dynamic range. See Yeung at col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 6. Transforming curve 114 to a new curve with a linear and non-linear portion for a lower dynamic range is a non-linear scaling of the curve 114.).
Umeyama, Kerkhof and Yeung are analogous for the reasons provided above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to convert the dynamic metadata that converts HDR to SDR disclosed by Umeyama in view of Kerkhof to the same or a different maximum display luminance with a Bezier curve having a linear segment and/or a non-linear segment as disclosed by Yeung, to thereby calculate new tone curves from existing dynamic metadata. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of calculating tone curves without having to re-process the original image data.
Regarding claim 5, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Yeung.
Yeung teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify a third tone mapping function for converting the first video into a fourth video by simplifying the second tone mapping function (e.g., linear approximation of curved tone mapping segment. See Yeung at FIG. 1A.), wherein a maximum luminance of the fourth video is the third luminance that is lower than the second luminance (The source content can be mapped to a higher or lower dynamic range. See Yeung at col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 6.), and
the second metadata is identified based on the second tone mapping function and the third tone mapping function (Generating new metadata, e.g., metadata 124, for the display. See Yeung at FIG. 1A).
Umeyama, Kerkhof and Yeung are analogous for the reasons provided above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to simplify a curved or higher order tone mapping function disclosed by Umeyama in view of Kerkhof with a linear or lower order approximation as disclosed by Yeung, to thereby reduce the amount of data needed to reconstruct the tone curve for the display. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of reducing the amount of computation needed to generate the display’s tone curve.
Regarding claim 6, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof and in further view of Yeung teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the second metadata comprises information on an amount of calculations corresponding to the second tone mapping function and the third tone mapping function (The metadata comprises parameters that define linear and higher order segments of tone curves. See Yeung at FIGs. 1A and 1B. A line is a first-degree polynomial, i.e., y = mx + b. Higher order polynomials, e.g., quadratic, by definition, include more mathematical operations, e.g., y = ax2 +bx + c for quadratic or second order polynomials. Thus, the metadata for the tone curve segments is “information on an amount of calculations corresponding” to the tone mapping curves.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Claims 12-14 substantially correspond to claims 3-5 by reciting method steps substantially corresponding to the functions of the electronic device of claims 3-5. The rationale for obvious is the same for each corresponding claim as indicated above.
Claim 18 substantially corresponds to claim 1, further reciting
a display (Kerkhof, par. 15, “grading display”),
identify maximum luminance supported by the display and a function performed by an application of which an execution screen is displayed on the display (Kerkhof, par. 24, “In this manner one can, for each kind of HDR scene in a particular shot of consecutive images each time define the optimal functional relationship (function shape, typically a 1-dimensional function defining an L_out for each possible L_in, e.g. 0.1/100<L_in<100/100) between the HDR image pixel luminances, and the LDR image pixels luminances, so that both the HDR and SDR images recoverable at a receiving side will look their best”), and
display the first video based on the maximum luminance supported by the display and the function performed by the application (i.e., displaying the video on the grading display or displaying at the receiver with the same maximum luminance that the video was mastered. See Kerkhof at par. 15. For example, this limitation corresponds to mastering video with a 3000 nit display and then displaying the video on a 3000 nit grading display.), or display the second video based on the first tone mapping function (i.e., displaying the video on the grading display or displaying at the receiver with a maximum of 1000 nits when the video was mastered with a 3000 nit grading display. See Kerkhof at par. 15).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Umeyama in view of Kerkhof does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Yeung.
Yeung teaches a video having the third luminance as the maximum luminance based on the second tone mapping function (See Yeung at col. 3, ll. 47-67.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Umeyama in view of Kerkhof and in further view of Yeung teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
wherein the second metadata further indicates a third tone mapping function for converting the first video into a video having the third luminance as the maximum luminance (See Yeung at FIG. 1A and col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 6),
identify a resource condition of the electronic device (Maximum displayable luminance of the display. See Kerkhof at par. 5, “the to be rendered maximum display luminance for having the HDR image look optimal may be e.g. 1000 nit, 5000 nit, or 10000 nit.”),
perform tone mapping for the first video based on the second tone mapping function according to the resource condition (SDR max luminance tone mapping function indicated by dynamic metadata - Kerkhof at FIG. 1), or perform tone mapping for the first video based on the third tone mapping function (e.g., linear approximation of curved tone mapping segment. See Yeung at FIG. 1A.), and
display the video having the third luminance as the maximum luminance (Umeyama, par. 43, “Scene-MaxCLL (Maximum Content Light Level) specified in HDR10+ may be transmitted as dynamic metadata.”), based on the tone mapping for the first video as a part of an operation of displaying the video having the third luminance as the maximum luminance (Based on simplifying the second tone mapping curve. See Yeung at col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 6.), based on the maximum luminance supported by the display (Yeung, FIGs. 1A and 1B, “TargetedSystemDisplayMaximumLuminance”) and the function performed by the application (Yeung, FIGs. 1A and 1B, “ColorVolumeTransform”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 18.
Claim 20 substantially corresponds to the combined subject matter of claims 7-9, further reciting:
perform tone mapping for the first video based on one piece (i.e., for one scene and corresponding scene characteristic amount) of third metadata identified based on the resource condition among the plurality of pieces of third metadata (Umeyama, par. 39, “the metadata generating unit 1106 generates information that associates the acquired scene characteristic amount to each scene as dynamic metadata.”), and second metadata (i.e., corresponding tone mapping function), and
display a video having the third luminance as the maximum luminance (Umeyama, par. 43, “Scene-MaxCLL (Maximum Content Light Level) specified in HDR10+ may be transmitted as dynamic metadata.”), based on the tone mapping for the first video (Based on simplifying the second tone mapping curve. See Yeung at col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 6.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights