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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “After carefully considering the comments from the Examiner in both the Office Action and Advisory Action, the Applicant respectfully submits that Leleannec fails to disclose the above-emphasized limitations of claims 1 and 19-20. Specific statements are discussed below. … Firstly, the Applicant respectfully submits that Leleannec merely concerns that the method of applying the scaling process of the transform process ( e.g., determination of the scaling factor in the scaling process of the transform process) for a block depends on whether the block is dyadic or non-dyadic, but fails to disclose that the quantization or de-quantization process applied for a dyadic block is different from the quantization or de-quantization process applied for a non-dyadic block.”
Examiner notes that this argument is non-responsive. It repeats the same argument that was addressed the previous Office Action without considering the responses to arguments and the specific reasons for rejection provided in the previous Office Action.
As noted in the previous Office Action, Leleannec explicitly describes “scaling the quantized block by a scaling factor to obtain a scaled block;” This corresponds exactly to the claimed application “wherein the coding tool includes a scaling process in a transform or inverse transform process … wherein the coding tool includes a quantization or de-quantization process.” Cumulatively, as noted in the reasons for rejection with reference to AAPA, both the present Specification and Leleannec describe the same processes from the same HEVC video coding standard. Applicant’s decision to describe the scaling as part of quantization and Leleannec’s decision to describe the same scaling as being a separate function that is used with quantization is not a patentable distinction, because the same function is performed.
Examiner suggests claiming a specific deviation from the HEVC in view of particular video conditions or to solve a particular video coding problem arising out of the HEVC.
Applicant argues: “The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this interpretation of Leleannec and submits that Leleannec fails to disclose any specific equations for deriving the scaling factors as required by amended claim 1, e.g., 2-crzogz Wl+offsetl)' 2-crzogz Hl+offsetZ)' 2-ojfsetJ, or 2-ojfset_ In particular, the equations "S 1 = 3 x 2n1" and "S2 = 3 x 2n2" disclosed in Leleannec are directed to the width S1 and the height S2 of the block, NOT the scaling factor, which thus cannot be regarded as equivalent to disclosing the setting applied to the scaling factor as required by amended claim 1.”
Examiner notes that applicant’s interpretation of Leleannec is not accurate. In the portions of Leleannec noted by the Applicant, W and H stand for width and height, while S1 and S2 stand for scaling factors.
Drawings
Examiner has previously withdrawn objections to Figures 1-4, 6, 10, 11, 15 in view of the amended Prior Art labels.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amendments.
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 1, 4-6, 8-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018130414 to Leleannec (“Leleannec”) in view of Applicant admitted prior art found in the Specification (AAPA).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method for processing video data comprising:
performing, during a conversion between a first block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a coding tool on the first block based on whether the first block is dyadic or non-dyadic, (“A decoding method … wherein the scaling factor, i.e. its value, depends on whether at least one of the width and the height of the block is a power of 2.” Leleannec, Page 1 lines 31-32 and Page 2, lines 5-8.)
wherein the first block is with dimensions of WxH, W being a width of the first block and H being a height of the first block, and wherein in response to the first block being dyadic, both the width and the height of the first block are in a form of 2N with N being an integer; and (“The HEVC quantization and scaling are only adapted to square blocks whose width and/or height are/is a power of 2,” which is a definition of a dyadic block, and always in the form of 2N. Leleannec, Page 1 lines 27-28.)
performing the conversion based on the coding tool, (“A decoding method … - transforming the scaled block into an image block, wherein the scaling factor, i.e. its value, depends on whether at least one of the width and the height of the block is a power of 2.” Leleannec, Page 1 lines 31-32 and Page 2, lines 5-8.)
wherein the coding tool includes a scaling process in a transform or inverse transform process, and wherein the scaling process in the transform or inverse transform process is performed based on whether the first block is dyadic or non-dyadic, (First note that this is a limitation on the coding tool, and while the method is based on the coding tool, the method is not limited to using the coding tool in part or in its entirety. Thus, the broadest embodiments of this element are rejected for reasons stated above. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “transforming the scaled block into an image block, wherein the scaling factor, i.e. its value, depends on whether at least one of the width and the height of the block is a power of 2,” anotherwords it makes a distinction between dyadic blocks and various non-dyadic blocks. See Leleannec, Page 2, lines 5-8.)
wherein the coding tool includes a quantization or de-quantization process, (“scaling involves applying a scale factor to the residual information so that different frequency information is quantized at different granularities.” See Specification, Paragraph 70.)
wherein how to perform the quantization or de-quantization process on the first block is based on whether the first block is dyadic or non-dyadic, … wherein the quantization or de-quantization process applied for a dyadic block is different from the quantization or de-quantization process applied for a non-dyadic block, and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “the scaling factors in the quantization scaling matrix may be treated differently for non-dyadic blocks than dyadic blocks” which defines scaling to be part of the quantization. See Specification, Paragraphs 112, 70. Prior art teaches this, where the scaling factor is calculated in one way for dyadic blocks as in Leleannec, Page 1, lines 17-28, and in a different way for non-dyadic blocks “wherein the scaling factor depends on whether at least one of the width and the height of the block is a power of 2” in Leleannec, Page 2, lines 28-29 and the various scaling factors calculated on pages 3-4 indicating that the quantization methods are different for dyadic blocks with both width and heigh being a power of 2 and non-dyadic blocks where one or both dimensions are not power of 2.)
wherein when the first block is a non-dyadic block, at least one of the following is applied for the scaling process in the transform or inverse transform process: (“wherein the scaling factor, i.e. its value, depends on whether at least one of the width and the height of the block is a power of 2. … Advantageously, when neither s1 nor s2 is a power of 2 … ” Leleannec, Page 2, lines 5-8, and Page 3, line 24 - Page 4, line 8.)
a scaling factor after a first forward transform stage (ST1) is set to 2-([log2 W] + offset1 wherein offset1 is an integer and derived based on a function of a bit-depth; (Note that 2-([log2 W] + offset1) = -W * 2- offset1. Leleannec teaches this example as when the width is not a power of 2, S1 = 3 x 2n1, in this case 3 exemplifies W, and n1 represents -offset1. Leleannec, Page 3, line 24 - Page 4, line 8.)
Cumulatively, Prior art teaches: a scaling factor after a second forward transform stage (ST2) is set to 2-([log2 H] + offset2) wherein offset2 is an integer; (Note that 2-([log2 H] + offset2) = -W * 2- offset1. Leleannec teaches this example as when the height is not a power of 2, S2 = 3 x 2n2, in this case 3 exemplifies H, and n2 represents -offset2. Leleannec, Page 3, line 24 - Page 4, line 8.)
Cumulatively, Prior art teaches: a scaling factor after a first inverse transform stage (S1T1) is set to 2^(-offset3), wherein offset3 is an integer; (“Advantageously, when s1 is not a power of 2 [a non-dyadic block] and s2 is a power of 2, … S2 = 2n2,” Leleannec, Page 3, lines 6-20.)
Cumulatively, Prior art teaches: or a scaling factor after a second inverse transform stage (S1T2) is set to 2^(-offset4), wherein offset4 is an integer and derived based on a function of a bit-depth.” (“Advantageously, when s1 is not a power of 2 [a non-dyadic block] and s2 is a power of 2, … S2 = 2n2.” Leleannec, Page 3, lines 6-20.)
Cumulatively, although Leleannec often uses different language to describe the above features, it appears (from the substantively identical formulas using the substantively identical variable names) that both the present Specification and Leleannec describe the same processes from the same HEVC video coding standard. See Specification, Paragraphs 58-80 and Figs. 1-4, 6, 10-11, 15.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed invention in the manner described in Leleannec in order to apply the common HEVC standard to video coding.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following is applied for the scaling process in the transform or inverse transform process: … derivation of a scaling factor after a first forward transform stage (Sn) in response to the first block being non-dyadic is identical to derivation of the Sn in response to the first block being dyadic, … derivation of a scaling factor after a second forward transform stage (ST2) in response to the first block being non-dyadic is identical to derivation of the ST2 in response to the first block being dyadic, … derivation of a scaling factor after a first inverse transform stage (Sm) in response to the first block being non-dyadic is identical to derivation of the Sm in response to the first block being dyadic, or … derivation of a scaling factor after a second inverse transform stage (SIT2) in response to the first block being non-dyadic is identical to derivation of the SIT2 in response to the first block being dyadic.” (For example “Advantageously, when s1 is not a power of 2 and s2 is a power of 2, … S2 = 2n2,” which it the same derivation for S2 as if both S1 and S2 were powers of 2 [a dyadic bloc]. Leleannec, Page 3, lines 6-20.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein for the scaling process in the transform process: … when at least one of W and H is equal to 1, in response to the first block being non-dyadic, … a scaling factor after a first forward transform stage (Sn) for the first block and a scaling factor after a second forward transform stage (ST2) for the first block are different; and … wherein when H is equal to 1, ST1 s set to 2-([log2 w]+B-9), and ST2 is set to 1, wherein B is a bit-depth, or … wherein when W is equal to 1, Sn is set to 1, and ST2 is set to 2-([log2 H]+B-9), wherein B is a bit-depth.” (“where QP is the quantization parameter, coeff1Q is the resulting de-quantized transform coefficient, level is the quantized transform coefficient, offset1Q is the offset used for appropriate rounding, shift1 = (M - 9 + B) with B being the bit depth of the encoded video to which the block belongs, and offset1Q = 1 « (M-10+B).” Thus for H=1, the S1 would default to 1 and W would remain a function of (M - 9 + B) with M = W. See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 26-30.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein for the scaling process in the inverse transform process: … when at least one of W and H is equal to 1, in response to the first block being non-dyadic, … a scaling factor after a first inverse transform stage (Sm) for the first block and a scaling factor after a second inverse transform stage (SIT2) for the first block are different; and … wherein when His equal to 1, Sm is set to 2-(20-B), and SIT2 is set to 1, wherein Bis a bit-depth, … or wherein when W is equal to 1, Sm is set to 1, and SIT2 is set to 2-(20-B), wherein B is a bit-depth.” (For example “where B is the considered bit-depth. … After the second inverse transform stage (S1T2) … 2 -(20-B) …Such that: SIQ = 1.“ See Leleannec, Page 23, lines 3-11.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein when the first block is a non-dyadic block, the quantization process includes a determination of a quantized residual coefficient level:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein coeff represents a transformed residual coefficient, QP represents a quantization parameter, fQP%6 represents a quantization matrix, offsetQ represents an integer value, and shift2 represents a shifting value, and wherein fQP%6, offsetQ, and shift2 are based on the dimensions of the first block.” (“The quantization in HEVC is expressed as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where QP is the quantization parameter, coef f is the transform coefficient, level is the resulting quantized transform coefficient, off setQ is the offset used for 5 appropriate rounding in the division by Qstep , and shift2 = 29-M-B and t = [f0 , ... ,t5 ]t” Leleannec, Page 13, lines 1-6.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein fQP%6 is derived based on W, H and QP, and shift2 is derived based on W and H; and wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein Prod is derived based on WxH, Q_SHIFT is an integer, s is an integer, gQP%6 (W,H) represents a de-quantization matrix based on W and H, and round represents a function that rounds a floating point number to an integer, and … wherein fQP%6(W, H) is set equal to fQP%6vvc_even when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 1, or fQP%6(W, H) is set equal to fQP%6 vvc_odd when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 2; or wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein round represents a function that rounds a floating point number to an integer, Q_SHIFT is an integer, IQ_SHIFT is an integer, gQP%6 (W, H) represents a de-quantization matrix based on W and H, and Additionalshifts2 (W,H) represents a shifting value based on W and H.” (It appears that this definition is consistent with the HEVC: “HEVC quantization and de-quantization are basically fixed-point [round] approximation of the latter equation. Additional scale factors SQ and S1Q are thus used to restore the norm of the residual block which gets modified because of the scaling used in fixed point implementation. In HEVC, the fixed point approximation of the latter equation is given by gQP%6 = round(26 x GQP%6),” exemplifying the case where Q_SHIFT = 6 and where g corresponds to the claimed case of f “when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 1,” See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 17-24.
Although Leleannec does not use the variables name “Prod, s,” the claim does not particularly limit their selection, and Leleannec teaches a variety of additional substitutable ways to calculate the resulting scale factor between the quantization (f) and dequantization (g) matrices in Table 1 on Page 15, which overlap the scope of the claimed calculation. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to represent the scaling factors in a variety of substitutable manners that precisely calculate or approximate or round the scaling factor for block quantization and de-quantization using HEVC. See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 17-24.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 8, wherein fQP%6 is stored as a three-dimension table denoted as f[idxO][idxl][idx2], wherein idxO represents W, idxl represents H, and idx2 represents a value of QP%6.” (“In order to ensure that the scaling factor that the norm of a corresponding residual block is preserved between the spatial domain and the transform domain for Qstep = 1, i.e. QP=4, the scaling factor SQ is defined such that:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In a first embodiment in which s1 is not a power of 2 and s2 is a power of 2,” which indicates that the scaling factor, and thus f, is selected based on the three parameters, the QP, width s1 and height s2, which corresponds to a “three-dimension table” data structure. See Leleannec, Page 15, lines 11-23.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein when the first block is a non-dyadic block, the dequantization process includes a determination of a de-quantized residual coefficient coeffQ:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein level represents a quantized residual coefficient, QP represents a quantization parameter, gQP%6 represents a de-quantization matrix, offsetrQ represents an integer value, and shift1 represents a shifting value, and wherein gQP%6, offsetrQ, and shift1 are based on the dimensions of the first block.” (“ The de-quantization in HEVC is expressed as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
” See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 24-30.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method of claim 1 1, wherein gQP%6 is derived based on W, H and QP, and shiftl is derived based on W and H; and wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein Prod is derived based on WxH, IQ_SHIFT is an integer, s is an integer, and round represents a function that rounds a floating point number to an integer, and wherein gQP%6(W, H) is set equal to gQP%6vvc_even when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 1, or gQP%6(W, H) is set equal to gQP%6vvc_octct when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 2.” (It appears that this definition is consistent with the HEVC: “HEVC quantization and de-quantization are basically fixed-point [round] approximation of the latter equation. Additional scale factors SQ and S1Q are thus used to restore the norm of the residual block which gets modified because of the scaling used in fixed point implementation. In HEVC, the fixed point approximation of the latter equation is given by gQP%6 = round(26 x GQP%6),” exemplifying the case where Q_SHIFT = 6 and where g corresponds to the claimed case of f “when Prod is equal to 1 and s is equal to 1,” See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 17-24.
Although Leleannec does not use the variables name “Prod, s,” the claim does not particularly limit their selection, and Leleannec teaches a variety of additional substitutable ways to calculate the resulting scale factor between the quantization (f) and dequantization (g) matrices in Table 1 on Page 15, which overlap the scope of the claimed calculation. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to represent the scaling factors in a variety of substitutable manners that precisely calculate or approximate or round the scaling factor for block quantization and de-quantization using HEVC. See Leleannec, Page 12, lines 17-24.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 1 1, wherein gQP%6 is stored as a three-dimension table denoted as g[idxO][idxl][idx2], wherein idxO represents W, idxl represents H, and idx2 represents a value of QP%6.” (“In order to ensure that the scaling factor that the norm of a corresponding residual block is preserved between the spatial domain and the transform domain for Qstep = 1, i.e. QP=4, the scaling factor SQ is defined such that:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In a first embodiment in which s1 is not a power of 2 and s2 is a power of 2,” which indicates that the scaling factor, and thus f, is selected based on the three parameters, the QP, width s1 and height s2, which corresponds to a “three-dimension table” data structure. See Leleannec, Page 15, lines 11-23.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The method of claim 1, wherein the quantization scaling matrix of the quantization process is not applied to the first block when the first block is a non-dyadic block; or … wherein the quantization scaling matrix of the quantization process is allowed to be applied to the first block and included in the bitstream when the first block is a non-dyadic block, wherein the bitstream includes a flag indicating presence or usage of the quantization scaling matrix applied to the first block, and wherein a scaling factor for at least one position of the first block is included in the bitstream or derived based on a scaling factor for a corresponding dyadic block or another non-dyadic block with different dimensions.” (Prior art teaches the first option. First note that “In HEVC coding … transform and quantization are applied on square blocks whose size in each dimension is equal to a power of 2, i.e. of size 2M x 2M. As depicted on figure 1, quantization comprises quantization by Qstep (S10) followed by scaling (S12) by a scaling factor SQ equal to 2-C29-M-B),” Leleannec, Page 1, lines 17-26. As noted in Leleannec, Pages 2-4, this scaling process and thus “a quantization scaling matrix of the quantization process is not applied” is not applied when the block is non-dyadic.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The method of claim 1,
wherein the first block is a transform-skip coded block or a palette coded block; (“The encoder may also skip the transform and apply quantization directly to the non-transformed residual signal.” Leleannec, Page 11, lines 16-23.)
wherein the coding tool includes a quantization or de-quantization process; and wherein the quantization or de-quantization process applied on the first block in response to the first block being dyadic is identical to the quantization or de-quantization process applied on the first block in response to the first block being non-dyadic, or wherein the quantization or de-quantization process applied on the first block in response to the first block being dyadic is different from the quantization or de-quantization process applied on the first block in response to the first block being non-dyadic.” (Note both identical and different quantization aspects in Claims 1 and 6.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the first block into the bitstream.” (“The various embodiments are described with respect to the encoding/decoding of an image block. … - encoding the scaled block into a bitstream. … decoding a block of transform coefficients from a bitstream.” Leleannec, Page 7, lines 30-33 and Page 4, line 14.)
Regarding Claim 18: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the first block from the bitstream.” (“The various embodiments are described with respect to the encoding/decoding of an image block.” Leleannec, Page 7, lines 30-33 and Page 1, lines 30-32.)
Claim 19: “An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “According to an exemplary and non-limiting embodiment, the transmitter 200 further comprises a computer program stored in the memory 2030. The computer program comprises instructions which, when executed by the transmitter 200, in particular by the processor 2000, enable the transmitter 200 to execute the encoding method described with reference to Figure 4.” Leleannec, Page 9, lines 3-7 and Page 19, lines 28-32.)
Claim 20: “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches: “The bitstream may be obtained from a source. According to different embodiments, the source can be, but is not limited to: - a local memory, e.g. a video memory, a RAM, a flash memory, a hard disk ;” Leleannec, Page 19, lines 7-10. See additional reasons for rejection under section 101 above.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018130414 to Leleannec (“Leleannec”) in view of Applicant admitted prior art found in the Specification (AAPA) and in view of US 20210368208 to Samuelsson (“Samuelsson”).
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 1, wherein sign data hiding (SDH) or sign prediction is not applied to the first block when the first block is non-dyadic; or wherein the SDH or sign prediction is allowed to be applied to the first block when the first block is non-dyadic, and wherein the bitstream includes a flag indicating usage of the SDH or sign prediction applied to the first block.” Note that Leleannec does not require the use of sign prediction, therefore “sign prediction is not applied to the first block when the first block is non-dyadic.”
Samuelsson confirms that while “sign bit hiding” is a function available in HEVC and can be indicated by a flag in the bitstream, it is not required to be “applied to the first block when the first block is non-dyadic”: “sps_sign_data_hiding_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that sign bit hiding is disabled and not used for pictures referring to the SPS.” Samuelsson, Page 30, Column 1, third paragraph.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Leleannec and AAPA to omit performing “sign bit hiding” in the manner described in Samuelsson, in order to omit performing the function when it is not required or when it is not desired to be coded. See Samuelsson, Page 30, Column 1, third paragraph.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483