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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210409768 “Joshi”) in view of Carmel et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190158830 “Carmel”) and Sudo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20020067356 “Sudo”).
Regarding claim 10 Joshi teaches An apparatus for encoding multi-dimensional data (Fig. 3), the apparatus comprising:
a processor and a memory (“[0075] The processor 340 is also capable of executing other processes and programs resident in the memory 360, such as operations that receive and store data. The processor 340 can move data into or out of the memory 360 as required by an executing process. In certain embodiments, the processor 340 is configured to execute the one or more applications 362”), wherein the processor is configured to:
convert the multi-dimensional data into one or more frames with two-dimensional characteristics (“[0035] Embodiments of the present disclosure provide systems and methods for converting an input 3D point cloud into a 2D representation that can be transmitted and then reconstructed into the 3D point cloud for rendering. An encoder converts an input 3D a point cloud onto multiple 2D frames (such as geometry frames, attribute frames, and occupancy map frames)”);
Even though Joshi teaches the one or more frames with pre-configured number units (“[0036] To convert an input 3D point cloud to a 2D representation that can be transmitted using 2D video frames, the point cloud is deconstructed from a 3D state into multiple patches which are packed into the 2D video frames. Points of the 3D point cloud that are represented in one patch in a first frame correspond to the same points that are represented in another patch in a second frame when the two patches are positioned at over the same coordinates. [0083] When encoding media content, such as a point cloud, the electronic device 300 or the server 200 of FIG. 2 can project the point cloud into multiple patches. For example, a cluster of points of the point cloud can be grouped together and represented as a patch on the 2D frames. A patch can represent a single attribute of the point cloud from a particular map (or layer). Patches that represent the same attribute and belong to the same map can be packed into individual 2D frames, ”) but is silent about generate one or more frame groups by grouping the one or more frames with pre-configured number units;
Carmel teaches generate one or more frame groups by grouping the one or more frames with pre-configured number units (“[0155] In some examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, for a given current candidate compressed frame 114, the temporal consistency evaluation module 92 can receive as input a group of frames consisting of: a current input frame 112, a preceding input frame 122, a current candidate compressed frame 114 and a preceding compressed frame 124, and the temporal consistency quality measure can be computed based on the complete frames in the group.
[0156] For convenience the above four frames are referred to herein as “the group of frames” or as “the frames group”. It would be appreciated that a group of frame can consist of any (even) number from four and above”);
Carmel and Joshi are analogous art as both of them are related to encoding and decoding.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi by generating one or more frame groups by grouping the one or more frames with pre-configured number units as taught by Carmel.
The motivation for the above is to uniformly size the grouping of frames that provides better management of reconstruction.
Joshi modified by Carmel teaches reconstruct frames belonging to each frame group into a tiled frame; and generate a bitstream by encoding the tiled frame (Joshi “[0047] In certain embodiments, the video frames (such as the geometry video frames, the attribute video frames, the occupancy map frames, and the like) and the atlas frames are partitioned into tiles. For example, each of the video frames can be partitioned into one or more tiles. [0066]….. For example, the instructions stored in the memory 230 can include instructions for decomposing a point cloud into patches, instructions for packing the patches on 2D frames, instructions for compressing the 2D frames, as well as instructions for encoding 2D frames in a certain order in order to generate a bitstream”);
wherein the tiled frame is constructed with one or more blocks, and wherein each block is constructed by rearranging samples existing at a same location in the frames (Joshi “[0066]….. For example, the instructions stored in the memory 230 can include instructions for decomposing a point cloud into patches, instructions for packing the patches on 2D frames, instructions for compressing the 2D frames, as well as instructions for encoding 2D frames in a certain order in order to generate a bitstream.
[0092] Each of the patches in FIGS. 4C and 4D can be identified by an index number. Similarly, each pixel within a patch can be identified by its location within the frame as well as the index number of the patch to which the pixel is within. The patch index number can be stored in an atlas frame.
[0102]….The encoder 510 packs the patches representing the point cloud onto 2D frames. The 2D frames can be video frames. It is noted, a point of the 3D point cloud is located in 3D space based on a (X, Y, Z) coordinate value, but when the point is projected onto a 2D frame the pixel representing the projected point is denoted by the column and row index of the frame indicated by the coordinate (u, v). Additionally, ‘u’ and ‘v’ can range from zero to the number of rows or columns in the depth image, respectively”) but is silent about rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across the frames in a temporal dimension;
Sudo teaches rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across frames in a temporal dimension (“[0040]…… The element image Q (C) can be generated in a similar manner. In short, the image array Q can be generated by arranging the pixels at the same location in each image of the image array P, obtained from a plurality of viewing points, in the order of the image alignment. In this way, element images on plane Q can be generated by using element images on plane P”. Here multiple images are from different viewpoints using a camera so the images are in a temporal dimensions);
Sudo and Joshi modified by Carmel are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi modified by Carmel by rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across the frames in a temporal dimension as taught by Sudo.
The motivation for the above is to have alternate way of image reproduction with dynamic images.
Claim 1 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions performed by the apparatus claim 10 and therefore claim 1 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (“[0011] Moreover, various functions described below can be implemented or supported by one or more computer programs, each of which is formed from computer readable program code and embodied in a computer readable medium”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions performed by the apparatus claim 10 and therefore claim 20 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 19 Joshi teaches A method for decoding a bitstream (Fig. 11), the method comprising:
generating a tiled frame with two-dimensional characteristics by decoding the bitstream (“[0052] A decoder receives the bitstream, decompresses the bitstream into the frames, and reconstructs the point cloud based on the information within the frames. [0203] In step 1104, the decoder identifies from the value of the syntax element relationships between the sizes of the tiles in the included in the atlas sub-bitstreams and the tiles included in the video sub-bitstreams. The decoder can determine, based on the value of the syntax element, whether a video tiling structure for the video tiles”);
restoring one or more frames from the tiled frame;(“[0035]…. A decoder receives and decodes the bitstream and then reconstructs the 3D point cloud from the 2D frames such that the 3D point cloud can be rendered”) but is silent about frame group;
Carmel teaches restoring one or more frames belonging to a frame group (“[0100]….Further by way of example, the compressed frame(s) which is encoded/compressed according to instructions provided by the device 100 can be provided, possibly after being decoded. [0156] For convenience the above four frames are referred to herein as “the group of frames” or as “the frames group”. It would be appreciated that a group of frame can consist of any (even) number from four and above”);
Carmel and Joshi are analogous art as both of them are related to encoding and decoding.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi by restoring one or more frames belonging to a frame group as taught by Carmel.
The motivation for the above is to uniformly size the grouping of frames that provides better management of reconstruction.
Joshi modified by Carmel teaches converting one or more frames into a multi-dimensional data (Joshi “[0214] In step 1110, the decoder 550 reconstructs a portion of the 3D point cloud using the decoded portion video frames and the decoded portion of the atlas frames”),
wherein the tiled frame is constructed with a plurality of blocks, and wherein each block is constructed by rearranging samples existing at the same location in the one or more frames (Joshi “[0066]….. For example, the instructions stored in the memory 230 can include instructions for decomposing a point cloud into patches, instructions for packing the patches on 2D frames, instructions for compressing the 2D frames, as well as instructions for encoding 2D frames in a certain order in order to generate a bitstream.
[0092] Each of the patches in FIGS. 4C and 4D can be identified by an index number. Similarly, each pixel within a patch can be identified by its location within the frame as well as the index number of the patch to which the pixel is within. The patch index number can be stored in an atlas frame.
[0102]….The encoder 510 packs the patches representing the point cloud onto 2D frames. The 2D frames can be video frames. It is noted, a point of the 3D point cloud is located in 3D space based on a (X, Y, Z) coordinate value, but when the point is projected onto a 2D frame the pixel representing the projected point is denoted by the column and row index of the frame indicated by the coordinate (u, v). Additionally, ‘u’ and ‘v’ can range from zero to the number of rows or columns in the depth image, respectively”) but is silent about rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across the one or more frames in a temporal dimension;
Sudo teaches rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across one or more frames in a temporal dimension (“[0040]…… The element image Q (C) can be generated in a similar manner. In short, the image array Q can be generated by arranging the pixels at the same location in each image of the image array P, obtained from a plurality of viewing points, in the order of the image alignment. In this way, element images on plane Q can be generated by using element images on plane P”. Here multiple images are from different viewpoints using a camera so the images are in a temporal dimensions);
Sudo and Joshi modified by Carmel are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi modified by Carmel by rearranging samples existing at a same spatial location across one or more frames in a temporal dimension as taught by Sudo.
The motivation for the above is to have alternate way of image reproduction with dynamic images.
Regarding claims 4 and 13 Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches wherein a width and height lengths of each of the one or more blocks is determined based on at least one of characteristics of the multi-dimensional data or characteristics of a codec for the encoding (Joshi “[0124] The encoding engines 522 can be configured to support an 8-bit, a 10-bit, a 12-bit, a 14-bit, or a 16-bit, precision of data. The encoding engines 522 can include a video or image codec such as HEVC, AVC, VP9, VP8, VVC, EVC, AV1 and the like to compress the 2D frames representing the 3D point cloud. The one or more of the encoding engines 522 can compress the information in a lossy or lossless manner. [0155] As illustrated in FIG. 7, the atlas frame is 1024×1024 with 16 tile partitions that are 256×256. The geometry frame is subsampled in both the X and Y directions by a factor of 2, such that the geometry frame is 512×512 with 16 tiles that are 128×128. Accordingly, if the video tile 0 is scaled to the nominal format, (that of 256×256), then the video tile 0 scaled to nominal format has the same size and occupies a similar area as the atlas tile 0 occupies on the atlas frame, thereby satisfying the first condition.
[0156] Equation (1) and (2) below describe the relationships between tile sizes. The width and height of the video frame be videoWidth and videoHeight, respectively. The width and height of the video tile be videoTileWidth and videoTileHeight, respectively. The width and height of the atlas tile be atlasTileWidth and atlasTileHeight, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
91
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches wherein the width and height lengths of each of the one or more blocks is related to a resolution of the tiled frame (Joshi Fig. 7 shows resolution of tiled frame and blocks “[0155] As illustrated in FIG. 7, the atlas frame is 1024×1024 with 16 tile partitions that are 256×256. The geometry frame is subsampled in both the X and Y directions by a factor of 2, such that the geometry frame is 512×512 with 16 tiles that are 128×128”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches wherein the frames correspond to neighboring frames during a certain period in display order or decoding order (Carmel “[0099]….. As mentioned above, in some examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, the preceding input frame 122 can be a frame of the input video sequence which immediately precedes the current input frame 112. However, it should be appreciated that in further examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, the term “preceding” does not necessarily refer to the temporal order of the frames, and the preceding input frame or candidate compressed frame is not necessarily the frame which in the temporal order immediately precedes the current input frame or the current candidate compressed frame, respectively, in the temporal order. In this regard, it would be appreciated that according to further examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, the term preceding can relate to a frame which precedes the current (input or compressed candidate) frame in the coding order”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches wherein a resolution of the tiled frame is set higher than or equal to a resolution of each of the one or more frames (Joshi “[0152] In certain embodiments, atlas sequence is at full (nominal) resolution whereas video frames (such as the attribute frames, geometry frames, and the occupancy map frames) may be at lower resolution (subsampled). As such, the syntax element, when set by the encoder indicates that the atlas tile sizes, and video tile sizes are related. For example, a full (nominal) resolution may be 1024×1024, while the subsampled resolutions of the video frames (such as the attribute frames, geometry frames, and the occupancy map frames) can be 512×512, 256×256, 128×128, 64×64, and the like”).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo and further in view of Mao et al. (US Pat. No. 11538195 “Mao”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11 Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo is silent about wherein a rearrangement order of the samples is determined based on at least one of characteristics of the multi-dimensional data or characteristics of a codec for the encoding.
Mao teaches a rearrangement order of the samples is determined based on at least one of characteristics of the multi-dimensional data or characteristics of a codec for the encoding (ABSTRACT “The image data packages include multiple encoded data that are formed by encoding the pixels of an image and the pixels are beforehand rearranged according to an arrangement order. The arrangement order is exemplarily made based on the quantity of encoding circuits of the encoding system”);
Mao and Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo are analogous art as both of them are related to encoding and decoding.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo by having a rearrangement order of the samples that is determined based on at least one of characteristics of the multi-dimensional data or characteristics of a codec for the encoding as taught by Mao.
The motivation for the above is to securely compress image data and properly synchronize encoding and decoding phase.
Regarding claims 3 and 12 Joshi modified by Carmel, Sudo and Mao teaches wherein the rearrangement order of the samples is applied equally to the one or more blocks, or is applied differently for each block, based on a specific criterion (Mao Col 5 lines 35-42 “In one embodiment of the disclosure, when the encoding system 110 performs an encoding process upon an image such as a video frame, it is not necessary to process the entire image at once with the encoding process, but to process image blocks divided from the image one by one according to conditions of hardware, software or specific requirements. When encoding, the pixels of the selected image blocks are numbered orderly (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.), and are grouped according to an arrangement order”).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo and further in view of Tung et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20100231599 “Tung”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17 Even though Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches reconstruction of the tiled frame but is silent about determining whether to perform reconstruction of the tiled frame, based on at least one of information on a multi-dimensional domain, information on conversion to a two-dimensional domain, or content information.
Tung teaches determining whether to perform reconstruction of the tiled frame, based on at least one of information on a multi-dimensional domain, information on conversion to a two-dimensional domain, or content information (“[0072] Referring now to FIG. 8, a diagram illustrating a frame reconstruction procedure is shown, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. In the FIG. 8 embodiment, frame reconstructor 610 may store a previous frame 611 of image data that is segmented into a series of discrete tiles 1-20. Frame reconstructor module 610 may perform the frame reconstruction procedure using appropriate techniques for comparing corresponding tiles of previous frame 611 and a received frame 707 to determine whether the pixels in any of the compared tiles have been altered. Received frame 707 preferably is the same or similar to the "frame with tiles different from previous frame" that is shown as the output of frame differencing module 504 in FIG. 6”);
Tung and Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo are analogous art as they are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo by determining whether to perform reconstruction of the tiled frame, based on at least one of information on a multi-dimensional domain, information on conversion to a two-dimensional domain, or content information as taught by Tung.
The motivation for the above is to enhance the applicability of Joshi by including tiled frame reconstruction.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo and further in view of Mao and Bultje et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20220353513 “Bultje”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo teaches storing or transmitting information on the frame group and information on the one or more blocks (Joshi [0092] Each of the patches in FIGS. 4C and 4D can be identified by an index number. Similarly, each pixel within a patch can be identified by its location within the frame as well as the index number of the patch to which the pixel is within. The patch index number can be stored in an atlas frame.
Carmel “[0077] In other examples, the input video sequence which corresponds to the degraded video sequence is obtained from a source that is external to the video content system. [0093] According to examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, for a current input frame, the device for controlling the video encoder can buffer or can cause an external memory or storage resource to buffer a preceding input frame, which is a frame from the input video sequence which precedes the current input frame”) but is silent about wherein the information on the one or more blocks includes information on a rearrangement order of the samples, information on the width and height lengths of each of the one or more blocks (storing these information).
Mao teaches storing information on rearrangement order of the samples (Mao ABSTRACT “ The image data packages include multiple encoded data that are formed by encoding the pixels of an image and the pixels are beforehand rearranged according to an arrangement order. The arrangement order is exemplarily made based on the quantity of encoding circuits of the encoding system. In the decoding system, the encoded data received from the encoding system are sequentially stored in a memory according to the arrangement order”) and
Bultje teaches storing information on the width and height lengths of each of the one or more blocks (“[0058] In some implementations, tiling may reduce hardware utilization. For example, a video frame may be decoded block-by-block, and may use temporary storage buffers of block-height by frame-width to buffer decoded results Claim 14. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein a block includes plurality of pixels, such that the block has a block-width indicating a cardinality of horizontally adjacent pixels in the block, and a block-height indicating a cardinality of vertically adjacent pixels in the block; and wherein, to decode the current frame, the processor executes the instructions to store at least a portion of the current tile in a memory configured to store block-width by tile-width pixels”);
Mao, Bultje and Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo are analogous art as both of them are related to encoding and decoding.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Joshi modified by Carmel and Sudo by storing information on rearrangement order of the samples as taught by Mao and storing information on the width and height lengths of each of the one or more blocks as taught by Bultje.
The motivation for the above is to easy retrieval of data whenever needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 7, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 8-10, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further considerations, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210409768 “Joshi”) in view of Carmel et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190158830 “Carmel”) and Sudo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20020067356 “Sudo”).
Applicant argues, see remarks Page 8-10, “The Office appears to take the position that Joshi teaches the claimed tiling structure and that Carmel provides a frame group concept that would render the claimed subject matter obvious. However, a closer examination of……..….In contrast, Joshi merely teaches intra-frame tiling, where a single frame is divided into spatially separated tiles for compression or processing purposes. Joshi does not teach or suggest any operation in which pixels from different frames are rearranged based on their spatial correspondence across time. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that Joshi fails to teach the fundamental concept of inter-frame tiling that underlies the claimed invention……..…..Furthermore, Carmel discusses frame groups only in the context of temporal consistency evaluation, not for purposes of data compression, encoding, or tiling. Carmel’s frame group serves as a reference structure for performance assessment rather than as a functional component in a tiling or compression process…………As such, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no logical or technical motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joshi’s intra-frame tiling method using Carmel’s frame group concept. The two references are directed to distinct technical objectives- compression efficiency in Joshi versus temporal consistency assessment in Carmel-and their combination would not have been reasonably contemplated without impermissible hindsight”.
Examiner replies, Joshi creates multiple frames from 3D point cloud. Then Joshi divides each frame into multiple tile or frame and combines tiles. Each tile can be considered as a frame, so Joshi is combining frames. Carmel combines multiple frame to a frame. So technically both reference are combining pixels. In both references, the fundamental principle is same: combining pixels or sample in a combined tiled frame.. Inter frame tiling and intra frame tiling both refers to tiling or compressing/combining pixel in a frame. So teaching from these two references are combinable.
Examiner wants to note, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here the main question is, whether an ordinary skilled person at the time the claimed invention was made would be motivated to combine the references and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Inter-frame combining is taught by Carmel. So it is not known before the applicant’s invention. In both references, the fundamental principle is same: combining pixels or sample in a combined tiled frame.. Inter frame tiling and intra frame tiling both refers to tiling or compressing/combining pixel in a frame. So teaching from these two references are combinable. Therefore applicant’s argument regarding hindsight reasoning is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights