DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On the bottom of page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant states, “inferring a value to be zero is different than receiving an indication that a value is zero.” Exactly! There are two possibilities. Explicit signaling and implicit signaling (i.e. inferring). When a value is signaled in the bitstream, that is explicit signaling. Values are not inferred when the value is explicitly signaled. On the other hand, when there is no value signaled (i.e. the value is null), that’s when the value must be inferred. When the prior art teaches inferring values that are not explicitly signaled, the prior art is talking about null values that must be filled in using logic at the decoder. As the prior art teaches, “when horizontal flip is applied, the vertical component of the BV is not signaled and inferred to be equal to 0.” (Zhao, ¶ 0089, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action). Therefore, simply signaling the direction of flipping can allow the decoder to fill-in a missing value (i.e. null value) with the value of 0 for a given BV component based on the direction of flip. This teaching, to one of ordinary skill in the art, teaches Applicant’s recited feature of, “receiving a first indication that a block vector (BV), associated with a reference block, comprises a null component.”
On the top of page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends, “a transmission or reception of an indication that the BV comprises a null component is different from inferring and/or deducing a component to be zero based on a set of conditions.” Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive of error. Realize neither the claim nor the argument says a transmission or reception of a null-valued component is required. Instead, the claim merely requires receiving an indication that a component is null. Null is used in the computer context as an indication that a data value does not exist. In this art, the skilled artisan interprets this as inference, as discussed, supra. Because the claim does not require electronic transmission or reception in a bitstream of a null value, per se, Examiner is unclear what Applicant is arguing is missing from the prior art. Applicant’s argument goes on to argue, without evidence or reasoning, that “inferring/deducing a component to be zero based simply on non-reception of the component value…may result in decoding issues.” Attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The prior art performs inference all the time, so Applicant’s concerns about decoding issues is contradicted by the evidence (prior art) and level of skill in the art. Dropped bits and packet loss concerns are handled at various levels of bitstream communication protocols, which is outside the scope of this application and this discussion involving the video compression algorithm. Because Applicant’s argument is untethered to how the skilled artisan interprets this art, and because Applicant’s argument overlooks a fundamental tenant of how compression is achieved (null information filled in by inference rather than explicit signaling), it is unpersuasive of error.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Zhang’s two-flag indication for SIBC does not teach whether or not flipping of the reference block is used. Examiner disagrees. As the rejection explains, infra, Zhang teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and further teaches SIBC flips the reference block before it is used to predict the current block. Therefore, Zhang’s first flag indicating SIBC teaches an indication of whether the reference block is flipped or not.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Zhang’s teachings are deficient for failing to teach or suggest receiving a second indication based on receiving the first indication that the BV comprises a null component. Examiner disagrees. Applicant is failing to understand the logic represented by Zhang’s teachings. As the rejection explains, infra, Zhang’s Section III.B teaches that in order for SIBC to be possible, the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line. When that scenario is present, i.e. when SIBC is possible, Zhang’s Section III.B teaches a first flag can be used for indicating SIBC is indeed enabled or whether “traditional IBC” is enabled. As Zhang’s Section III.B explains, if SIBC is enabled one of the two BV components can be null and resolved to 0 and the other BV component will need to be signaled. Which of the two components is actually signaled is indicated by the flip direction. As Zhang’s Section III.B explains, when horizontal IBC is applied, the signaled BV value belongs to the x component and vice versa for vertical IBC. So, while Zhang utilizes different signaling to match the logic, the underlying logic is the same and the skilled artisan would understand from the logic how to construct signaling to effectuate the logic. Applicant’s averred logic is the same as Zhang’s. If there is a null BV component (Examiner finds Applicant needs to know which one, but that such is not claimed), then according to Zhang, either traditional IBC or SIBC is possible. In such a scenario, Zhang teaches a flag can be signaled to indicate SIBC, i.e. flipping. While there is no logic difference between Zhang and the purported invention, there is a difference in signaling between Applicant’s signaling approach and Zhang’s signaling approach. Again, Applicant’s recited features fall short of an explicit description of what is actually signaled. However, one reasonable interpretation is that Applicant first signals whether there is a null BV component (without indicating which one is null) and then signals whether SIBC is enabled while Zhang’s SIBC flag performs double duty and signals both that there is a null BV component (without indicating which one is null) and also signals whether SIBC is enabled. Zhang then identifies which component is the null component by signaling horizontal or vertical flipping whereas it remains a mystery how Applicant signals which component is the null component. Therefore, it seems Applicant is arguing that a wasted flag is needed to signal whether a BV component is null. Such extra-solution activity is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and does not represent a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–4, 16–19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, K.; An, J.; Zhang, X.; Huang, H.; Lei, S. Symmetric intra block copy in video coding. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Lisbon, Portugal, 24–27 May 2015; pp. 521–524 (herein “Zhang”) and Bae (US 2022/0086451 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device: a first indication that a block vector (BV), associated with a reference block, comprises a null component (Null is used in the computer context as an indication that a data value does not exist; In this art, the skilled artisan interprets this as inference; Examiner notes this can occur when flipped-block IBC is implemented; see Applicant’s original claim 5; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero; see next), a second indication of whether or not flipping of the reference block is used for encoding a current block (Zhang, Section III: teaches SIBC flips the reference block before it is used to predict the current block; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping), a third indication of a magnitude of a component of a block vector difference (BVD) associated with the current block (Examiner notes this must be for the other component (horizontal or vertical) since a null component would not have a magnitude or sign; Bae, ¶¶ 0117 and 0121: teaches BVD has component magnitudes BVDx and BVDy), and a fourth indication of a block vector predictor (BVP) (Bae, ¶ 0117: teaches the BV is obtained by adding the BVD to the BVP obtained from the bitstream); determining a sign of the component of the BVD based on: the BVP (Bae, Abstract: teaches the sign of a BVD may be determined based on a directional component of the block vector predictor), and the first indication that the BV comprises the null component (see, supra, regarding Zhang teaching the null component has a vector component equal to zero and thus there is no sign); determining the BV based on: the BVP, the sign of the component of the BVD, and the magnitude of the component of the BVD (Bae, ¶¶ 0117 and 0121: teaches the BV is obtained by adding the signed BVD components to the BVP obtained from the bitstream); and decoding the current block based on the reference block (Bae, ¶ 0128: teaches a decoder can decode the current block by determining a reference block using a block vector (BV); Zhang, Section III: teaches SIBC flips the reference block before it is used to predict the current block; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhang, with those of Bae, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice intra block copy (IBC) mode would be led to their relevant teachings and because Zhang merely recognizes that symmetry exists in text and other screen content such that the skilled artisan would be led to combine Zhang’s teachings regarding screen content (i.e. text) with Bae’s recognition that IBC is tailored to screen content like text (Bae, ¶ 0064). Thus, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhang and Bae used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a flag indicating a direction of the null component of the BV (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a flag indicating a direction of the null component of the BV, wherein the method further comprises: based on the direction of the null component of the BV, determining a direction of the component of the BVD (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero; Therefore, obviously the BVD must not be in the null direction).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests a method comprising: receiving: a first indication of a direction of a null component of a block vector (BV) associated with a reference block, a second indication of whether flipping of the reference block is used for encoding a current block (Zhang, Section III: teaches SIBC flips the reference block before it is used to predict the current block; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero), a third indication of a magnitude of a component of a block vector difference (BVD) associated with the current block (Bae, ¶¶ 0117 and 0121: teaches BVD has component magnitudes BVDx and BVDy), and a fourth indication of a block vector predictor (BVP) (Bae, ¶ 0117: teaches the BV is obtained by adding the BVD to the BVP obtained from the bitstream); determining a sign of the component of the BVD based on: the BVP (Bae, Abstract: teaches the sign of a BVD may be determined based on a directional component of the block vector predictor), and the first indication indicating the direction of the null component (see, supra, regarding Zhang teaching the null component has a vector component equal to zero and thus there is no sign); determining the BV based on: the BVP, the sign of the component of the BVD, and the magnitude of the component of the BVD (Bae, ¶¶ 0117 and 0121: teaches the BV is obtained by adding the signed BVD components to the BVP obtained from the bitstream); and decoding, based on the BV, the current block (Bae, ¶ 0128: teaches a decoder can decode the current block by determining a reference block using a block vector (BV)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a direction of flipping of the reference block based on the first indication of the direction of the null component of the BV(Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 16, wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 16, wherein the second indication of whether flipping of the reference block is used to encode the current block indicates a direction of flipping, wherein the method further comprises determining a direction of the component of the BVD based on the direction of flipping (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero; Therefore, obviously the BVD must not be in the null direction).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the first indication and the second indication comprises receiving the first indication prior to receiving the second indication (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Zhang and Bae teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the second indication comprises receiving the second indication based on receiving the first indication indicating that the BV comprises the null component (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line for SIBC and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero; Thus, because the prior art teaches the null value is only possible when the current block and reference block are on the same line (vertical or horizontal), the skilled artisan would find it obvious that flipping cannot be assumed enabled when the received component value is not null; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping; Zhang, Section III.B: teaches a first flag for indicating SIBC and a second flag for indicating horizontal or vertical flipping).
Claims 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bae, and Xu (US 2022/0109852 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on the first indication, a list of BVPs comprising: a first BVP determined based on a dimension of the current block; and a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region (Examiner notes this claim is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Fig. 19A, wherein it is recognized the possibilities within a given row span from the edge (boundary) of the reference region to the position adjacent to the current block and that the MVD can either start from one end (boundary) or the other end (neighbor) depending on how far the reference block is away from the current block and which BVD is most economical; Examiner further notes BVP0 is an adjacent (neighboring block) and BVP1 is the edge of the IBC reference region; Xu, ¶ 0368: teaches the offset added to a BVD can depend on the block dimension and/or block position and/or IBC reference region size; Therefore, the teachings of Xu would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan receiving a BVD and then adding the offset (just like a BVP is added) wherein the offset effectively sets a BVP at either a block dimension away or at a reference region limit (size)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhang and Bae, with those of Xu, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice intra block copy (IBC) mode would be led to their relevant teachings and because Xu merely recognizes the IBC search area is advantageously constrained to a reference region and that BVPs shall be ordered according to distance. Thus, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhang, Bae, and Xu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the sign of the component of the BVD based on the BVP comprises: determining the sign of the component of the BVD to be negative based on the BVP being a first BVP in a list of BVPs; or determining the sign of the component of the BVD to be positive based on the BVP being a second BVP in the list of BVPs (Examiner notes this claim is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Fig. 19A, wherein it is recognized the possibilities within a given row span from the edge (boundary) of the reference region to the position adjacent to the current block and that the MVD can either start from one end (boundary) or the other end (neighbor) depending on how far the reference block is away from the current block and which BVD is most economical; Examiner further notes BVP0 is an adjacent (neighboring block) and BVP1 is the edge of the IBC reference region; Xu, ¶ 0368: teaches the offset added to a BVD can depend on the block dimension and/or block position and/or IBC reference region size; Therefore, the teachings of Xu would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan receiving a BVD and then adding the offset (just like a BVP is added) wherein the offset effectively sets a BVP at either a block dimension away or at a reference region limit (size); Examiner notes the moving positive in the x or y direction in this art follows raster order such that positive movements are right and down for x and y, respectively).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests a method comprising: selecting, by a computing device and based on a block vector (BV), associated with a reference block, comprising a null component (see treatment of claim 1), a block vector predictor (BVP) from among: a first BVP determined based on a dimension of a current block, and a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region (Examiner notes this claim is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Fig. 19A, wherein it is recognized the possibilities within a given row span from the edge (boundary) of the reference region to the position adjacent to the current block and that the MVD can either start from one end (boundary) or the other end (neighbor) depending on how far the reference block is away from the current block and which BVD is most economical; Examiner further notes BVP0 is an adjacent (neighboring block) and BVP1 is the edge of the IBC reference region; Xu, ¶ 0368: teaches the offset added to a BVD can depend on the block dimension and/or block position and/or IBC reference region size; Therefore, the teachings of Xu would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan receiving a BVD and then adding the offset (just like a BVP is added) wherein the offset effectively sets a BVP at either one block dimension away or at a reference region limit (size)); based on a difference between the BV and the BVP, determining a magnitude of a block vector difference (BVD) (see treatment of claim 1); and sending: a first indication that the BV comprises the null component, a second indication of whether or not flipping of the reference block is used for encoding the current block, a third indication of the magnitude of the BVD, and a fourth indication of the BVP (see treatment of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein the first indication comprises a flag indicating a direction of the null component of the BV (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component (Zhang, Section III.B: teaches the reference block and the current block must be on the same horizontal line or vertical line and further teaches that when horizontal SIBC (or conversely vertical SIBC) is applied, the y component (or conversely the x component) of the BV need not be signaled and instead can be inferred to be zero).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein the displacement from the location of the current block indicates: a first position at a top-most boundary of the reference region above the current block, or a second position at a left-most boundary of the reference region left of the current block (Examiner notes the prior art establishes that the reference region is limited to only reconstructed blocks, which by definition are above and to the left of the current block; Xu, ¶ 0247: teaches reference blocks can only be already reconstructed blocks; Examiner notes this claim is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Fig. 19A, wherein it is recognized the possibilities within a given row span from the edge (boundary) of the reference region to the position adjacent to the current block and that the MVD can either start from one end (boundary) or the other end (neighbor) depending on how far the reference block is away from the current block and which BVD is most economical; Examiner further notes BVP0 is an adjacent (neighboring block) and BVP1 is the edge of the IBC reference region; Xu, ¶ 0368: teaches the offset added to a BVD can depend on the block dimension and/or block position and/or IBC reference region size; Therefore, the teachings of Xu would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan receiving a BVD and then adding the offset (just like a BVP is added) wherein the offset effectively sets a BVP at either one block dimension away or at a reference region limit (size)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, further comprising: sending a residual associated with the current block, wherein the residual is based on a difference between the current block and the reference block (Examiner finds this obvious prior art; Xu, ¶ 0248: teaches the residual is the difference between the original signal and the reference block).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhang, Bae, and Xu teaches or suggests the method of claim 16, further comprising: based on the first indication of the direction of the null component of the BV, determining a list of BVPs comprising: a first BVP determined based on a dimension of the current block; and a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region (Examiner notes this claim is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Fig. 19A, wherein it is recognized the possibilities within a given row span from the edge (boundary) of the reference region to the position adjacent to the current block and that the MVD can either start from one end (boundary) or the other end (neighbor) depending on how far the reference block is away from the current block and which BVD is most economical; Examiner further notes BVP0 is an adjacent (neighboring block) and BVP1 is the edge of the IBC reference region; Xu, ¶ 0368: teaches the offset added to a BVD can depend on the block dimension and/or block position and/or IBC reference region size; Therefore, the teachings of Xu would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan receiving a BVD and then adding the offset (just like a BVP is added) wherein the offset effectively sets a BVP at either a block dimension away or at a reference region limit (size)).
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 21, but is drawn to the method of claim 9 rather than the method of claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 22, but is drawn to the method of claim 9 rather than the method of claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 22 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huo et al., “Non-EE2: Block Vector Difference Sign Prediction (BVDSP) for IBC blocks,” JVET-AB0095-v2, 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE 20–28 October 2022. The publication teaches Block Vector Difference Sign Prediction (BVDSP) and that if one of the BVD components is zero, only 2 BVD candidates are possible.
Xu (2020/0021835 A1) teaches BVP coordinates at boundaries (x, 0) and (0, y) (¶ 0025).
Li (US 10,368,091 B2) teaches block flipping for IBC prediction (e.g. Abstract).
Zhao (US 2024/0022710 A1) teaches, for example, “when a horizontal flip is applied, the vertical component of the BV is not signaled and inferred to be equal to 0.” (¶ 0089). Examiner finds this teaching teaches the relationship between a BV component being zero and an indication that the block was flipped such that one wishing to design around the invention of another could simply flip the logic so that the component value signals the flip, rather than the flip signaling the component value. Examiner finds the two are equivalents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481