DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/08/2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/544,460 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Claim Objections
Claim objection(s) previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the foregoing amendments correcting claim 17 to depend on claim 16, as suggested at page 2 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/09/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 03/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks identify the manner in which claim(s) 10/20 as previously presented have been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 11 respectively, and assert that Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2) as previously applied, fails to fairly teach/suggest “that the determined coding mode exists in the AC component” (remarks at page 8). Applicant’s remarks further assert that Miyoshi’s “changing part 112 is not an AC component, since it contains other parts which have other functions”. This later remark/argument is non-persuasive, and may serve to obfuscate Applicant’s argument at large, because no correspondence was previously drawn between e.g. the changing part 112 itself of Miyoshi (see Fig. 6) and any “AC component” – that is a ‘component’ (i.e. data elements) of the image/information being compressed/ encoded. Stated differently, the AC component claimed, is not a component/part of the system itself (nor are any teachings of Miyoshi applied in such a way), but is instead a component of the image/information being compressed – and Applicant’s remarks appear to suggest that the AC component disclosure of Miyoshi is non-equivalent due to alleged differences in the functions performed by Miyoshi’s changing part 112. Contrary to the second argument, Applicant’s first argument appears to suggest that the claim requires the “AC component” to itself comprise some indication/flag/etc., of a determined/selected coding mode/scheme, but Examiner would argue that for the recited claim language this is also not the case. As is clear from the ‘providing’ limitation, the “indication data” is part of “compressed data units corresponding to the AC component”. Even if that flag/indication of Miyoshi, as used/considered by changing part 201 (Fig. 7, 201 is part of 112), is not included in the encoded data but alternatively obtained from the to-be coded information, the teaching in Miyoshi for relying on such a flag broadly still applies (for to-be-coded information as applied to coded information). Examiner also understands such a flag/indication data to be commonly included in encoded data, because it is needed/required for decoding the associated data – such that the inclusion of such an indicator/flag is not itself a novel or non-obvious concept – and BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) also suggests the same in e.g. [0111], [0140] “a compression mode indicator (or an op code) to be included in encoding data” ([0111] was previously cited in the rejection of claim 1). Corresponding disclosure of BAE is not addressed in Applicant’s remarks. Examiner maintains that references of record as reasonably combined serve to teach/suggest the instant claims as amended, incorporating only that subject matter of previously presented/now cancelled claim(s) 10/20.
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.
1. Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2).
As to claim 1, Bae discloses a data compression method (Fig. 5), for compressing at least portion of data of a data group (Fig. 5 530-540, select mode on basis of estimated error in each mode and encode image data based on selected mode), comprising:
defining X sub data groups, wherein each of the sub data groups comprises a portion of the data group (Figs. 6-8, [0121-0125], [0125] “a compression apparatus receives image data 610 corresponding to a part of data in an image as shown in FIG. 6. The image data 610 received by the compression apparatus includes pixels A 611, B 612, C 613, and D 614. Each of the pixels may be expressed as a sub-pixel value distinguished as R, G, and B”, etc.,);
compressing each of the sub data groups via Y compression algorithms, to generate Y compression results for each of the sub data groups, wherein X and Y are positive integers and X is at least 2 (Fig. 5 510-520, [0116-0117], [0107] “According to an embodiment, the compression apparatus 410 compresses image data selectively using a scheme, which is suitable for the image data, among various image compression schemes. Video compression schemes for compressing the image data may be represented by a plurality of compression modes. The estimated error calculation module 411 calculates each estimated error which can be generated with respect to at least some of the plurality of compression modes supported by the compression apparatus 410”, [0108] “The estimated error calculation module 411 calculates the estimated error of the plurality of compression modes, based on the compression error and a predetermined weighted value in each a sub-pixel. The estimated error calculation module 411 generates reconstruction data after the estimated compression of the image data according to each of the plurality of compression modes, and calculates an estimated error of the plurality of the compression modes based on the reconstruction data and the image data”);
selecting a preferred compression algorithm for each of the sub data groups according to corresponding ones of the Y compression results (Fig. 5, 530, [0118], [0109] “The selection module 413 selects a compression mode to be used to compress the image data based on the estimated error of each of the compression mode among the plurality of compression modes”); and
compressing the sub data group by the preferred compression algorithm thereof to generate a plurality of compressed data units (Fig. 5, 540, [0119], [0111] “The encoding module 415 encodes the image data according to the selected compression mode. The encoding module 415 compresses the image data according to the selected compression mode and generates the compressed image data and encoding data including an identifier such as an operation (OP) code which represents a compression mode”, [0123-0125]); wherein the data compression method further comprises:
Bae further discloses providing algorithm indication data in the compressed data units [0111], [0140] “a compression mode indicator (or an op code) to be included in encoding data”, etc.,).
Bae fails to explicitly disclose classifying the compressed data units to a DC component and an AC component, wherein the compressed data units corresponding to the DC component has a first number of bits, and the compressed data units corresponding to the AC component has a second number of bits, wherein the second number is smaller than the first number;
Examiner understands the DC/AC classification recited to be common to Hadamard and other transform compression algorithm(s), as suggested by Applicant’s disclosure/PGPUB [0028], in further view of the manner in which as DC components represent average value/brightness/intensity/low frequency components, there are generally more of such components and accordingly they are generally represented using a larger number of bits as compared to that for AC components (so as to minimize undesirable reductions in quality resultant from compression).
Miyoshi evidences the obvious nature of classifying the compressed data units to a DC component and an AC component, wherein the compressed data units corresponding to the DC component has a first number of bits, and the compressed data units corresponding to the AC component has a second number of bits, wherein the second number is smaller than the first number (Fig. 6 mode determination part 109/301, in view of transformation part 102, etc., col 2 lines 30-40 “The lowest frequency component is called a direct-current (DC) component, and the other components are called alternate-current (AC) components … Generally speaking, high-frequency components (absolute values) are smaller than low-frequency components (absolute values)”, col 2 lines 45-50 “FIG. 2 depicts an example of DCT in 4x4-pixel units. In the example of FIG. 2, a 16x16-pixel luminance macroblock 11 is divided into 16 4x4-pixel blocks, and DCT is carried out on each of the 16 blocks. In the block (for example, a block 13 in FIG. 2) obtained from DCT, the coefficient of DC component (20 in the example of FIG. 2) is larger while the other coefficients of AC components are smaller”); and
providing algorithm indication data col 8 lines 5-15 “The mode changing part 201 determines whether to change the coding mode determined by the mode determination part 109, based on the determined coding mode, the determination result information of the boundary determination part 110 (for example, the flag information indicating whether the to-be-coded block is below the certain boundary), and the coefficient cutting position information”, col 12 lines 1-10, and Fig. 14 S502, and col 14 lines 20-30; See also Examiner’s remarks in the Response to Arguments section above, regarding the applicability of such a flag regarding an AC/DC component, for either/both of coded and to-be-coded information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Bae to further comprise classifying compressed data units as being associated with one or more of DC and/or AC components, and representing those DC component associated portions with a higher number of bits (relative to AC) as taught/suggested by Miyoshi and common in the art, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA, to include alternative compression algorithm(s) such as DCT/Hadamard/transform modes generally characterized by a reasonable expectation of success, that such a component separation as common to such coding algorithms allows for encoding data associated with each component differently (and further disclosed in Miyoshi reducing certain noises/artifacts even for instances of low rate control (col 4 lines 30-40 and col 10 lines 1-5)).
As to claim 2, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 1.
Bae in view of Miyoshi further teaches the method wherein the data group is an image and the sub data groups are respectively a portion of the image, wherein each of the sub data groups comprises M x N pixels, where M and N are positive integers (Bae Figs. 6-8, for line embodiments M may be the positive integer 1, and N 2, as illustrated in Fig. 6 610, Fig. 7 M x N is 2 x 2, [0122] disclosing non-limiting embodiments, etc.,).
As to claim 3, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 2.
Bae in view of Miyoshi further teaches the method wherein the Y compression algorithms comprises rounding down algorithm (Bae [0111] “Compressing the image data by the encoding module 415 includes truncating at least a part of a pixel value included in the image data or replacing at least a part of the pixel value included in the image data with another value, and replacing the at least a part of the pixel value is performed based on an average of the at least a part of the pixel value”, [0114] truncation disclosure, [0139], [0142], etc.; Examiner notes the mapped sections are not exhaustive as there is a large amount of truncation/average compression disclosure in Bae).
As to claim 9, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 1.
Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches the method further comprising: providing algorithm indication data in at least one of the compressed data units, to indicate which one of the algorithms is utilized for compressing (Bae [0126] “The indicator 621 included in the encoding data 620 includes information on the compression mode selected by the compression apparatus”, etc.,).
2. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2) and Jacobson et al. (US 2018/0343471 A1).
As to claim 4, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 2.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the Y compression algorithms comprises a Hadamard transform algorithm. Bae does however disclose a plurality of each of lossy and lossless compression modes, and does not appear to be limited in terms of the number of modes that may be considered/selected between.
Jacobson however evidences the obvious nature of an encoding mode selection between modes such as a transform mode e.g. DCT and/or Hadamard transform ([0056] “Video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be configured to code video data with a block-based approach (with block size PxQ) and may be configured to code the video data with one or more of a plurality of coding modes. That is, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be configured to code a frame of video data divided into blocks of samples. In some examples, available coding modes for each block may include transform mode (e.g., discrete cosine transform (DCT), Hadamard transform, etc.), block prediction (BP) mode, BP skip mode, differential pulse code modulation (DPCM) mode, pattern mode, mid-point prediction (MPP) mode, and/or mid-point predication fall back (MPPF) mode. Video encoder 20 may be configured to determine a coding mode to use and may signal a syntax element to video decoder 30 indicating the coding mode to use”, [0057] “Several coding modes may be used in the coder (e.g., video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30) in order to effectively compress different types of contents or images. In some examples, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may use multiple different coding modes for coding blocks of one frame of video data. For example, text images can be effectively compressed by pattern mode, while natural images may be more effectively captured by transform mode”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Bae in view of Miyoshi to implement one or more transform modes such as a Hadamard transform, as taught/suggested by Jacobson, the motivation being as readily recognized by POSITA that such a mode implementation would serve as a simple substitution/addition of a known coding technique/algorithm to obtain predictable results characterized by a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 Rationale (B)), in further view of the manner in which as taught/suggested by Bae and Jacobson (MPEP 2143 Rationale (G)) that such a selection between various modes comprising to include a Hadamard transform mode as taught/suggested by Jacobson, may benefit from improved performance particularly for computational overhead constrained processing environments and/or expected imagery that is natural images (Jacobson [0057]).
As to claim 5, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 2.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the Y compression algorithms comprises a DPCM (Differential pulse-code modulation) algorithm. See also that note presented above for the case of claim 4.
Jacobson further evidences the obvious nature of an encoding mode selection between modes such as DPCM ([0056] “In some examples, available coding modes for each block may include transform mode (e.g., discrete cosine transform (DCT), Hadamard transform, etc.), block prediction (BP) mode, BP skip mode, differential pulse code modulation (DPCM) mode”, [0057], etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Bae in view of Miyoshi to implement one or more modes such as DPCM, as taught/suggested by Jacobson, for that same rationale as presented above for the case of claim 4 and readily extended to a DPCM mode in alternative and/or conjunction with others known/conventionally relied upon in the art – particularly for those instances wherein the image data expected to be encountered (e.g. high image predictability) may be characterized by adjacent pixels comprising similar values.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), Jacobson et al. (US 2018/0343471 A1) and Gharavi-Alkhansari et al. (US 2011/0292247 A1) (hereinafter “Gharavi”).
As to claim 6, Bae in view of Miyoshi and Jacobson teaches/suggests the method of claim 5.
Bae fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the Y compression algorithms comprises at least two of DPCM algorithms, wherein each of the DPCM algorithms has different algorithms quantization tables.
Jacobson suggests an adaptive coding/dynamic quantization implementation in view of rate controller 120 and adaptively selected quantization parameters ([0073] “Rate controller 120 determines a set of coding parameters, including a QP. Quantization introduces loss in a signal and the amount of loss can be controlled by the QP. Instead of storing the quantization step size for each QP, a scaling matrix may be specified as a function of the QP. In some examples, the quantization step size for each QP can be derived from the scaling matrix. The derived value for the quantization step is not necessarily a power of two, e.g., the derived quantization step size can also be non-power of two. Rater controller 120 may adjust the QP based on the buffer fullness of rate buffer 150 and image activity of the video data (e.g., a transition from complex to flat regions or vice versa) in order to maximize picture quality for a target bit rate, which ensures that rate buffer 150 does not overflow or underflow”, [0074]). Jacobson further evidences the obvious nature of different quantization tables/scaling matrixes to ensure optimum rate buffer flow.
Gharavi further evidences the obvious nature of a selection between Y compression algorithms comprising at least two of DPCM algorithms, wherein each of the DPCM algorithms has different algorithm[[s]] quantization tables (Fig. 1 Modes 1-8 all DPCM encoding with different qf prior to mode decision of 106, [0021], [0022] “For DPCM encoding, a block is uniformly quantized with a quantization step size (also referred to as a quantization factor) qf, where qf is a power of 2: qf=2qn. The sample values of the block after quantization are referred to as a quantized block or quantized samples. Quantization essentially removes the least significant bits. For example, if there are 10 bits and qn is 4, then only the 6 most significant bits are used”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the proposed combination of Bae, Miyoshi and Jacobson such that the modes selected between further comprise at least two of DPCM algorithms, wherein each of the DPCM algorithms has different algorithm quantization tables as taught/suggested by Gharavi, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such an implementation of a plurality of DPCM algorithms so characterized may enable selecting for that providing the best/optimum bit coverage (Gharavi [0025]).
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2) and Park et al. (US 2020/0275099 A1).
As to claim 7, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 2.
Bae further discloses the method wherein M is 1, N is Figs. 6-8, for line embodiments M may be the positive integer 1, and N 2 for 610, in further view of 670 comprising that line end n).
Bae fails to explicitly disclose N is 8 or 16, however is explicit in disclosing that array/CU configurations are non-limiting, and POSITA would further recognize that using block/CU sizes such as 1x8, 1x16, etc., would allow for performing operations using simpler circuitry and bit-shifting.
Park evidences the obvious nature of CU/block sizes that are 1x8 and/or 1x16 ([0350] “Also, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the image decoding apparatus 100 may determine that a coding unit having a width-to-height ratio of 1:8, 8:1, 1:16, or 16:1 is to be used. The image decoding apparatus 100 may allow a coding unit having a long side whose length ranges from M to N and having a ratio of 1:8, 8:1, 1:16, or 16:1”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Bae in view of Miyoshi such that those non-limiting CU/block sizes therein further comprise e.g. 1x8 and/or 1x16 as a design choice constraint characterized by a reasonable expectation of success and enabling simpler circuitry for associated (e.g. bit shifting)/mathematical operations.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2) and Zhao et al. (US 2022/0014758 A1).
As to claim 7, Bae in view of Miyoshi teaches/suggests the method of claim 2.
Bae suggests the method further comprising: Bae [0125] “a compression apparatus receives image data 610 corresponding to a part of data in an image as shown in FIG. 6. The image data 610 received by the compression apparatus includes pixels A 611, B 612, C 613, and D 614. Each of the pixels may be expressed as a sub-pixel value distinguished as R, G, and B. For example, pixel A 611, pixel B 612, pixel C 613, and pixel D 614 may expressed as sub-pixels Ra/Ga/Ba, sub-pixels Rb/Gb/Bb, sub-pixels Rc/Gc/Bc, and sub-pixels Rd/Gd/Bd, respectively. For example, when each sub-pixel has a size of 8 bits, each of the pixels have a size of 24 bits and the image data 610 have a size of 96 bits”).
While Bae suggests that the data associated with different color channels may be grouped prior to defining sub data groups (even if not ‘rearranged’ so as to group only same channels after ‘subtracting’/separating each of the 3 color channels), Bae fails to explicitly disclose any subtracting and rearranging of said color channel data. Examiner however understands such processing steps to be common to compression such as JPEG, because different/certain channel(s) e.g. chroma for RGB converted to YCrCb/YUV may be compressed differently with a less perceptible quality loss (human/user eyes less sensitive to certain channels).
Zhao evidences the obvious nature of forming coding units on the basis of subtracted/separated and rearranged color channel data ([0042] “For instance, a block of image data may be represented by multiple blocks of the same size or different size, each block comprising pixel data related to a particular component or channel of a color space associated with the image data. In one example, an 8x8 block of YCbCr encoded image data may be represented by an 8x8 block of Y (luma) data and two blocks of chrominance data corresponding to Cb and Cr channels respectively (e.g. the sizes of which corresponds to different sample rates). The encoding steps discussed herein can be applied to each of the luma and chrominance data blocks in order to encode the entire input data”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Bae in view of Miyoshi to further comprise subtracting and rearranging data of channels for different colors of the image before defining the sub data groups as taught/suggested by Zhao, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA that such a channel/layer specific grouping would enable applying different compression modes to the different layers, optimizing overall compression where it would have minimum impact on perceived quality and/or any subsequent/downstream processing given the non-limiting nature of the claim(s) in that regard.
6. Claims 11-12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), and LEE et al. (US 2019/0281310 A1).
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to a method comprising that data compression method of claim 1, in addition to decompressing the compressed data units, to generate X reconstructed sub data groups (Bae reconstruction apparatus 420 of [0105], [0114] “The decoding module 423 reconstructs the image data from the encoding data according to the identified compression mode. For example, the decoding module 423 recognizes a pattern corresponding to the identified compression mode, reconstructs at least a part of the pixel value which is truncated according to the identified compression mode”),
Bae fails to explicitly disclose performing image noise reduction on any of the decompressed/reconstructed image data.
Lee however evidences the obvious nature of performing image noise reduction according to the X reconstructed sub data groups (Fig. 2 decoded data as ultimately supplied to compression noise removing network model so as to remove compression noise, Fig. 6 630, [0147] “Compression noise of the frame is removed based on a compression noise removing network model corresponding to the compression rate of the frame, among a plurality of compression noise removing network models for removing compression noise for each of a plurality of compression rates (S630). The compression noise removing network model can be obtained by learning image characteristics of a plurality of restored image blocks corresponding to each of the plurality of compression rates through a first artificial intelligence algorithm, and the plurality of restored image blocks can be generated by encoding a plurality of original image blocks, and decoding the encoded plurality of original image blocks”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Bae as proposed for the case of claim 1, to further comprise performing a denoising/noise reduction processing according to the reconstructed sub data groups as taught/suggested by Lee, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such a denoising may remove noise resultant from/specific to earlier performed compression processing (e.g. Lee [0011-0012] not only blocking and ringing artifacts but also e.g. flickering phenomenon among others).
As to claims 12, 14 and 19, these claim(s) are dependent claims further comprising those limitations as present in corresponding method claims 2, 3 and 9 respectively, and are rejected accordingly (see Bae as applied above, in further view of that modification in view of the teachings of Lee for the case of claim 11).
7. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), LEE et al. (US 2019/0281310 A1) and Jacobson et al. (US 2018/0343471 A1).
As to claims 15-16, these claim(s) are dependent claims further comprising those limitations as present in corresponding method claims 4-5 respectively, and are rejected accordingly – see above.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), LEE et al. (US 2019/0281310 A1) and Park et al. (US 2020/0275099 A1).
As to claim 13, this claim comprises those limitations as present in corresponding method claim 7, and is rejected accordingly – see above.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), LEE et al. (US 2019/0281310 A1), Jacobson et al. (US 2018/0343471 A1), and “Gharavi” (US 2011/0292247 A1).
As to claim 17, this claim comprises those limitations as present in corresponding method claim 6, and is rejected accordingly – see above.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al. (US 2016/0173886 A1) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 8,891,622 B2), LEE et al. (US 2019/0281310 A1) and Zhao et al. (US 2022/0014758 A1).
As to claim 18, this claim comprises those limitations as present in corresponding method claim 8, and is rejected accordingly – see above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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.
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights