DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on March 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 amendments made to original claims 1 and 18-20 have been fully considered.
The terminal disclaimers filed March 6 and 10, 2026 have also been fully considered.
In light of these amendments, the previous double-patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received March 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose constructing the MVP candidate list via template matching cost-based sorting of a joint group comprising non-adjacent MVP and HMVP candidates and further refining the MVP candidate list via the ARMC process.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest an ARMC process on a template-matching-sorted MVP candidate list because Chen describes grouping MVP candidates into types and reordering candidates within each group based on template matching cost, but does not claim it as an “ARMC” process applied after an initial template-matching based sorting and Lee does not cure this deficiency. This is not, however, required by the current claim language.
The current claim requires “determining an MVP candidate list by sorting at least one group of MVP candidates based on template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group”. Sorting does not have the same meaning as, and does not require a re-ordering. Rather the simple separation into groupings satisfies the term “sorting” – the way one would, for example, sort their junk drawer into trash and keep. Moreover, because the claim language requires only “at least one group of MVP candidates”, the entire list itself may serve as such an at least one group and the sorting being the separation of that group. The term “based on” is also a very broad term. Chen’s separation of groups is for the purpose of determining a cost, e.g., TM cost, of that group (see, e.g., ¶¶138-143, 147, 102-103). Thus, Chen’s separation of its candidates into groups is certainly a “sorting” of the at least one groups of candidates “based on” the TM costs of those candidates.
Applicant admits that Chen uses an ARMC concept, but argues that its ARMC process is not “further refinement” in a second stage. But as detailed before, the first stage of Chen’s list is to sort/divide itself into categories/groups, the TM cost is determined of each group, then the list is certainly refined when Chen changes the order of the list by placing groups with a good TM cost in front of groups with a bad TM cost. This is an adaptive reordering of merge candidates.
Examiner also notes that Applicant, in its argument, appears to read its claim language to require both non-adjacent MVP candidates and HMVP candidates. However, the claim language clearly reads “or”.
Finally, Applicant argues that the Office has articulated no motivation to combine an ARMC process to the template-matching-sorted candidate list of Chen. However, as detailed above, Applicant’s current claim language is so broad that Chen includes all these elements in its own description.
Examiner encourages Applicant to more clearly describe its sorting based on template matching cost to better define its specific re-ordering process and further – second stage – refinement process of adaptive reordering of the groups.
Ultimately, Applicants arguments have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art on record reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0068218 (“Chen”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0256189 (“Lee”).
With respect to claim 1, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one group of motion vector predictions (MVP) candidates of the target video block (see Abstract, Fig. 16, item 1620, ¶¶85-87, 138-139, describing that during encoding or decoding, i.e., a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one group of MVP candidates of a current/target video block may be determined);
determining an MVP candidate list by sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates based on respective template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group (see Figs. 9 and 16, items 940, 1640, ¶¶90-99, 103, 139-143, 147, describing that the MVP candidate list may be determined by sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates into categories/groups to determine the respective template matching costs for the candidates in the groups, i.e., based on respective template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group);
performing an adaptive reordering merge candidates (ARMC) process on the MVP candidate list (see ¶¶138-143, 147, describing reordering the candidate groups within the MVP candidate list based on their total cost, i.e., performing an adaptive reordering merge candidates process on the MVP candidate list); and
performing the conversion based on the performing of the ARMC process (see citations with respect to elements above and Fig. 16, item 1650, ¶147, describing that the encoding/decoding is performed based on the candidate selected from the reordered MVP candidate list, i.e., based on the performing of the ARMC process)
wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one joint group of MVP candidates associated with a plurality of categories, … (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Fig. 14, items 1410-1430, ¶¶99, 138-143, describing that the MVP candidate list may include categorized groups of candidates and that these groups may include joint groups of candidates associated with a plurality of categories, e.g., group 4 includes “all other candidates”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose that these “other candidates” include the plurality of categories comprising at least one of: a non-adjacent MVP candidate category or a history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate category.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that it was known for candidate categories to include non-adjacent MVPs and/or HMVPs, i.e.:
…the plurality of categories comprising at least one of: a non-adjacent MVP candidate category or a history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate category (see ¶345, describing that it was known for candidate lists to include history-based motion vector candidates, and zero vector candidates, combined candidates, and fixed candidates, i.e., non-adjacent MVP candidate categories – Examiner notes that Applicant has not defined non-adjacent MVPs in the claim language any further than candidates that are not adjacent to the current block, thus any candidate other than a neighboring candidate would be non-adjacent).
As detailed above, Chen details the grouping/categorizing of candidates within the candidate list and describes a group 4 of “all other” candidates. Chen does not detail what these “other” candidates may be. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood the different types of typically used mvp candidates, and when Chen specifies that the first group may consist of spatial neighbors, the second of temporal neighbors, the third of sub-PU candidates, and the fourth “other” candidates, such a person would have understood what commonly used candidates might fall in this “other” category. As detailed above, Lee discloses that some other well-known candidate groupings may include HMVP candidates and non-adjacent MVP candidates (e.g., zero vector, combined, or fixed candidates). Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, modifying Chen to describe its “other” candidates to include such non-adjacent and/or HMVP candidates would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include HMVP and non-adjacent candidates as “other candidates” in group 4 of Chen as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 2, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one joint group of MVP candidates comprises a group of MVP candidates of the non-adjacent MVP candidate category and the HMVP candidate category, and/or
wherein the at least one joint group of MVP candidates comprises a group of MVP candidates of the non-adjacent MVP candidate category, the HMVP candidate category and temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) candidate category (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that in the combined system, the joint group includes non-adjacent and HMVP candidates).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one single group of MVP candidates, the single group of MVP candidates being associated with a single candidate category (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2 above and Chen ¶¶99, 139, describing that the at least one group of MVP candidates may comprise a single group of candidates associated with a single candidate category, e.g., spatial candidates), or
wherein the single candidate category comprises at least one of: an adjacent MVP candidate category, a non-adjacent MVP candidate category, or a history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate category.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein a joint group of the at least one joint group of MVP candidates comprises at least a partial of MVP candidates associated with more than one category (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-3 above, describing that the at least one group of MVP candidates may include a joint group of candidates being associated with more than one candidate category, e.g., sub-PU candidates which include sub-PU TMVP STMVP and affine merge or Type 4 consisting of “any other” candidate).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein determining the at least one group comprises: in accordance with a determination that a coding tool of the target video block comprises a first coding tool, adding non-adjacent MVP candidates and HMVP candidates into a first joint group of MVP candidates, wherein the first coding tool comprises at least one of: a regular merge mode coding tool, a combination of intra and inter predication (CIIP) merge mode coding tool, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) coding tool, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) coding tool, a triangle partition mode (TPM) coding tool, or a subblock merge mode coding tool (see Chen ¶¶91, 97, describing that the reordering method described with respect to claim 1 is for a merge/regular merge mode, i.e., in accordance with a determination that a regular merge coding tool is used).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one single group of MVP candidates and the at least one joint group of MVP candidates, the single group being associated with one candidate category (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-4 above, describing that the candidate groups may include a single group of MVP candidates, e.g., spatial candidates, and a joint group of candidates, e.g., Sub-PU candidates), or
wherein determining the at least one group comprises: dividing a plurality of MVP candidates of a same candidate category into a plurality of groups, or
wherein sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises: for a group of the plurality of groups, sorting MVP candidates in the group based on respective template matching costs of the MVP candidates, or
wherein determining the at least one group comprises: adding a partial of MVP candidates of a fifth candidate category into a group of candidates, the group being associated with at least one candidate category comprising the fifth candidate category, or
wherein sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises: sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates without sorting remaining candidates of the fifth candidate category.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the plurality of candidate categories further comprises at least one of the following: an adjacent neighboring MVP category, an adjacent neighboring MVP at a predefined location, a temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) MVP category, a constructed MVP category, a pairwise MVP category, an inherited affine MV candidate category, a constructed affine MV candidate category, or a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) candidate category,
wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises:
determining a set of MVP candidates from the at least one group of MVP candidates list based on a sorting result of the respective template matching costs; and
adding the set of MVP candidates into the MVP candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-4 above and Chen ¶¶91, 99, 102-103, 137, 141-143, describing that the categories include spatial, i.e., adjacent neighboring, MVP categories, a TMVP category, a sub-PU category, etc. and that the list generation process includes determining sets of candidates from the groups of candidates based on sorting/reordering some or all based on template matching cost, i.e., determining a set of MVP candidates from the at least one group based on a sorting result of the respective template matching costs and swapping/exchanging – one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the terms swap and exchange to refer to the removal of a candidate from one place and the addition of it to another, i.e., including the adding of the set into the list).
As detailed above, Chen does not explicitly recite the “adding” of the candidates to the list, rather it uses the terms swap and exchange – these terms would have been understood to refer to the removal from one location in the list and the addition in another location of the list, i.e., include the adding process. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to have modified Chen to describe such a swap/exchange to include the removal/addition required.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises:
determining whether to add a first MVP candidate in the at least one group of MVP candidates into the MVP candidate list based on a sorting result of the respective template matching costs; and
determining the MVP candidate list based on the determination of adding the first MVP candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 7 above, describing that determining whether to swap/exchange, i.e., remove and add, candidates in the groups of candidates in the list are based on a sorting/reordering based on template matching cost and that the reordered candidate list is determined based on this swap/exchange, i.e., including the adding).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises:
determining a number of MVP candidates in the at least one group of MVP candidates to be added into the MVP candidate list based on a sorting result of the respective template matching costs; and
adding the number of MVP candidates from the at least one group of MVP candidates into the MVP candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 7 above, describing that the system determines candidates in the group to be reordered/sorted and swaps/exchanges those candidates within the list and that this may be based on template matching costs, i.e., determines a number of MVP candidates in the group of candidates to be reordered/swapped (i.e., including removing and adding them) based on a sorting result of the respective template matching costs and adding (by performing the swap/exchange) the MVP candidates from the group of MVP candidates into the MVP list).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises:
adding a second MVP candidate in the at least one group with a smallest template matching cost into the MVP candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 7, and 9 above, describing adding MVP candidates to the list, including those with the smallest template matching cost).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 17, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream, or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above describing that the conversion includes encoding and decoding).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (see ¶¶147, 150, describing an encoder/decoder for processing video data including a computer processor executing computer program/software code, which Examiner takes Official Notice would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be stored in a non-transitory computer memory), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one group of motion vector predictions (MVP) candidates of the target video block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
determining an MVP candidate list by sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates based on respective template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
performing an adaptive reordering merge candidates (ARMC) process on the MVP candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
performing the conversion based on the performing of the ARMC process (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one joint group of MVP candidates associated with a plurality of categories, the plurality of categories comprising at least one of: a non-adjacent MVP candidate category or a history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate category (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
As detailed above, Chen does not explicitly describe a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing its programming/software. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that such storage mediums were well known in the art at the time of filing. Accordingly, modifying Chen to recite the use of such a storage medium to store software would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites the elements of claims 1 and 18 in computer-readable storage medium form. Chen discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method (see ¶¶147, 150). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claims 1 and 18 also apply to claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Chen/Lee additionally discloses:
A method for storing a bitstream of a video (see Chen ¶¶3, 147, 150, describing an encoder/decoder for processing video data including a computer processor executing computer program/software code, which Examiner takes Official Notice would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be stored in a non-transitory computer memory), comprising:
determining at least one group of motion vector predictions (MVP) candidates of a target video block of the video (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
determining an MVP candidate list by sorting the at least one group of MVP candidates based on respective template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
performing an adaptive reordering merge candidates (ARMC) process on the MVP candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
generating a bitstream based on performing the ARMC process (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (see citations and arguments with respect to preamble above),
wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one joint group of MVP candidates associated with a plurality of categories, the plurality of categories comprising at least one of: a non-adjacent MVP candidate category or a history-based motion vector predictor (HMVP) candidate category (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0103767 (“Chang”), which corresponds to priority applications filed September and October of 2021.
With respect to claim 11, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
Chen/Lee does not explicitly teach wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises: adding a second number of top MVP candidates in the at least one group in an ascending order of template matching costs into the MVP candidate list.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses that it was known to determine a candidate list by adding a number of top MVP candidates in ascending order of TM cost to the MVP candidate list, i.e.,:
wherein determining the MVP candidate list comprises:
adding a second number of top MVP candidates in the at least one group in an ascending order of template matching costs into the MVP candidate list (see ¶¶106, 113, 119, 122-123, 136, 148, describing that it was known to add a number of top MVP candidates in order of ascending TM cost to the candidate list, e.g., by adding a specific number or by discarding the highest cost candidates and adding the remainder).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the reordering of candidates, including within categories, to build a candidate list and have understood that, as evidenced by Chang, that one known way to do so would include adding a specific number of top candidates to the groups in ascending order of template matching cost into the list. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the candidate list generation of Chen/Lee would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for adding a specific number of top candidates to the groups in ascending order of template matching cost into the list in the candidate list generation of Chen/Lee as taught by Chang.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee and Chang discloses each and every element of dependent claim 11. Chen/Lee/Chang additionally discloses:
wherein the second number is a maximum allowed number of MVP candidates in the at least one group to be added into the MVP candidate list, or
wherein the second number comprises a predefined constant associated with the at least one group (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 11 above, describing that the number added to the list may be a predefined constant for the group, e.g., 5 or 3).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 11 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee and Chang discloses each and every element of dependent claim 11. Chen/Lee/Chang additionally discloses:
further comprising:
determining the second number based on template matching costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 11 above, describing that the number added may be the top number of candidates based on template matching cost within the group, i.e., the second number may be determined based on template matching costs of the candidates in the group).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 11 also apply to claim 13.
With respect to claim 14, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee and Chang discloses each and every element of dependent claim 11. Chen/Lee/Chang additionally discloses:
further comprising:
including the second number in the bitstream (see ¶¶385-395, describing that it was known to signal numbers of candidates through a bitstream in the SPS or PPS).
As detailed above, Chen/Lee/Chang teaches the reordering of candidates in a candidate list and specifically Chang teaches that there may be a specific number of candidates to be reordered (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 11 above). Chang does not recite, however, how this number is derived within the system. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different ways to derive such a number and have understood that, as evidenced by Lee, one such way would be to signal such a number. Although the number signaled in Lee is a slightly different number, Lee teaches that it was certainly known that signaling the particular number from the encoder was one way to determine numbers of candidates. As combined with Chang’s teaching that a specific number of candidates may be reordered, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, communicating this number in syntax would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for signaling the number of candidates for reordering in the coding system of Chen/Lee/Chang as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 15, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee and Chang discloses each and every element of dependent claim 11. Chen/Lee/Chang additionally discloses:
wherein a value of the second number is associated with a first group of MVP candidates and a second group of MVP candidates (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 11 above, describing that the values of the number of candidates for the group may be associated with a particular group, e.g., M and N may be different for different groups).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 11 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, Chen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chen in view of Lee and Chang discloses each and every element of dependent claim 11. Chen/Lee/Chang additionally discloses:
wherein a first value of the second number associated with a first group of MVP candidates is different from a second value of the second number associated with a second group of MVP candidates (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 11 and 15 above, describing that the number added for each group may be different for a first group and a second group, i.e., M and N may be different for each group).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 11 also apply to claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, 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 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights