DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 15 MAY 2026.
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
Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claim 16 has been added. No claim has been canceled. Claims 1-16 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 MAY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 3, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention, Applicant alleges the following:
“The objection to claim 3 seems to rest on an understanding that first residuals must first exist with non-zero values before they can “vanish.” Such an understanding cannot be derived from the meaning of vanish, nor from the wording of the remainder of claim 3. The applicant specifically draws the Examiner’s attention to the explicit definition in paragraph [0015]:
In the terminology of the present disclosure, the set of first residuals is said to “vanish” throughout the non-motion region if their values are zero or approximately equal to zero here.
Clearly, the residuals “vanish” in this sense if their values are zero, not only if they become zero after having been non-zero. Withdrawal of the objections to claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, as being indefinite is therefore respectfully requested.” (Remarks, p. 4.)
The Applicant’s understanding of the rejection is correct; however, the Examiner respectfully does not agree with how the claim should be interpreted in light of ¶ [0015] of the specification as published. The interpretation given to claim 1 in the limitation of “causing the first set of residuals […] to vanish […]” is the “causing” is acting on “the first set of residuals” to accomplish the “vanish” outcome. In other words, while the terminology of “vanish” may not be bound as to when the residuals are set to zero, the claim expressly requires the vanishing to occur to the already determined set of first residuals. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065976 A1 (hereinafter “He”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0191521 A1 (hereinafter “Ferrara”), Applicant alleges the following:
“However, the Office action appears to have understood the opposite of the negative correlation actually t aught by paragraph [0147]. The meaning of "prioritise" in paragraph [0147] is the same as in paragraph [0076] of the reference. Hence, the fact that "the residual masks may prioritise" the area with fast moving action over the background signifies that the residual mask is set to zero in the background and non-zero in the area with fast moving action. The effect of this is that residuals for the background "are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams" (paragraph [0029]).” (Remarks, p. 6.)
The Examiner agrees the mask is prioritizing based on fast moving action over the background and respectfully disagrees the result is the residuals “are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams.” Applicant’s argument appears to be that while Ferrara discloses masking for setting values to zero in non-motion regions, Ferrara does not disclose selectively applying the mask to the first residuals and not the second residuals. Ferrara expressly discloses in ¶ [0029] selectively applying residual masks and as such, the mask selectively being applied to the first encoder and not the second encoder results in meeting the claim limitation. Furthermore, Ferrara discloses the residual masking happens during the mode and the residual mode is also exemplified as being selectively applied in ¶ [0075]. Paragraph [0075] of Ferrara states, “The residual mode may be selected independently for the first and second enhancement streams (e.g. residual processing blocks 350-2 and 350-1 may be activated and applied separately where one may be off while another is on).” For these reasons, the argument is found unpersuasive.
“Ferrara therefore teaches eliminating non-zero values in both the first and second enhancement level streams. Ferrara contains no teaching or suggestion to cause the first residuals to vanish while leaving the second residuals intact in the non-motion region. Because Ferrara lacks this asymmetric masking feature, it fails to disclose “causing the set of first residuals but not the set of second residuals to vanish,” as claims 1, 14, and 15 require.” (Remarks, p. 7.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0075] of Ferrara’s disclosure unequivocally discloses selectively applying the mask to one residual set and not the other. Applicant’s concern regarding ¶ [0147] teaching the use of the residual mask to both streams is understood as an embodiment where the mask is selectively applied to both. For these reasons, the argument is found unpersuasive.
“Finally, it is respectfully submitted that He and Ferrara are not combinable. In detail, Ferrara does not use temporal prediction for encoding, and advises against it in paragraphs [0059] (reproduced below) and [0145] by giving explicit technical reasons: [Paragraph [0059] redacted])” (text modified). (Remarks, pp. 7-8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As technology advances and there is an increase in resolution and frame rate (i.e., total bitrate), there is also a need to improve efficiency. Efficiency has been improving by the inclusion of various techniques, many of which allow for parallel processing. Some techniques include the invention of tiles, slices, disabling inter-layer prediction, and limiting GOP size for use in multi-core processors. The disclosure of Ferrara further advances the field of video compression by modifying the standard Scalable Video Coding (SVC) as presented by He with switching the enhancement layers to function based on residual coding. Ferrara maintains the desirability of SVC of He with the benefits of MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC. See Ferrara, ¶ [0068]. Additionally, the Examiner views ¶ [0059] as a motivation to combine the two references, because Ferrara attempts to solve for problems in He’s conventional approach that “limit the level of parallelism and require a much higher complexity.” In other words, Ferrara in ¶ [0059] is describing a problem with temporal dependencies and provides a solution for improving the efficiency of He’s SVC by improving the parallelism and reducing the complexity. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
“The additional features in new claim 16 further disqualify Ferrara as related art that the person skilled in the art would consider in relation to claim 1. To be clear, Ferrara explicitly rejects temporal prediction coding, let alone any kind of asymmetric application of temporal prediction coding to one enhancement layer but not the other.” (Remarks, p. 9.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Ferrara’s disclosure in ¶ [0059] describes differences and how those differences in comparative video encoding schemes are problematic due to temporal dependencies. Ferrara applies SVC as implemented by MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC into He’s conventional SVC and thereby improving coding efficiency. Therefore, Ferrara not utilizing temporal prediction, as acknowledged by the Applicant, teaches the subject matter of claim 16. It is also noted the subject matter of claim 16 is considered Applicant Admitted Prior-Art (AAPA), because Applicant’s specification as filed describes in ¶ [0004] that conventional LCEVC encodes the sublayer 1 without temporal prediction.
Interview Summary
Applicant’s Remarks filed 15 MAY 2026 included a telephonic interview request. Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s representative on 07/14/2026 and 07/15/2026. A message was left with a receptionist on 07/15/2026 for attorney Daniel H. Golub (Reg. No. 33,701). No response was received as of the mailing of this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation appears to cause the first residuals to vanish by replacing video, which would be prior to the first residuals having been generated, and therefore it is unclear how there can be a vanishing step on residuals that have not been generated. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as providing feedback to re-encode the first enhancement layer with the difference of having replaced the video to produce new first residuals that do not include the “vanished” residuals.
With regard to claim 6, a similar issue as claim 3 occurs, where the vanishing of the residuals happens prior to generating the set of first residuals and it is unclear how there can be a vanishing step of residuals that have not been generated. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as comprising a plurality of steps, one of which is the claimed subtraction.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065976 A1 (hereinafter “He”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0191521 A1 (hereinafter “Ferrara”).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of encoding an input video including a sequence of video frames as a hybrid video stream (FIG. 5 depicts encoder 500 with BL encoder 508 and EL encoder 516 for encoding the input video and then multiplexing the two output streams (e.g., hybrid video stream)), wherein the method comprises:
downsampling the input video from an original spatial resolution to a reduced spatial resolution (FIG. 1, down-sampling 101. [0039], “The spatial and/or temporal signal resolution to be represented by the layer 1 (e.g., a base layer) may be generated by down-sampling of the input video signal 120 at a down-sampler 101”) and an intermediate spatial resolution (FIG. 1, down-sampling 102. [0039], “the input video signal 120 may be downsampled at down-sampler 102.” Note, layer N is up-sampled to the resolution of layer 2 and layer 2 is up-sampled to the resolution of layer 1, meaning layer 2 is the intermediate spatial resolution);
providing the input video at the reduced spatial resolution to a base encoder to obtain a base encoded stream (FIG. 1, encoder layer 1 121 receives the reduced spatial resolution from down-sampling 101 and produces encoded base layer bitstream 122. FIG. 5, EL encoder 508 and base layer bitstream 510);
providing a first enhancement stream by:
generating a set of first residuals based on a difference between the input video at the intermediate spatial resolution and a reconstructed video at the intermediate spatial resolution (FIG. 1, sum 124. [0039], “the input video signal 120 may be downsampled at down-sampler 102 and then the upsampled base layer reconstruction signal may be subtracted from the downsampled input video signal at 124 to generate a difference signal.” Note, the difference signal is the set of first residuals);
quantizing the set of first residuals (FIG. 1, encoder layer 2 125 and Q2. [0039], “The difference signal may be encoded at a layer-2 encoder 125 to create a layer-2 bitstream 126.” [0055], “The encoder 300 may transform and quantize the prediction residual 318 at a transformation unit 304 and a quantization unit 306, respectively. By transforming a quantizing the prediction residual 318, the encoder 300 may generate a residual coefficient block 324. The residual coefficient block 324 may be referred to as a quantized residual.” Note, the encoder of FIG. 3 represents the encoding functionalities of each encoder in FIG. 1); and
forming the first enhancement stream from the set of quantized first residuals ([0039], “The difference signal may be encoded at a layer-2 encoder 125 to create a layer-2 bitstream 126.” [0055], “The encoder 300 may transform and quantize the prediction residual 318 at a transformation unit 304 and a quantization unit 306, respectively. By transforming a quantizing the prediction residual 318, the encoder 300 may generate a residual coefficient block 324. The residual coefficient block 324 may be referred to as a quantized residual.” FIG. 3, quantization 306 and bitstream 320. Note, the encoder of FIG. 3 represents the encoding functionalities of each encoder in FIG. 1);
providing a second enhancement stream by:
generating a set of second residuals based on a difference between the input video at the original spatial resolution and a reconstructed video at the original spatial resolution (FIG. 1 illustrates encoder layer n receiving the original video signal 120 and generating residuals by summing the results from up-sampling layer 2);
quantizing the set of second residuals (FIG. 1, encoder layer N and QN. [0055], “The encoder 300 may transform and quantize the prediction residual 318 at a transformation unit 304 and a quantization unit 306, respectively. By transforming a quantizing the prediction residual 318, the encoder 300 may generate a residual coefficient block 324. The residual coefficient block 324 may be referred to as a quantized residual.” Note, the encoder of FIG. 3 represents the encoding functionalities of each encoder in FIG. 1, including encoder layer N); and
forming the second enhancement stream from the set of quantized second residuals (FIG. 1, encoded layer-N bitstream N. FIG. 3, quantization 306 and bitstream 320. Note, the encoder of FIG. 3 represents the encoding functionalities of each encoder in FIG. 1, including encoder layer N), wherein the second enhancement stream is at least partially encoded using temporal prediction and further comprises temporal signaling indicating whether temporal prediction is used (FIG. 3 depicts motion prediction (estimation and compensation) 322 (i.e., temporal prediction) and signaling prediction information 328. [0055], “The entropy coder 308 may generate an output video bitstream 320 using the residual coefficient block 324 and the coding mode, motion information, and/or prediction information 328.” FIG. 5, inter-layer prediction processing & management 514);
forming the hybrid video stream from the base encoded stream, the first enhancement stream and the second enhancement stream ([0061], “A bitstream multiplexer 528 may combine the base layer bitstream 510 and the enhancement layer bitstream 518 to generate a scalable bitstream 530.” FIG. 5 illustrates an example of two layers, which can be expanded to N layers, see FIG. 1)
.
He fails to expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises:
detecting at least one non-motion region in a video frame; and
causing the set of first residuals but not the set of second residuals to vanish throughout the non-motion region.
However, Ferrara teaches wherein the method further comprises:
detecting at least one non-motion region in a video frame ([0147], “the encoder may analyse the input video and prepare a set of residual masks for each frame of the video. For example, the residual masks may prioritise the area of the picture in which detail is required such as where the action is fast moving rather than the background of the sports field.” [0029], “wherein the configuration data comprises residual masks for one or more of the first and second encoders, wherein respective ones of the first and second encoders are configured to selectively apply the residual masks to respective ones of the first and second set of residuals prior to encoding such that a subset of non-zero values within are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams”); and
causing the set of first residuals but not the set of second residuals to vanish throughout the non-motion region ([0029], “wherein the configuration data comprises residual masks for one or more of the first and second encoders, wherein respective ones of the first and second encoders are configured to selectively apply the residual masks to respective ones of the first and second set of residuals prior to encoding such that a subset of non-zero values within are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a residual mask for eliminating residuals in one enhancement level stream, as taught by Ferrara ([0029]), in He’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify He’s invention, by including Ferrara’s invention, to reduce overall data size and maintaining overall quality as experienced by a user (Ferrara: [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the set of first residuals is caused to vanish throughout the non-motion region by applying masking to the set of quantized first residuals ([0029], “wherein the configuration data comprises residual masks for one or more of the first and second encoders, wherein respective ones of the first and second encoders are configured to selectively apply the residual masks to respective ones of the first and second set of residuals prior to encoding such that a subset of non-zero values within are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams.” [0121-0122] describes the RM L-1 control 360-1 can analyze after quantization and adjust the residual control. [0075], “Although residual processing is shown prior to transformation, optionally, the processing step may be arranged elsewhere, for example, later in the encoding process.” Note, later in the encoding process includes after quantizing). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the set of first residuals is caused to vanish throughout the non-motion region by applying masking to the difference between the input video and a reconstructed video at the intermediate spatial resolution or by applying masking to the set of first residuals prior to the quantizing ([0029], “wherein the configuration data comprises residual masks for one or more of the first and second encoders, wherein respective ones of the first and second encoders are configured to selectively apply the residual masks to respective ones of the first and second set of residuals prior to encoding such that a subset of non-zero values within are not present in respective first and second enhancement level streams.” FIG. 3 discloses applying the residual processing 350-1 prior to transform, which is prior to quantizing). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the set of first residuals is caused to vanish throughout the non-motion region by: in the non-motion region of the video frame, subtracting from the input video, prior to generating the set of first residuals, a predicted difference between the input video and the reconstructed video at the intermediate spatial resolution (FIG. 3, RP 350-1 located prior to processing the residuals and after the differential of the base codec reconstruction and down-sampled input video. FIG. 7, 350-1 after 310-S and prior to processing the residuals). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6
Regarding claim 7, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein each video frame of the first enhancement stream is decodable without reference to any other video frame of the first enhancement stream (FIG. 4 depicts enhancement level 1 decoded by decoder 400-1 without temporal predictive techniques to another references in the same layer). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, He discloses wherein providing the second enhancement stream further comprises determining, for each set of second residuals or quantized second residuals in a video frame, whether to use temporal prediction with reference to one or more other video frames, and indicating by the temporal signaling whether temporal prediction is used in said video frame (FIG. 3 depicts motion prediction (estimation and compensation) 322 (i.e., temporal prediction) and signaling prediction information 328. [0055], “The entropy coder 308 may generate an output video bitstream 320 using the residual coefficient block 324 and the coding mode, motion information, and/or prediction information 328.” FIG. 5, inter-layer prediction processing & management 514 outputs the temporal prediction information 526 to the mux 528 to be transmitted with the residuals).
Regarding claim 9, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the at least one non-motion region is detected in a video frame of the input video at the original spatial resolution or in a video frame of the input video at the intermediate spatial resolution (FIG. 1 depicts the residual mode (RM) selection operation on the original spatial resolution and being applied at the intermediate spatial resolution). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, He discloses wherein the intermediate spatial resolution is finer than the reduced spatial resolution, or the intermediate and reduced spatial resolutions are equal (FIG. 1 depicts the first enhancement layer having a higher spatial resolution (e.g., finer) than the base layer’s resolution. Note, Ferrara alternatively discloses the same spatial resolution for both in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the first and/or second residuals are generated by applying a transform kernel of size 2 x 2 o 4 x 4 pixels to the difference between the input video and the reconstructed video ([0066], “The transform as described herein may use a directional decomposition transform such as a Hadamard-based transform. Both may comprise a small kernel or matrix that is applied to flattened coding units of residuals (i.e. 2×2 or 4×4 blocks of residuals)”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the set of first residuals and the set of second residuals are quantized using different levels of quantization (FIG. 3, first enhancement layer encoder 350-1 with quantization block 320-1 and second enhancement layer encoder 350-2 with quantization block 320-2. [0157], “The deadzone may be a function of a quantization step width for the residual (e.g. 5 times the step width). The step width may be a dynamic parameter that varies with residual location (e.g. with residual or group of residuals) or a static parameter for all residuals.” [0073], “This may be applied at both levels (1 and 2). For example, quantizing at block 320 may comprise dividing transformed residual values by a step-width. The step-width may be pre-determined, e.g. selected based on a desired level of quantization”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14. Additionally, He discloses a device comprising processing circuitry ([0151], “The processor 2018 may be a general purpose processor, a special purpose processor, a conventional processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in association with a DSP core, a controller, a microcontroller, Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGAs) circuits, any other type of integrated circuit (IC), a state machine, and the like”).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written as a product instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15. Additionally, He discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to carry a method ([0180], “computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor”).
Regarding claim 16, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ferrara discloses wherein the first enhancement stream is encoded without temporal prediction (FIG. 3, the first enhancement stream does not include a temporal prediction function). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 16.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0065976 A1 (hereinafter “He”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0191521 A1 (hereinafter “Ferrara”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0385911 A1 (hereinafter “Meardi”).
Regarding claim 12, He and Ferrara disclose every limitation of claim 11, as outlined above. He and Ferrara fail to expressly disclose wherein the transform kernel is a Low-Complexity Enhancement Video Coding, LCEVC, transform kernel.
However, Meardi teaches wherein the transform kernel is a Low-Complexity Enhancement Video Coding, LCEVC, transform kernel ([0024] describes the tier-based hierarchical format as “MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC (“Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding”)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have complied with LCEVC, as taught by Meardi ([0024]), in He and Ferrara’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify He and Ferrara’s invention, by including Meardi’s invention, to comply with the latest compression scheme for higher coding efficiencies.
There is no prior-art rejection for claims 3 and 4; however, they are both rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0397056 A1 – Paragraph [0070] describes a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) implemented In LCEVC with the temporal mode disabled for the enhancement encoder.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights