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
This action is in response to the remark entered on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 15 & 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 10/16/2025, pages 9-10, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first asserts that Zhang fails to disclose or give any teaching regarding determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process on the as least one group of MVP candidates.
The Examiner determines this point moot because the Examiner depends upon the combination of Zhang and Chen to teach or suggest the above claim limitations. First, the Examiner reads Zhang’s constructing initial MVP candidate list by dividing candidates into subgroups in Paragraph [0149]-[0173], [0250]-[0259] as the claimed first process, and the determination of the final MVP candidate list by dividing candidates into reordered subgroups by predetermined criterion as the claimed reordering process on the first MVP candidate list. However, the Examiner notes that Zhang’s initial constructing of the initial MVP candidate list does not comprise a reordering process, and thus introduces Chen to teach upon and improve upon Zhang’s first MVP candidate list. By incorporating Chen’s group-based candidate reordering process into Zhang’s initial construction of the MVP candidate list, the construction of the MVP candidate list then has a reordering process applied, which the combination of Zhang with the teachings of Chen arrives at the determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process on the at least one group of MVP candidates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chen to the teachings of Zhang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such MVP candidate list construction and reordering processes within an MVP candidate list. Further, applying reordering processes to Zhang with MVP candidates within a list accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow for more easier to sort and search for the most optimal MVP candidate for video encoding. Further, Section 2 in Zhang2 is introduced to further articulate that reordering of MVP candidates is handled initially as a first process before refining the MVP candidate list is instigated reading as a second pass of reordering. Thus, the combination of Zhang and Chen teach or suggest determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process on the as least one group of MVP candidates.
The Applicant finally asserts that Zhang does not disclose, “determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, Zhang discloses of determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list. In Paragraph [0149]-[0173], [0208]-[0222], [0250]-[0259], Fig. 6, Zhang discloses of the final MVP candidate list by dividing candidates into reordered subgroups by predetermined criterion. This reads upon, “determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-20 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks filed 10/16/2025, pages 13, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-12, 14 & 16-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 teach independent claim 1 as outlined below. Thus, claims 2-12, 14 & 16-17 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains language in the alternative. The phrase, “[a] method for video processing is proposed. […],” is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the term adding a second plurality of MVP candidates of a second candidate category into the group without limiting the total number of the second plurality of MVP candidates is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “without limiting the total number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the Claim 15 recites the limitation "the total number.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, nowhere in the Specification does the Examiner find any indication that of adding a second plurality of MVP candidates of a second candidate category into the group without limiting the total number of the second plurality of MVP candidates. Thus the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement by introducing new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12, 14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0239899 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen), and further in view of Zhang et al., “AHG 12: Adaptive Reordering of Merge Candidates with Template Matching (JVET-V0099-V3) (hereinafter Zhang2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for video processing [Abstract, decoding motion information during conversion between video block and video bitstream], comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video [Abstract, decoding motion information during conversion between video block and video bitstream], at least one group of motion vector prediction (MVP) candidates of the target video block [Paragraph [0139], [0150]-[0156] & [0233]-[0258], Subgroups of MVP candidates];
determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first process on the at least one group of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0149]-[0173], [0250]-[0259], constructing initial MVP candidate list by dividing candidates into subgroups];
determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a reordering process on the first MVP candidate list [Paragraph [0149]-[0173], [0208]-[0222], [0250]-[0259], Fig. 6, final MVP candidate list by dividing candidates into reordered subgroups by predetermined criterion]; and
performing the conversion based on the second MVP candidate list [Paragraph [0149]-[0173], [0208]-[0222], [0250]-[0259], Fig. 6, Encoder 200 encodes motion information and indices into bitstream using final list of candidates].
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process on the at least one group of MVP candidates.
Chen teaches of determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process on the at least one group of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
However, Zhang and Chen do not explicitly disclose determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list.
Zhang2 teaches of determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list [2 Proposed methods, TM merge mode, merge candidates are reordered (first reordering pass) before the refinement process (second pass of reordering process), which include subgroup candidates reordered ascendingly according to cost values].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the template matching cost reordering process as described in Zhang2 as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency of merge candidate index (Zhang2, 1 Introduction & 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein the at least one group of MVP candidates comprises at least one of: a single group of MVP candidates associated with a single candidate category, or a joint group of MVP candidates associated with a plurality of candidate categories [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list],
wherein determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list] comprises:
sorting MVP candidates of the at least one group of MVP candidates based on costs of MVP candidates in the at least one group of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group based upon estimated total cost of selected group];
for each group of the at least one group, determining at least one MVP candidate based on respective costs of MVP candidates in the group; and adding the at least one MVP candidate into the first MVP candidate list, wherein the costs comprise template matching costs [Paragraph [0132]-[0143], multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected. After multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected, the L-shape template with the L-shape matching method is applied to each feature candidate inside group gr_i of the selected groups to get the estimated cost. The estimated costs of feature candidates can represent the total cost for the selected group].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein determining a first MVP candidate list by performing a first pass of reordering process comprises: determining at least one reordered group of MVP candidates by performing the first pass of reordering; and
determining the first MVP candidate list based at least in part on the at least one reordered group of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein the at least one reordered group comprises a first reordered group and a second reordered group, the first and second reordered groups having an overlap candidate [Paragraph [0006]-[0010] & [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list, wherein groups of spatial candidates and temporal candidates each have redundant candidates].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein the at least one reordered group comprises a first reordered group and a second reordered group, the first and second reordered groups having no overlap candidate [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein each group are separately categorized by spatial, temporal, sub-PU, etc.].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list are from the at least one group of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein each group are separately categorized by spatial, temporal, sub-PU, etc.].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein determining the first MVP candidate list based at least in part on the at least one reordered group of MVP candidates comprises: adding a first plurality of MVP candidates from the at least one reordered group into the first MVP candidate list; and adding a second plurality of MVP candidates of the target video block into the first MVP candidate list based on a further rule [Paragraph [0138]-[0143], Group-based candidate reordering process, wherein can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) within list, thus adding the first and second plurality of MVPs into list].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang2 teaches wherein determining a second MVP candidate list by performing a second pass of reordering process on the first MVP candidate list comprises: sorting the first MVP candidate list based on costs of MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list; and adding a number of MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list into the second MVP candidate list based on the sorting [2 Proposed Methods, Merge candidates in each subgroup are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on template matching. The template matching cost is measured by the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block and their corresponding reference samples].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the template matching cost reordering process as described in Zhang2 as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency of merge candidate index (Zhang2, 1 Introduction & 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang2 teaches wherein the first MVP candidate list is sorted regardless of candidate categories of MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list [2 Proposed methods, TM merge mode, merge candidates are reordered (first reordering pass) before the refinement process].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the template matching cost reordering process as described in Zhang2 as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency of merge candidate index (Zhang2, 1 Introduction & 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang2 teaches wherein adding a number of MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list based on the sorting comprises: adding all MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list into the second MVP candidate list based on the sorting [2 Proposed Methods, Merge candidates in each subgroup are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on template matching. The template matching cost is measured by the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block and their corresponding reference samples].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the template matching cost reordering process as described in Zhang2 as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency of merge candidate index (Zhang2, 1 Introduction & 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches wherein the costs of MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list comprise template matching costs of the MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list [Paragraph [0132]-[0143], multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected. After multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected, the L-shape template with the L-shape matching method is applied to each feature candidate inside group gr_i of the selected groups to get the estimated cost].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen teaches of further comprising: determining the costs of the MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list in the first pass of reordering [Paragraph [0132]-[0143], multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected. After multiple “feature candidates” inside the group gr_i are selected, the L-shape template with the L-shape matching method is applied to each feature candidate inside group gr_i of the selected groups to get the estimated cost].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the candidate group reordering process as described in Chen as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Chen, Paragraph [0091]).
However, Zhang and Chen do not teach reusing the costs of the MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list in the second pass of reordering.
Zhang2 teaches of reusing the costs of the MVP candidates in the first MVP candidate list in the second pass of reordering [2 Proposed Methods, Merge candidates in each subgroup are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on template matching. The template matching cost is measured by the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block and their corresponding reference samples].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the template matching cost reordering process as described in Zhang2 as above, in order to improve the coding efficiency of merge candidate index (Zhang2, 1 Introduction & 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein a number of at least partial MVP candidates of the group is limited by a threshold number [Paragraph [0169]-[0178], threshold number Y].
Regarding claim 16, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream [Paragraph [0259], It shall be understood that, the reordering process by the video decoder 300 may be the same as the reordering process by the video encoder 200].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang, Chen, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream [Paragraph [0169]-[0178], It shall be understood that, the reordering process by the video decoder 300 may be the same as the reordering process by the video encoder 200].
Regarding claim 18, apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus using/ performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 13 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses of the apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform method claim 1 [Paragraph [0067]-[0070] & [0466], Processing unit or processor].
Regarding claim 19, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions claim 19 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions [Paragraph [0459], a machine-readable medium may be any tangible medium that may contain or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device, including RAM, ROM].
Regarding claim 20, method claim 20 for storing a bitstream of a video corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses of storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium [Paragraph [0102]-[0103], the encoded video data may also be stored onto a storage medium/ server 130].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 & 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487