Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the amendment, Applicant argued that Yoo’s Provisional Application No. 62/792,423 cannot qualify as effective prior art since the subject matter essential to the rejection was not carried over into later filed application.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject matter of an abandoned application, including both provisional and nonprovisional applications, referred to in a prior art U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication may be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on that patent or patent application publication if the disclosure of the abandoned application is actually included or incorporated by reference in the patent or patent application publication, see MPEP § 2127(I). Yoo’s Non-Provisional Application US20200260070 clearly discloses on paragraph 0001 “Provisional Application No. 62/792,423 filed on Jan. 15, 2019, the contents of which are all hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.” Therefore, Yoo’s Provisional Application No. 62/792,423 is qualified as effective prior art.
On pages 12-13 of the amendment, Applicant argued Yoo and Jung obvious combination and that Jung only discloses the condition size > 32, not the condition of non-luma block
In response to applicant's argument regarding Yoo and Jung obvious combination, Yoo and Jung are drawn to the same field of endeavor and both teach multiple transform selection using MTS index; 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).
Regarding the argument related to the condition, the claimed condition (non-luma OR size > 32) does not require both non-luma and size > 32 need to be satisfied, as long as one is true, the condition will be satisfied.
On pages 13-15 of the amendment, Applicant argued that table 9-10 on page 94 of Yoo’s provisional application contains clerical error, which should have “1+cqtDepth” instead of a fixed value “0” for the first bit “0” of MTS tu_mts_idx. Furthermore, Applicant argued that in Yoo’s technical solution, it is insufficient to unse only one context model to encode/decode the first bit.
While Applicant’s arguments are understood, regardless if table 9-10 on page 94 of Yoo’s provisional application contains a clerical error or not, which is not clear for the Examiner that the table contains an error, the table on page 59 shows that 6 context models “1…6 (1 + cqtDepth)” can be used for the first bit “0” of MTS tu_mts_idx, but only one context model selected from “1…6” is used for the first bit “0”; therefore, it is clear that the first bit of the binarized codeword corresponding to the transform pair index is decoded by context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding based on one context model since only one context model from “1…6” is used. In addition, the same table of page 59 shows that one context model “0” is assigned to the first bit “0” of (MTS & TS) tu_mts_idx; therefore, it would have obvious to use the assignment of context index increment ctxInc related to the first bit ”0” of (MTS & TS) tu_mts_idx in order to reduce context coded bins which leads to fewer bit assignment and overall coding efficiency enhancement.
In addition, the claim language “determining a first bit of the binarized codeword of the transform pair index by decoding based on one context model” does not teach that one fixed value is assigned to the first bit “0” of the MTS tu_mts_idx, but instead it teaches that the first bit of the binarized codeword is assigned context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding based on one context model. As long as one context model is assigned, selected, or used in coding/decoding process of the first bit, it is broadly interpreted as assignment based on one context model.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially 4created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 29-35, 37-43 and 45-48 of copending Application No. 17/432,887 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘887 claims list all the features recited in claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-20 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
5. Claims 5-7 and 13-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29-35, 37-43 and 45-48 of copending Application No. 17/432,887 in view of Provisional Application 62/792,423 of YOO et al. (US 2020/0260070).
Claims 29-35, 37-43 and 45-48 of copending Application No. 17/432,887 teach the decoding method according to claims 1 and 5. However, the claims do not teach the limitations taught in claims 5-7 and 13-15.
In the same field of endeavor, YOO teaches the limitations wherein the acquiring the coded data of the current block comprises: acquiring inversely quantized data of the current block by performing entropy decoding on the coded data and performing inverse quantization on an entropy decoding result (see entropy decoder 210 and dequantizer 220 of decoding apparatus on page 12); wherein after determining the transform pair corresponding to the current block, the method further comprises: acquiring a residual signal corresponding to the current block by performing reverse transform processing on the inversely quantized data of the current block with the transform pair, and acquiring reconstruction information corresponding to the current block by adding the residual signal and a prediction signal (see inverse transformer 230 and adder 235 of decoding apparatus on page 12); and wherein the current block is a transform unit (TU), the current block is a coding unit (CU) acquired by partitioning coding tree unit (CTU) based on at least one of quad-tree partitioning, horizontal binary-tree partitioning, vertical binary-tree partitioning, horizontal triple-tree partitioning and vertical triple-tree partitioning, wherein the current block is a transform unit with a width greater than a height, or the current block is a transmission unit with a width equal to a height, or the current block is a transmission unit with a width smaller than a height (see pages 7 and 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art to combine the teachings in claims 29-35, 37-43 and 45-48 of copending Application No. 17/432,887, with those of YOO, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed the cited teachings of YOO are known coding/decoding steps that are implemented during any coding/decoding operations, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 8, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Provisional Application 62/792,423 of YOO et al. (US 2020/0260070).
As per claim 8, YOO discloses a coding method, comprising:
coding a binarized codeword (see pages 41-42, section “1.2 Structure of VVC CABAC” and the figure related to CABAC encoding diagram, teach that when a binary string after the binarization is 110, each of 1, 1, and 0 is referred to as one bin, the binarized bins are input to a regular coding engine) of a transform pair index (see the binarized codewords of a transform pair index “tu_mts_idx”, shown in the tables of page 58) in response to determining that the height and the width of a current block are both less than or equal to 32 and the current block is a luma block (see the syntax element in section 1.4 of pages 57-58, if( . . . tu_cbf_luma && ( tbWidth <= 32 ) && ( tbWidth <= 32 ) && ( tbHeight <= 32 ) . . . ) ( tbHeight <= 32 ) . . . ) tu_mts_idx),
wherein a first bit of the binarized codeword of the transform pair index is coded based on one context model (the table on page 59 shows the first bin “0” of tu_mts-idx (MTS) can use 6 context models “1…6 (1 + cqtDepth)”, but only one context model selected from or represented by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 is used for coding the first bit “0”. therefore, the first bit of the binarized codeword of the transform pair index is coded by context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding based on one context model since only one context model from “1...6” is used. As long as one context model is assigned, selected, or used during the coding process of the first bit, it is broadly interpreted as coding based on one context model. Also, see table 9-10 from section 8.5.4.1 on page 94 which teaches assignment of context increment ctxInc to syntax elements with context coded bins, wherein one context model “0” is assigned to the first bit “0” of MTS tu_mts_idx), (DCT2, DCT2) is a transform pair corresponding to the current block in response to the first bit being 0 (MTS enabled column in the last table of page 58 shows that (DCT2, DCT2) is selected when the first bit is 0), a second bit of the binarized codeword is further coded in response to the first bit being 1 (as shown in the last table of page 58, under MTS enabled column, the second bit of 0 or 1 exists only when the first bit is 1), the first bit indicates whether the transform pair (DCT2, DCT2) mapped by a first index value is selected (MTS enabled column in the last table of page 58 shows that (DCT2, DCT2) is selected when the first bit is 0).
As per claims 18 and 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 8 are applicable for claims 18 and 20; in addition, YOO discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one instruction executable by a processor; wherein the at least one instruction, when loaded and executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a coding method (see section 1.10 on pages 95-96).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provisional Application 62/792,423 of YOO et al. (US 2020/0260070) cited in IDS, hereinafter “YOO” in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0185358) cites in IDS, hereinafter “Jung”.
As per claim 1, YOO discloses a decoding method, comprising:
acquiring coded data of a current block (see fig. 3 in page 12; see also lines 7-13 in page 13), the coded data comprises coded information of a transform pair index corresponding to the current block (page 13, the entropy decoder 210 may parse the bitstream to derive information (ex. video/image information) necessary for image reconstruction (or picture reconstruction). For example, the entropy decoder 210 decodes the information in the bitstream based on a coding method such as exponential Golomb coding, CAVLC, or CABAC, and output syntax elements required for image reconstruction and quantized values of transform coefficients for residual. More specifically, the CABAC entropy decoding method may receive a bin corresponding to each syntax element in the bitstream, determine a context model using a decoding target syntax element information, decoding information of a decoding target block or information of a symbol/bin decoded in a previous stage, and perform an arithmetic decoding on the bin by predicting a probability of occurrence of a bin according to the determined context model, and generate a symbol corresponding to the value of each syntax element. Wherein the syntax element can be related to tu_mts_idx as shown in section 1.4 of pages 57-58);
decoding, from the coded information of the transform pair index corresponding to the current block carried in the coded data, a binarized codeword of the transform pair index corresponding to the current block (see binarization codeword of the in the tables of page 58, which is decoded as shown in the figures of page 44) in response to determining, by decoding the coded data, that the height and the width of the current block are both less than or equal to 32 and the current block is the luma block (see the syntax element in section 1.4 of pages 57-58, if( . . . tu_cbf_luma && ( tbWidth <= 32 ) && ( tbWidth <= 32 ) && ( tbHeight <= 32 ) . . . ) ( tbHeight <= 32 ) . . . ) tu_mts_idx), and determining the transform pair corresponding to the current block based on the binarized codeword of the transform pair index (see first paragraph and the tables of page 58, The first bin indicates TS, the second MTS and all following the MTS index);
wherein the decoding, from the coded information of the transform pair index corresponding to the current block carried in the coded data, the binarized codeword of the transform pair index corresponding to the current block (see binarization codeword of the in the tables of page 58, which is decoded as shown in the figures of page 44; see also page 13 lines 11-21, the CABAC entropy decoding method may receive a bin corresponding to each syntax element is the bitstream, determine a context model using a decoding target syntax element information, decoding information of a decoding target block or information of a symbol/bin decoded in a previous stage, and perform an arithmetic decoding on the bin by predicting a probability of occurrence of a bin according to the determined context model, and generate a symbol corresponding to the value of each syntax element) comprises:
determining a first bit of the binarized codeword of the transform pair index by decoding based on one context model (the table on page 59 shows the first bin “0” of tu_mts-idx (MTS) can use 6 context models “1…6 (1 + cqtDepth)”, only one context model selected from “1…6” is used for the first bit “0”. therefore, it is clear that the first bit of the binarized codeword of the transform pair index is decoded by context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding based on one context model since only one context model from “1...6” is used. See also table 9-10 from section 8.5.4.1 on page 94 which teaches assignment of context increment ctxInc to syntax elements with context coded bins, wherein one context model “0” is assigned to the first bit “0” of MTS tu_mts_idx. Furthermore, the table of page 59 teaches that one context model “0” is assigned to the first bit “0” of (MTS & TS) tu_mts_idx; therefore, it would have obvious to use the assignment of context index increment ctxInc related to the first bit ’0” of (MTS & TS) tu_mts_idx in order to reduce context coded bins which leads to fewer bit assignment and overall coding efficiency enhancement); and
the determining the transform pair corresponding to the current block based on the binarized codeword of the transform pair index (as shown in the tables of page 58) comprises:
determining (DCT2, DCT2) as the transform pair corresponding to the current block in response to the first bit being 0 (MTS enabled column in the last table of page 58 shows that (DCT2, DCT2) is selected when the first bit is 0); and decoding a second bit of the binarized codeword in response to the first bit being 1 (as shown in the last table of page 58, under MTS enabled column, the second bit of 0 or 1 exists only when the first bit is 1), the first bit indicates whether the transform pair (DCT2, DCT2) mapped by a first index value is selected (MTS enabled column in the last table of page 58 shows that (DCT2, DCT2) is selected when the first bit is 0).
However, YOO does not explicitly disclose directly determining (DCT2, DCT2) as a transform pair selected by the current block in response to determining, by decoding the coded data, that the current block is not a luma block or a height or a width of the current block is greater than 32.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses directly determining (DCT2, DCT2) as a transform pair selected by the current block in response to determining, by decoding the coded data, that the current block is not a luma block or a height or a width of the current block is greater than 32 (paragraph 0195, the width and height of the transform block may have a value larger than a first length, such as 32 as shown in fig. 17(d). In this case, the encoder and the decoder may perform vertical transformation and horizontal transformation by using a default transform kernel. For example, the default transform kernel may be a transform kernel based on DCT-II).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use the elements taught by YOO, with those of Jung, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references describe multiple transform selection using MTS index, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
As per claim 2, YOO discloses determining that the transform pair corresponding to the current block is (DST7, DST7) in response to the first bit being 1 and a second bit being 0; determining that the transform pair corresponding to the current block is (DCT8, DST7) in response to the first bit being 1, the second bit being 1, and a third bit being 0; determining that the transform pair corresponding to the current block is (DST7, DCT8) in response to the first bit being 1, the second bit being 1, the third bit being 1, and a fourth bit being 0; and determining that the transform pair corresponding to the current block is (DCT8, DCT8) in response to the first bit being 1, the second bit being 1, the third bit being 1, and the fourth bit being 1 (see the MTS enabled column in the last table of page 58).
As per claim 3, YOO discloses wherein prior to acquiring the coded data of the current block, the decoding method further comprises: identifying whether the coded data from a coding device carries a target flag (page 35, lines 1-11, the sps_mts_intra_enabled_flag represents whether a tu_mts_flag exists in a residual coding syntax of an intra coding unit. For example, when sps_mts_intra_enabled_flag = 0, the tu_mts_flag does not exist in the residual coding syntax of the intra coding unit, and when sps_mts_intra_enabled_flag= 1, the tu_mts_flag exists in the residual coding syntax of the intra coding unit. In addition, the sps_mts_inter_enabled_flag represents whether the tu_mts_flag exists in a residual coding syntax of an inter coding unit. For example, when sps_mts_inter_enabled_flag = 0, the tu_mts_flag does not exist in the residual coding syntax of the inter coding unit, and when sps_mts_inter_enabled_flag = 0, the tu_mts_flag exists in the residual coding syntax of the inter coding unit), wherein the target flag indicates that explicit multi-kernel transform is enabled (section 1.1 on page 31, Multiple Transform Selection (hereinafter referred to as 'MTS') may refer to a method of performing transform by using at least two or more transform types. This may also be expressed as an Adaptive Mutliple Transform (AMT) or an Explicit Multiple Transform (EMT)).
As per claim 4, YOO discloses decoding other bits other than the first bit by context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) based on a plurality of context models (see the table on page 59; fig. 6-1 on page 42; page 13 lines 11-21, the CABAC entropy decoding method may receive a bin corresponding to each syntax element in the bitstream, determine a context model using a decoding target syntax element information, decoding information of a decoding target block or information of a symbol/bin decoded in a previous stage, and perform an arithmetic decoding on the bin by predicting a probability of occurrence of a bin according to the determined context model, and generate a symbol corresponding to the value of each syntax element).
As per claim 5, YOO discloses wherein the acquiring the coded data of the current block comprises: acquiring inversely quantized data of the current block by performing entropy decoding on the coded data and performing inverse quantization on an entropy decoding result (see entropy decoder 210 and dequantizer 220 of decoding apparatus on page 12).
As per claim 6, YOO discloses wherein after determining the transform pair corresponding to the current block, the method further comprises: acquiring a residual signal corresponding to the current block by performing reverse transform processing on the inversely quantized data of the current block with the transform pair, and acquiring reconstruction information corresponding to the current block by adding the residual signal and a prediction signal (see inverse transformer 230 and adder 235 of decoding apparatus on page 12).
As per claim 7, YOO discloses wherein the current block is a transform unit (TU), the current block is a coding unit (CU) acquired by partitioning coding tree unit (CTU) based on at least one of quad-tree partitioning, horizontal binary-tree partitioning, vertical binary-tree partitioning, horizontal triple-tree partitioning and vertical triple-tree partitioning, wherein the current block is a transform unit with a width greater than a height, or the current block is a transmission unit with a width equal to a height, or the current block is a transmission unit with a width smaller than a height (see pages 7 and 23).
As per claim 9, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9; in addition, YOO discloses a processor and a memory storing at least one instruction executable by the processor; wherein the processor, when loading and executing the at least one instruction, is caused to perform a decoding method (see section 1.10 on pages 95-96).
As per claims 10-15, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 2-7 are applicable for claims 10-15.
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 9 are applicable for claim 16.
As per claims 17 and 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 17 and 19; in addition, YOO discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one instruction executable by a processor; wherein the at least one instruction, when loaded and executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a decoding method (see section 1.10 on pages 95-96).
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 MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights