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 December 30, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-16 & 21-26 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11 & 15-16 are amended.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 14 & 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-26 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 12/30/2025, page 7, regarding the obviousness-type double rejection of claim 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims in US 12,341,988 B2 are distinct from the instant application based upon the claims in the instant application being amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as outlined in the rejection(s) below. Thus the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-16 is maintained.
Applicant's remarks filed 12/30/2025, pages 7-8, regarding the rejection of claim 1, 11 & 22 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0288157 A1) (hereinafter Li) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006787 A1) (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Lin (US 2015/0215640 A1) (hereinafter Lin) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1, 11 & 22 below, where Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations are addressed by Lin and are rejected for the reasons outlined below.
Applicant's remarks filed 12/30/2025, page 8, regarding the rejection of claims 3, 5-9, 13, 15-16, 21 & 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant 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 respectfully disagrees because the combination of Li, Zhang, and Lin teach or suggest claims 1, 11 & 22. Thus, claims 3, 5-9, 13, 15-16, 21 & 23-26 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Patent US 12,341,988 B2
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15-16 & 22-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent US 12,341,988 B2 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006787 A1) (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Lin (US 2015/0215640 A1) (hereinafter Lin).
Instant – 18/777,385
US 12,341,988 B2
1. A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
1. A method for decoding a current coding block, performed at a computing system having one or more processors and memory, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block;
when the current block is not encoded in a compound inter prediction mode, inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates;
in accordance with a determination that a first condition is satisfied, inserting the one or more MV candidates from the reference MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list associated with the current coding block after derived MV candidates are inserted into the MVP list;
when the current block is encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, inserting the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates; and
in accordance with a determination that the first condition is not satisfied, inserting the one or more MV candidates from the reference MV bank into the MVP list associated with the current coding block before the derived MV candidates are inserted into the MVP list; and
decoding the current block using an MV from the MVP list.
predicting the current coding block based on the MVP list.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, and similarly claims 11 & 22 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the patent in that the instant application includes the limitations of, receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block; inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before/after inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates; and decoding the current block. However, these limitations are known in the art as evidenced by Zhang, wherein Paragraph [0063], [0333]-[0357], [0422]-[0424], [0472], [0487], decoder receiving coded representation of visual media data, adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, either before or after the derived candidates in the merge list construction process, and decoding a first video block as current block. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the instant invention to add the teachings of Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images as Zhang discusses in Paragraph [0063].
Furthermore, the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, and similarly claims 11 & 22 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the patent in that the instant application includes the limitations of when the current block is not encoded in a compound inter prediction mode, inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates; and when the current block is encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, inserting the one or more MV candidates into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates. However, these limitations are known in the art as evidenced by Lin, wherein Paragraph [0067]-[0068], wherein when the IVMVP is the MVP or DVP, as being as whether a current block is a compound inter prediction mode, the IVMVP may be inserted before or after the SMVP. 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 Lin to integrate the candidate list process as described in Lin as above, to provide a method and an apparatus for constructing a candidate vector list, which can eliminate an impact of low accuracy of MV prediction on coding compression performance (Lin, Paragraph [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15-16 & 23-25, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Zhang and Lin.
Claims 6-8, 21 & 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of Patent US 12,341,988 B2, Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006787 A1) (hereinafter Zhang), and Lin (US 2015/0215640 A1) (hereinafter Lin) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/039899 A1) (hereinafter Zhang2)
Regarding claims 6-8, 21 & 26, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Zhang, Lin, and Zhang2.
This is nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2020/0288157 A1) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 22-26, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream,” … is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a claimed video bitstream in claim 22-26 merely services as a support for the storage of the video bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored video bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Li which recites in Paragraph [0043] of a storage device, such as an information repository, or one or more of the client devices 106-116. For another example, one of the client devices 106-116 can receive a 3D point cloud, decompose the 3D point cloud to fit on 2D frames, compress the frames to generate a bitstream that can be transmitted to a storage device, such as an information repository, another one of the client devices 106-116, or to the server 104.
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, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15-16 & 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0288157 A1) (hereinafter Li) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006787 A1) (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Lin (US 2015/0215640 A1) (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of video decoding [Paragraph [0010], methods and apparatus for video decoding], the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block [Paragraph [0092]-[0097], video decoder receiving coded pictures part of coded video sequence as video bitstream, including current block, encoded from video encoder];
inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list [Paragraph [0129]-[0134], latest several HMVP candidates in the table are checked in order and inserted to the candidate list];
decoding the current block using an MV from the MVP list [Paragraph [0095]-[0101], decoding current block using inter prediction information as MV from the MVP list].
However, Li does not explicitly disclose inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates; and inserting the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates.
Zhang teaches inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a MV bank into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates [Paragraph [0333]-[0357], Adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, before the pre-defined steps in merge list construction process, as derived SMVP candidates]; and inserting the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates [Paragraph [0333]-[0357], Adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, after the pre-defined steps in merge list construction process, as derived SMVP 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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
However, Li and Zhang do not explicitly disclose or suggest when the current block is not encoded in a compound inter prediction mode, inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates; and when the current block is encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, inserting the one or more MV candidates into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates.
Lin teaches when the current block is not encoded in a compound inter prediction mode, inserting one or more motion vector (MV) candidates into a motion vector prediction (MVP) list before inserting one or more derived spatial motion vector predictor (SMVP) candidates [Paragraph [0067]-[0068], when the IVMVP is the MVP, as not DVP as compound inter prediction mode, the IVMVP (MVP) may be inserted before the SMVP]; and when the current block is encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, inserting the one or more MV candidates into the MVP list after inserting the one or more derived SMVP candidates [Paragraph [0067]-[0068], When the IVMVP is the DVP, as compound inter prediction mode, the IVMVP (DVP) may be inserted after the SMVP];
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 Li to integrate the candidate list process as described in Lin as above, to provide a method and an apparatus for constructing a candidate vector list, which can eliminate an impact of low accuracy of MV prediction on coding compression performance (Lin, Paragraph [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Li, Zhang, and Lin disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank are inserted into the MVP list after inserting one or more temporal motion vector predictor (TMVP) candidates [Paragraph [0333]-[0357], Adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, after the pre-defined steps in merge list construction process, including temporal candidates as TMVP, when this is current design].
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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Li, Zhang, and Lin disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lin teaches wherein when the current block is not encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, the one or more MV candidates are inserted into the MVP list [Paragraph [0067]-[0068], when the IVMVP is the MVP, as not DVP as compound inter prediction mode, the IVMVP (MVP) may be inserted before the SMVP].
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 Li to integrate the candidate list process as described in Lin as above, to provide a method and an apparatus for constructing a candidate vector list, which can eliminate an impact of low accuracy of MV prediction on coding compression performance (Lin, Paragraph [0007]-[0008]).
However, Li and Lin do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank are inserted into the MVP list before inserting one or more extra candidates
Zhang teaches wherein the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank are inserted into the MVP list before inserting one or more extra candidates [Paragraph [0333]-[0357], Adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, before the pre-defined steps in merge list construction process, as derived candidates, when this is not current design being the predefined condition].
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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Li, Zhang, and Lin disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lin teaches wherein when the current block is not encoded in the compound inter prediction mode, the one or more MV candidates are inserted into the MVP list before inserting one or more TMVP candidates [Paragraph [0067]-[0068], when the IVMVP is the MVP, as not DVP as compound inter prediction mode, the IVMVP (MVP) may be inserted before the SMVP, and thus before TMVP].
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 Li to integrate the candidate list process as described in Lin as above, to provide a method and an apparatus for constructing a candidate vector list, which can eliminate an impact of low accuracy of MV prediction on coding compression performance (Lin, Paragraph [0007]-[0008]).
However, Li and Lin do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank are inserted into the MVP list before inserting one or more TMVP candidates [Paragraph [0333]-[0357], Adding HMVP candidates from table, as MV bank, before the pre-defined steps in merge list construction process, as derived 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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claims (11, 13, 15-16), system claims (11, 13, 15-16) are drawn to the computer system comprising limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of the same as claimed in claims (1, 3, 5 & 9). Therefore computer system claims (11, 13, 15-16) correspond to method claims (1, 3, 5 & 9), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Li discloses control circuitry; memory; and one or more sets of instructions stored in the memory and configured for execution by the control circuitry, the one or more sets of instructions comprising instructions [Paragraph [0300]-[0301], A computer-readable medium can include one or more memory devices or chips, according to particular needs. The software can cause the core (2740) and specifically the processors therein (including CPU, GPU, FPGA, and the like) to execute particular processes].
Regarding claims (22-25), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (22-25) corresponds to the computer system as claimed in claims (11, 13 & 15-16), and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Li discloses of storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method and one or more instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor, cause a computing system to generate the video bitstream [Paragraph [0043] of a storage device, such as an information repository, or one or more of the client devices 106-116. For another example, one of the client devices 106-116 can receive a 3D point cloud, decompose the 3D point cloud to fit on 2D frames, compress the frames to generate a bitstream that can be transmitted to a storage device, such as an information repository, another one of the client devices 106-116, or to the server 104].
Claims 6-8, 21 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0288157 A1) (hereinafter Li), Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006787 A1) (hereinafter Zhang), and Lin (US 2015/0215640 A1) (hereinafter Lin) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0239899 A1) (hereinafter Zhang2).
Regarding claim 6, Li, Zhang, and Lin disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Li, Zhang, and Lin do not disclose the particulars of claim 6.
Zhang2 teaches of further comprising reordering at least a portion of the MVP list [Paragraph [0510]-[0513], Reordering of 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 Li to integrate the reordering of candidates as described in Zhang2 as above, to transmission of motion information for the block is expected to be reduced in order to increase compression efficiency (Zhang2, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Li, Zhang, Lin, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses wherein the at least a portion of the MVP list comprises one or more SMVP candidates and one or more TMVP candidates [Paragraph [0116]-[0120], SMVP and TMVP within merge candidate list].
Additionally Zhang teaches wherein the at least a portion of the MVP list comprises one or more SMVP candidates and one or more TMVP candidates [Paragraph [0108]-[0120], SMVP and TMVP within merge candidate 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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Li, Zhang, Lin, and Zhang2 disclose the method of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the at least a portion of the MVP list does not include the one or more MV candidates from the MV bank [Paragraph [0079]-[0091], Derivation of candidates including spatial/temporal candidate derivation with no MV bank or HMVP insertion, or if maximum candidate list size has been reached after adding SMVP/TMVP 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 Li to integrate the HMVP candidates as described in Zhang as above, to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (Zhang, Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 21, system claim 21 is drawn to the computer system comprising limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of the same as claimed in claim 6. Therefore computer system claim 21 corresponds to method claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 26, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 26 corresponds to the computer system as claimed in claim 21, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Li discloses of storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method and one or more instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor, cause a computing system to generate the video bitstream [Paragraph [0043] of a storage device, such as an information repository, or one or more of the client devices 106-116. For another example, one of the client devices 106-116 can receive a 3D point cloud, decompose the 3D point cloud to fit on 2D frames, compress the frames to generate a bitstream that can be transmitted to a storage device, such as an information repository, another one of the client devices 106-116, or to the server 104].
Conclusion
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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
Prosecution Insights