DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim 21 is newly added. New matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-21, have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive.
Examiner the arguments filed along with the Remarks of 04/17/2026, as following.
(i) As referenced at precedent cases for spurious arguments and in response to applicant's argument that Schroeder, fails to teach/disclose; “That is, the reference does not describe that a bitrate for a particular quality level is determined based on representation data.”, at [Pg.7/10], the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
To (i), Examiner contends that the video quality of encoded data is directly determined by the quantization parameter as part of the representation data and consequentially by the bit-rate of the video representation transmitted either individually or in sets of different image qualities i.e., of “quality tiers” as claimed, where Schroeder teaches each and every limitation at the previously presented or the currently amended claims as expressly addressed at; (Introduction, Pg.1, where in direct relation to the video quality depicted at Figs.1.1 or Fig.2.7 for different bitrates requested by a client Sec.2.2.1.2, to the server and delivering different quality representations and Fig.2.8, Sec.2.3 by determining the bitrate by rate-control according to an average bitrate determined by a set of quantization parameters (QP) Sec.4.3.1 and for rate control based encoding at Sec.5.5.3, based on the representation and quality of service (QoS) metrics, for the best quality of experience (QoE) Sec.2.2.3, and a multi-rate encoding at Sec.2.3.2).
(ii) Applicants argue that, “Wenger is silent regarding any selection from among a set of quality tiers because Wenger merely describes reallocating bandwidth across encoders. Nothing in Wenger indicates selecting a data quality tier in response to a request for representation data. “
To (ii), Examiner identifies Wenger for teaching the alleged subject, by addressing the image quality of a plurality of images separately coded to different bit-rates is determined based on representation data (i.e., by QP values) at Figs.1 to 2, Figs.6-9 and Fig.11, where the bandwidth would obviously benefit directly from any similar bitrate control method of selective bit-rate control of the video representations though, deemed to improve the broadband by managing the distribution at adaptively encoded bitrates (per Abstract) by also performing the claimed selective bitrate control at different quality levels according to the content of the captured images per Col.9 Lin.18-27 and at least at Fig.3. Wenger also teaches about allowing the encoder(s) to respond to image characteristic by adapting the bitrate per Figs.4 and Fig.5 algorithm, i.e., by “spending more bits for this change than for smaller changes…”, Col.1 Lin.33-36, where other rate control algorithms would distinguish between “flat” and “active” sectors of the picture i.e., per claim 1 reciting; “determining, based on the representation data…”, by allocating (cited) “multiple requests to multiple servers …”, at Col.2 Lin.9-13, where, Wenger teaches about a request for a bit-rate control for content according to the picture quality, of the amended subject reciting; “in response to receiving a request for the representation data:
selecting the first data quality tier based on the request, and” (at least Col.5 Lin.1-15) and deliver the selected encoded resolutions at different bit-rates according to Figs.2 or 6 (or 1-10), and Col.8 Lin.1-60).
However, the above claim limitations are also disclosed by the primary art to Schroeder, as represented at point (i).
(iii). A new search was necessitated by the amended subject matter.
For brevity, it is indicated that the rebutted arguments at this section 3., are also applied for full consideration and inclusion into the rejection issued under 35 U.S.C. 103, mutatis mutandis.
At the present stage of prosecution, Examiner did not identify specific subject matter to propose for an amendment in view of reducing the prosecution. Examiner remains open for an Applicant’s Interview by which the subject matter be analyzed for advancing the prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
4. Claim 21, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the recited “21. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining additional representation data for a virtual representation of a second subject;
determining, based on the additional representation data, a third bitrate to satisfy the first quality metric for the first data quality tier;
determining, based on the additional representation data, a fourth bitrate to satisfy the second quality metric for the second data quality tier; and
generating an additional set of data quality tiers for the virtual representation of the second subject based on the third bitrate and the fourth bitrate.”, recites new matter not finding a corresponding textual or descriptive disclosure in Specification, where the characters in bold represent unsupported subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
In an previous recitation derived from claim 3, depending from claim 1, Wenger teaches about obtaining additional representation data for a virtual representation of a second subject (an additional data according to the virtual representation data by changing the bitrate and generating a new bitrate according to the bandwidth of network 34, for each encoder, 12-18, Col.11 Lin.1-15);, but the one of skill in the art would not associate the additional data to extend the generating of a “a third bitrate to satisfy the first quality metric for the first data quality tier;” or the “a fourth bitrate to satisfy the second quality metric for the second data quality tier;”, absent defining the conflicting equivalence of definitions at method at claim 1, reciting inter alia;
“a first bitrate to satisfy a first quality metric for a first data quality tier;
determining, based on the representation data, a second bitrate to satisfy a second quality metric for a second data quality tier; “, terminology supposing extended (by claim 21) as reading the Specification to possiblu represent other encoders/devices (504) in Fig.5 of the application, without finding support for the “third” and “fourth” (Id. claim 21) bitrates corresponding to the “first” and “second” bitrates (Id. claim 1) which now is claimed as “a third bitrate to satisfy the first quality metric for the first data quality tier;” and “a fourth bitrate to satisfy the second quality metric for the second data quality tier;” tiers respectively.
However, in an alternative derivation of the inventive method being considered in whole, the skilled artisan may be driven to interpret the matter of claim 21, according to bandwidth constraints from application, as found addressed at instant Specification by additional sensor data from citing; “determining the user-specific data quality tiers” at Par.[0013], the “copresence environment” at Par.[0020], or the disclosed different bitrates according to different “persona” at Pars.[0024-0032] and Figs.1A and 1B, from which an approach to multiple encoder/bitrates configurations may be obtained in addition to the referenced first and second bitrates of the first and second data quality tiers recited by the respective cardinality.
However, Examiner may not rely on such speculative interpretation of the Claim 21 terminology as being inferred from Specification during the claim analysis, being outside the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) norms of examination, hence it is concluded that the new matter introduced at Claim 21, has to be accordingly corrected by Applicants.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
5. Claims 1-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Damien Schroeder (hereinafter Schroeder); “MULTI-RATE VIDEO ENCODING FOR ADAPTIVE HTTP STREAMING”, Facultat fur Electrotechnik und Informationtechnik; 22/02/2017 in view of Stephan Wenger et al., (hereinafter Wenger) (US 7,352,809).
Re Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Schroeder discloses, a method comprising:
obtaining representation data for a virtual representation of a subject (extracting a virtual coding unit (CU) structure from an image frame at low resolution, Ch.5, Sec.5.2.3 as being a representation of video content/image at different bitrates, of a data set Ch.6 Sec.6.2.5 by a representation of various subjects depicted in Table 6.1) ;
determining, based on the representation data, a first bitrate to satisfy a first quality metric for a first data quality tier (based on the representation data at different bitrates, determining different quality tiers, i.e., quality data according to the PSNR quality metrics derived at Ch.2 Sec.2.1.6 as a function of the bitrate, for a specific variable quantization parameters and a bitrates, e.g., per Table 6.1, where a first quality tier is depicted in Fig.2.8 e.g., the high quality tier at Ch.2 Sec.2.3.1
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
determining, based on the representation data (based on specific characteristics of the image block CU, and depending on the perspective of the frame area covered, adapting the bitrate for high to low resolutions, i.e., based on extracted CU structure information, at Figs.5.1 and 5.2, Ch.5 Sec.5.2.2 by adjusting the bitrate Sec.5.2.3), a second bitrate to satisfy a second quality metric for a second data quality tier (a second quality tier e.g., the low quality data based on the bitrate Fig.2.8 Ch.2 Sec.2.3.1); and
generating a set of data quality tiers for the representation of the subject based on the first bitrate and the second bitrate (generating a plurality of data quality tiers, from a plurality of encoders, having different quality values from high to medium to low quality tiers, at Fig.2.8, Ch.2 Sec.2.3 and determining the bitrate by rate-control according to an average bitrate and a set of quantization parameters (QP), Sec.5.5.3); and
in response to receiving a request for the representation data (a video segment request is issued by the client to server, to provide different quality images at different bit-rate per Fig.2.7 and Sec.2.2.3):
selecting the first data quality tier based on the request (selecting a first quality ties e.g., form 200Kb/s to 800 Kb/s range), and
transmitting the representation data of the subject using the first bitrate based on the first data quality tier (transmitting to user, the requested representation of an adaptive dynamic HTTP streaming session according to quality of experience (QoE) and related too the quality of service (QoS) per Sec.2.2.3 and Fig.7, or according to the multi-rate video encoding method at Sec.2.3.1 and Fig.8 and Sec.2.3.2 and as disclosed for rate-control based encoding at Sec.5.5.3, for an improved rate control for high to low video delivery quality at Sec.6.4.1 and Fig.6.3 and 6.8).
In summary, Schroeder teaches the method of obtaining different representations for a virtual representation of an object(s) by receiving a request from user to generate a set of video representations at different bit-rates thus at different data quality as per (see Introduction on Pg.1, where in direct relation to the virtual video coding unit (CU) structure for different resolutions, Sec.5.2.2 – 5.2.3 of quality depicted at Figs.1.1 or for different bitrates requested by a client in Fig.2.7 at Sec.2.2.1.2, sent to the server for delivering different quality representations per Fig.2.8, Sec.2.3 by determining the bitrate by rate-control according to an average bitrate determined by a set of quantization parameters (QP) Sec.4.3.1 and for rate control based encoding at Sec.5.5.3, corresponding to the representation different quality of service (QoS) metrics, for the best quality of experience (QoE) Sec.2.2.3, as further disclosed by a multi-rate encoding method at Sec.2.3.2 carried on by a respective multiple separate encoders for different video qualities).
In an analogous art, Wenger teaches the method and apparatus of using multiple encoders, adaptable bitrates to achieve optimized quality by adapting the bitrate of each encoder individually, according to image characteristics as in,
determining, based on the representation data, a first bitrate to satisfy a first quality metric for a first data quality tier (determining a bitrate representation data for each encoder, Col.5 Lin.1-15 satisfying a first quality metric among other, Col.4 Lin,1-15, Fig.5 as being initialized i.e., a first bit rate, R(n) , at a first encoder, Col.8 Lin.1-25 and formula (1) to achieve a quality level, from the QP average values, Col.7 Lin.33-50) ;
determining, based on the representation data, a second bitrate to satisfy a second quality metric for a second data quality tier (recalculating new bitrates R(n) values for each encoder 12a-18a, per formulae (2) and (3) Col.8 Lin.26-33, to obtain a quality level, according to the new calculated bitrate and a quality measurement i.e., metric based on the QP average values, or as a quality indication, Col.7 Lin.51-67 and on the distortion D(n), from computed loss by PSNR, SAD, SSD, Col.8 Lin.38-45, e.g., at the new calculator 56 in Fig.4); and
generating a set of data quality tiers for the representation of the subject based on the first bitrate and the second bitrate (generating a set of data quality tiers i.e., of new bitrates at each encoder 12a-18a, Col.8 Lin.17-29, etc.); and
in response to receiving a request for the representation data:
selecting the first data quality tier based on the request, and” (a request for a bit-rate control for content according to the picture quality, at least Col.2 Lin.9-13, Col.5 Lin.1-15) and deliver the selected encoded resolutions at different bit-rates according to Figs.2 or 6 (or 1-10), and Col.8 Lin.1-60), and
transmitting the representation data of the subject using the first bitrate based on the first data quality tier (each picture of the n, video encoders is transmitted as an independent bitstream, Col.4 Lin.1-7).
The ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention, would have combined the known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, as disclosed in Schroeder, for adjusting the video bitrate at different tiers of resolution i.e., as bitrate or quantization parameter being adjusted according to structure information extracted from the image i.e., at CU level, , (Sec.5.5.5, Table 5.19) in a rate control encoding (Sec.5.5.3) in an adaptive streaming and rate adaptation to bandwidth (Sec.2.2.3) and associate the intended scope and utility with the art to Wenger, teaching the control method for different bitrate levels, or tiers, for each of the encoder from a set of encoders, based on quantization QP average, in order to satisfy an overall quality of the broadband image displayed (Fif.3 Col.7 Lin.11-67, Col.8 Lin.1-45) by determining a quality measurement, hence finding that the combination is providing predictable results. Per MPEP 2143 (A-D).
For clarity of record please also see Sec.3.
Re Claim 2. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, but he does not expressly identifies the data comprising a person,
Wenger teaches about, wherein the representation data comprises persona data (persona data indicating the person movement from one position to a standing and raising the arms, Col.10 Lin.14-20), and wherein the subject comprises a person (the scenes captured by cameras C1…C4, show various persona data comprising a person Vol.10 Lin.9-20, which are/is generated by each encoder E1…E4, at specific data representation of Bitrate and QP values, per Fig.11 Col.2 Lin. 44-67, Col.3 Lin.1-26).
Re Claim 3. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising
Wenger teaches about, transmitting additional representation data in accordance with the first data quality tier or the second data quality tier in accordance with a bandwidth policy (transmitting additional data according to the persona data by changing the bitrate and generating a new bitrate according to the bandwidth of network 34, for each encoder, 12-18, Col.11 Lin.1-15).
Re Claim 4. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising Wenger teaches about, transmitting data quality tier information for the representation data to one or more remote devices in a copresence communication session (transmitting the data of the determined quality tier information to a remote station 36, Col.11 Lin.7-15, Fig.2, or Figs.6-8 in a video conference environment, Col.2 Lin.20-26, Fig.11 or in a video conference at Fig.5 Col.10 Lin.1-20 etc.).
Re Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Wenger teaches about, encoding the representation data using a first encoder for the first quality metric (encoding the set of data quality tiers i.e., of new bitrates at each encoder 12a-18a, Col.8 Lin.17-29), and identifying the first bitrate based on the encoding using the first encoder (a first bitrate F, using the first encoder E1, Figs.5-11, wherein determining the second bitrate comprises:
encoding the representation data using a second encoder for the second quality metric, and identifying the second bitrate based on the encoding using the second encoder (encoding at a second encoder the persona data indicating the person movement from one position to a standing and raising the arms of a video representation, Col.10 Lin.14-20 the scenes captured by cameras C1…C4, show various persona data comprising a person Vol.10 Lin.9-20, which are/is generated by each encoder E1…E4, at specific data representation of Bitrate and QP values, per Fig.11 Col.2 Lin. 44-67, Col.3 Lin.1-26).
Re Claim 6. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein
Wenger teaches about, the representation data comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of geometric data, texture data, video data, and audio data for at least one of the subject and a particular representation of the subject (the bitrate representation data in the image I, includes geometrical resemblance to a captured scene A, Col.3 Lin.11-18 according to the each encoder E1-E4 generating a bitstream in compliance to these parameters of video data, including audio data as would have been obvious from the scope of the video conference at Col.7 Lin.45-51).
Re Claim 7. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 6,
Schroeder obviates the action, wherein the representation data is obtained during an enrollment process (where in a multi-rate video encoding, where multiple users share the wireless resources in a cellular network, thus implying or inferring a form of access by registration or enrolment to respective services, for mobile or HTTP streaming access, Sec.2.2.3 or at Sec.6.1).
Re Claim 8. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the method of claim 7,
Schroeder obviates that, wherein the enrollment process is performed on a first device (implying or inferring a form of access by registration or enrolment to respective services, for mobile or HTTP streaming access, Sec.2.2.3 or at Sec.6.1), and
wherein additional representation data from an enrollment process on an additional device is associated with an alternative set of data quality tiers for an alternative representation of the subject (an additional representation data of a subject associated with quality tiers at different bitrates, which users need to know in a video-content-dependent model, Sec.6.1 Pg.79, is addressed by the multi-rate scenario with multiple output rates being targeted, Sec.6.1, Pg.80).
Re Claim 9. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 10. (Original) This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 3, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 11. (Original) This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 4, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 12. (Original) This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 6, where the user represents the subject in aa mobile conference scenario, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 13. (Original) This claim represents the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), performing each and every limitation of the method claim 5, where the “persona” is part of the representation data at each bitrate and at each encoder, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 14. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13,
Wenger obviates that, wherein the computer readable code to identify the first bitrate based on the encoding using the first encoder comprises computer readable code (processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources comprise code of algorithms for rate control resident at each encoder, Col.6 Lin.24-27) to:
Schroeder teaches about, determine a bitrate at which a threshold amount of the persona data is encoded by the first encoder (determining a threshold for the extracted virtual CU structure information, Sec.5.2.3, per Fig.5.3 from a CU depth, po, and a texture of “blue” and “white” associated with “persona” data, per Fig.5.1, Table 5.1 for a threshold at Sec.5.2.6.2 with the results of the threshold value depending on 720p, 360p using 1080p resolutions, referenced to QP and threshold value θ, at Sec.5.3.4).
Re Claim 15. (Original) Schroeder and Wenger disclose, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14,
Wenger teaches that, wherein the set of data quality tiers are modified during runtime based on additional persona data collected (the process continues using the newly determined bitrate, during the lifetime of a video conference Col.7 Lin.43-51).
Re Claim 16. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 9, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 17. (Original) This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 13, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 18. (Original) This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 14, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. (Original) This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 14, (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), where the threshold bitrate is determined by the quantization parameter QP value, for the first encoder per (Wenger, QP value determining the bitrate at Figs.1 to 9 and 11, Col.2 Lin.1-8, or 61-65 etc.) hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. (Original) This claim represents the system implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 15, per (Wenger, processors Col.6, Lin.35-43 implicitly having storage resources), hence it is rejected on the same premise mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 21. (New) This claim is rejected for introducing new matter.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights