DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/02/2026.
In the filed response, claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 17, 19, and 21 have been amended, where claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent claims. Further, claim 8 is canceled and new claim 24 has been added.
Accordingly, Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-24 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 17-22, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of prior art Cao. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. The same also applies to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of Cao (see pgs. 22-24 of Applicant’s arguments). However, based on updated searches and further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wang US 2024/0236309 A1 (With reference to application No. PCT/CN2021/121045 - WO 2023/044917 A1. See attached), hereinafter referred to as Wang. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant amends claims 1, 11, and 17 to include subject matter of now canceled claim 8, which previously read “wherein the blending weight for a selected IPM is determined by weighting a first value obtained from one or more predefined characteristics associated with the one or more selected IPMs on the basis of the number of selected IPMs”. Amended claims 1, 11, and 17 now read “wherein the blending weights are determined by weighting template area region-specific values derived from predefined characteristics of the selected IPMs according to a number of selected IPMs.” Compared to “weighting a first value”, “weighting template area region-specific values” narrows the scope to explicitly show these values are associated with specific regions of the template. Other amendments also include for e.g., “the selection involves a selection out of the separately determined IPMs” is now only “for one or more regions of the CU”, versus “for the entire CU” which has been deleted. Based on the foregoing, the examiner brings in the work of Wang to address the amended features. Wang, in particular, describes partitioning a template as illustrated for e.g. in figs. 8A-8D (¶0077). In other words, Wang addresses “splitting a template area adjacent to the CU into a plurality of template regions” as claimed. This is further shown throughout Wang’s disclosure (e.g. ¶0125 and ¶0132). As to “separately selecting [[no]] zero, one or more Intra Prediction Modes (IPMs) in each template area region, wherein the selection involves a selection out of the separately determined IPMs , Wang describes the intra prediction modes having the best effects locally (i.e. having a low cost) on a given sub-template out of the plurality of sub-templates that are closest to units of a current block (CB), where said units can be a subblock, portion or pixels of the CB (¶0082-¶0084, ¶0143), i.e. “one or more regions”. Please see discussion in for e.g. ¶0102-¶0103 with reference to figs. 11A-11C. In other words, for a given sub-block, zero, one, or more IPMs out of the candidate IPMs, may have the best effect locally on the nearest sub-template(s), and therefore will be given greater weight when determining the overall prediction value (e.g. ¶0138). If on the other hand the subblock is too far from the sub-template(s), a smaller weight will be assigned. In other words, the effects of certain IPMs on a finer grained template can be achieved that enables a block with more complex texture to be predicted (¶0144). For these reasons, and as further shown below, Wang is also believed to address “wherein the blending weights are determined by weighting template area region-specific values derived from predefined characteristics of the selected IPMs according to a number of selected IPMs”. Based on examiner’s current understanding of the foregoing features, Wang, for example, describes weights that vary according to the sub-template used. These are discussed throughout the disclosure (e.g. ¶0104-¶0109). Since the phrase “predefined characteristics” is not further limited in the independent claims, and giving this its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), one can construe this to mean any characteristic associated with the IPMs. Thus, according to Wang’s method, one can interpret this to mean a cost(s) associated with the IPM(s). See for e.g. ¶0100. This also is related to the prediction modes being at different positions of the CB, which can also be regarded as a predefined characteristic. In light of the foregoing, the examiner therefore respectfully submits, the work of Wang, either alone or in combination, reasonably teaches and/or suggests the aforementioned features of the claims, given their BRI. The examiner would also like to point out that although Wang’s disclosure relates to TIMD and not DIMD as claimed, various literature shows these are similar approaches for deriving an intra prediction mode using previously coded blocks that surround the current block. This can be seen, for example, in the work of Naser et al. US 2025/0055981 A1 (fig. 7 and ¶0121) and Li et al. US 2023/0108480 A1 (abstract). See PTO 892. The examiner therefore respectfully submits that given this similarity, it would have been within the level of skill in the art to recognize the teachings of Wang with respect to DIMD. As such, the work of Wang and Naser, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the amended claims given their BRI. Please see below for further details.
3. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the drawing objection are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the specification objection are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the claim objections are acknowledged. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection are acknowledged. Based on the amendments made, the rejections in relation to co-pending Application No. 18/853,631 and co-pending Application No. 18/853,700 are withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged, however, the examiner believes the claims remain ambiguous. Please see below for details.
8. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
9. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-24 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
10. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends on canceled claim 8. It is believed this should now depend on claim 1 and is assumed for the purposes of examination. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 21 remain 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 5, claim 5 recites “wherein a first number of IPMs is selected in the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, and a second number of IPMs is selected in the other template area regions other than the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, wherein the first number is higher than the second number” (emphasis added). It remains unclear what defines ‘other template area regions’. Although the amendment was made to show this refers to “other than the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions”, the examiner respectfully submits that since the first number of selected IPMs is associated with “all template area regions”, having a second number of selected IPMs associated with other template area regions is unclear, especially since the first number includes all template area regions. For this reason, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unambiguously ascertained. Please clarify.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites similar limitation as claim 5 above. For the same reasons, it too is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 2024/0236309 A1 (with reference to priority application No. PCT/CN2021/121045 - WO 2023/044917 A1), in view of Naser et al. US 2025/0055981 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang and Naser, respectively. Please note, figures 1-16 in Wang’s priority document coincide with those found in the USPGPUB.
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the BRI of the following limitations, Wang teaches and/or suggests “A method of deriving a Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) predictor for respective samples of a coding unit (CU) of a picture [Wang’s teachings below pertain to TIMD. Please see Naser below for support regarding DIMD], the method comprising: splitting a template area adjacent to the CU into a plurality of template area regions [Wang partitions a template as illustrated for e.g. in figs. 8A-8D (¶0077). This is further shown throughout Wang’s disclosure (e.g. ¶0125 and ¶0132)]; separately selecting [[no]]zero, one or more Intra Prediction Modes (IPMs) in each template area region [Please see discussion with respect to the sub-templates and subblocks shown in figs. 11A-11C (e.g. ¶0102-¶0103)], wherein the selection involves a selection out of the separately determined IPMs for one or more regions of the CU [For the one or more regions (e.g. subblocks) shown, different intra modes are considered. See figures above and associated text for support]; determining blending weights using the selected IPMs [Examples of determining weights are discussed throughout Wang’s disclosure. See for e.g. ¶0104-¶0109], and generating the DIMD predictor by blending at least the selected IPMs using the determined blending weights [Although Wang does not refer to DIMD (please refer to Naser below), Wang, in the context of TIMD, teaches blending the determined weights as shown in equation 13, for example, (¶0138), to obtain the prediction value predXY at (x, y)]; wherein the blending weights are determined by weighting template area region-specific values derived from predefined characteristics of the selected IPMs according to a number of selected IPMs.” [Please refer to the above citations regarding the derivation of weights in light of Wang’ sub-templates. Other examples of weight derivations can be found for e.g. in ¶0114-¶0120. Given the BRI of “pre-defined characteristics” of the selected IPMs, Wang teaches associated costs and positions of the prediction modes in the CB (e.g. ¶0100)] Although Wang’s teachings are deemed relevant, Wang teaches TIMD versus DIMD as claimed. Given that these two intra prediction techniques are similar as shown in the literature, the work of Naser, for example, from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to illustrate this feature. [Naser shows in fig. 7, that both DIMD and TIMD can be used, where two TIMD generated modes may be similar to DIMD. Also refer to ¶0121] Recognizing Naser’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intra prediction methods of Wang, to add the teachings of Naser as above, to show that DIMD and/or TIMD may be performed to derive candidate intra-prediction modes for a coding block (¶0121); hence, there can be greater flexibility when generating the most probable mode (MPM) list during video coding.
Regarding claim 7, (Previously Presented) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein a total number of selectable IPMs is fixed. [As per ¶0062 and ¶0089, the total number of intra modes available for intra prediction can be construed as a fixed number, given its BRI. For e.g., it can be up to 67 and has been expanded to include 131 modes]
Regarding claim 9, (Previously Presented) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein in case IPMs are selected in all template area regions, the blending weights are derived from one or more predefined characteristics associated with the one or more selected IPMs and obtained from the entire template area [Please see discussion with respect to the sub-templates and subblocks shown in figs. 11A-11C (e.g. ¶0102-¶0108). Given the BRI of “pre-defined characteristics” of the selected IPMs, Wang teaches associated costs and positions of the prediction modes in the CB (e.g. ¶0100)], or in case IPMs are selected in one or more but not all the template area regions [See for e.g. fig. 11C where not all sub-templates are selected. For e.g. Tem0 and Tem4 are not used], the blending weights are derived from one or more predefined characteristics associated with the one or more selected IPMs [Please refer to discussion pertaining to fig. 11C (e.g. ¶0133). This can also be found in the teachings related to figs. 11A-11B] and obtained from the template area regions from which one or more IPMs are selected [Same as above], or in case IPMs are selected in only one template area region, the blending weights are derived from one or more predefined characteristics associated with the one or more selected IPMs and obtained from the one template area region. [Recognizing the ‘or’ condition, the foregoing limitation may not be realized.]
Regarding claim 10, (Previously Presented) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the plurality of template area regions of the template area comprise a left template area region, an above template area region and an above-left template area region [See corresponding sub-template regions in figs. 8C and 8D], or in case the CU is split into a plurality of CU regions [See sub-blocks in figs. 9A-9B], respective template area regions associated with a CU region adjacent to the template area [See for e.g. figs. 11A-11C], and, optionally, an above-left template area region. [Although not explicitly illustrated, Wang’s teachings do suggest this feature, since Wang discloses sub-templates 3 and 5 in figures 8c and 8d, respectively, as above-left template regions]
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0057 and fig. 16 of Wang for support.
Regarding claim 16, (Previously Presented) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 10, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the respective template area regions comprise an above-left template area region. [See for example sub-templates 3 and 5 in figures 8c and 8d, respectively]
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0057 and fig. 16 of Wang for support.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Naser, in further view of Liu et al. US 2017/0353730 A1, hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and Naser however do not appear to address the features of claim 3. Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein a number of selected IPMs per template area region depends on a size of the CU [See for e.g. ¶0032 where the total number of intra modes searched by template-based intra prediction depends on block size], and wherein a first number of IPMs is selected in case the CU has a first size, and a second number of IPMs is selected in case the CU has a second size, the second size being higher or larger than the first size.” [See ¶0032-¶0033 with respect to different sizes of a current block] Recognizing Liu’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Wang and Naser to add the teachings of Liu as above for template-based intra prediction, to help reduce the complexity and increase the coding efficiency associated with DIMD (e.g. ¶0028).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Claims 4, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Naser, in further view of Cao et al. US 2022/0394269 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/196,580 and 63/217,158), hereinafter referred to as Cao.
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and Naser however do not appear to address the features of claim 4. Cao on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein for each template area region [See template areas 352A and 352B in fig. 3. Also please note fig. 4] a predefined number of IPMs is selected [Refer to ¶0077, since a MPM list has a fixed number of modes (e.g. ¶0074 and ¶0090)], wherein the predefined number is the same or is different for the respective template area regions.” [Each IPM in the MPM list is used for each template area (¶0077), i.e. it is the same. Also see ¶0086] Recognizing Cao’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intra prediction methods of Wang and Naser, to add the teachings of Cao as above, in order to improve coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction in a video coding specification (e.g. ¶0005).
Regarding claim 15, (Previously Presented) Wang and Naser teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and Naser however do not appear to address the features of claim 15. Cao on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein in addition to the blending weights of the IPMs, a blending weight of a Planar or DC mode is determined only based on the number of selected IPMs.” [See ¶0073 and ¶0089. A weight for planar mode is 1/3 when fusing it with two modes (modes 1-2), while a weight of 1/4 is used when fusing it with three modes (modes 1-3); hence, it depends on the number of IPMs selected] The motivation for combining Wang, Naser, and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, 21-22, and 24 are 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Please note that the rejections of claims 5 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) must first be addressed. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
2. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein a number of selected IPMs per template area region depends on a size of the CU, and wherein in case the CU is of square shape, the same number of IPMs is selected in all template area regions, or the same number of IPMs is selected in all template area regions adjacent to the sides of the CU, with no IPM being selected in the template area region adjacent only to the corner of the CU, or one or more IPMs are selected in the template area region adjacent only to the corner of the CU, with no IPM being selected in all template area regions adjacent to the sides of the CU, or in case the CU is of rectangular shape, a first number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, a second number of IPMs is selected in the template area region adjacent to the shorter side, and a third number of IPMs is selected in an above-left template area region, wherein the first number is higher than the second and third numbers, and the second and third numbers being the same or different, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU and for a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, and no IPM is selected in an above-left template area region, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU and for an above-left template area region, and no IPM is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU and for the above-left template area region, and no IPM is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU.
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a first number of IPMs is selected in the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, and a second number of IPMs is selected in the other template area regions other than the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, wherein the first number is higher than the second number.
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein, if two or more selected IPMs are identical in different template area regions, the IPM for the first or last processed template area region is selected and kept, and the other identical IPMs are discarded.
18. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 17, wherein a number of selected IPMs per template area region depends on a size of the CU, and wherein in case that the CU is of square shape, the same number of IPMs is selected in all template area regions, or the same number of IPMs is selected in all template area regions adjacent to the sides of the CU, with no IPM being selected in the template area region adjacent only to the corner of the CU, or one or more IPMs are selected in the template area region adjacent only to the corner of the CU, with no IPM being selected in all template area regions adjacent to the sides of the CU, or in case that the CU is of rectangular shape, a first number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, a second number of IPMs is selected in the template area region adjacent to the shorter side, and a third number of IPMs is selected in an above-left template area region, wherein the first number is higher than the second and third numbers, and the second and third numbers being the same or different, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU and for a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, and no IPM is selected in an above-left template area region, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU and for an above-left template area region, and no IPM is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU, or the same number of IPMs is selected in a template area region adjacent to the longer side of the CU and for the above-left template area region, and no IPM is selected in a template area region adjacent to the shorter side of the CU.
21. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 17, wherein a first number of IPMs is selected in the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, and a second number of IPMs is selected in the other template area regions other than the template area region having a maximum cumulated amplitude among all template area regions, wherein the first number is higher than the second number.
22. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 17, wherein, if two or more selected IPMs are identical in different template area regions, the IPM for the first or last processed template area region is selected and kept, and the other identical IPMs are discarded.
24. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the predefined characteristics are cumulated amplitudes, associated with the selected IPMs, of respective local Histogram of Gradients (HoG) of the template area regions.
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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486