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 .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 01/13/2026.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 01/13/2026, Claim 8 has been amended; therefore, 1-12 are pending.
4. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/13/2026, pages 7-14 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been fully considered.
Claim 6
Applicant argued that 112(b) rejection on claim 6 should be withdrawn, since “claim 5 reconstructs the current block from the combined intra prediction, and claim 6 reconstructs the samples along the partition line from the combined prediction. In other words, claim 5 recites "a combined intra-prediction for the current block," which does not restrict the reconstruction of the entire block to use only this combined prediction. Therefore, claim 6, which specifies reconstructing a specific portion (samples along the partition line) using a combined prediction, is a specific embodiment that falls within the scope of Claim 5 and is not contradictory or in conflict.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectively disagree.
The claim 5’s limitation is recited as: “generating a combined intra-prediction for the current block by blending the first predictor and the second predictor; and using the combined intra-prediction to reconstruct the current block”; in which, the current block (the meaning of current block is clear, the whole block) refers to the whole current block, not part of the current block. From the limitation, the whole current block is reconstructed using the combined intra-prediction.
However, in its’ dependency claim 6, the current block is not reconstructed using the combined intra-prediction, it recites: “the first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, wherein samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction”; in other words, three prediction modes are used for three parts of the current block (first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, only samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction), which is obviously conflicted with claim 5’s limitation.
Claim 8
Since applicant has modified claim 8 properly, the 112(b) rejection on claim 8 is withdrawn.
Claim 9
Applicant argued that 112(b) rejection on claim 9 should be withdrawn, since “paragraph [004] of the published version (i.e., 2025/0310519) of the present application, which provides suitable guidance for how the distance is measured, and which is reproduced in part below (emphasis added): The prediction at each position (x,y) in the current block (x is from 0 to block width-1 and y is from 0 to block height-1) is assigned weighting value WmodeA(X,y) and WmodeL (x,y) based on its distance from the above template region 511 and the left template region 512”
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectively disagree.
The paragraph 0004 which applicant referred does not give exactly meaning of “distances from the above template region and from the left template region”, it just repeat that the distance is from the above template region 511 and the left template region 512.
However, there are many pixels (points) in the above template region and the left template region, the distance is from which point in the above template region to which point in the left template region is not disclosed. Therefore, there are many possible values of the distance. Which distance claim 9 referred to is not clear.
Therefore, the 112(b) rejection on claim 6/9 maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered.
Basically, applicant argued that the prior arts (JUN et al. (US 20200366900) and in view of Cao et al. (US 20220394269)) does not discloses the limitation of :
“deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region; generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block” in independent claims, since:
“page 6 of the non-final Office Action
acknowledges that "JUN does not disclose explicitly of deriving a first intra-prediction
mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode
based on the left template region", yet alleges this deficiency is remedied by Cao… Note from the underlined portion above that the template region is from the above or left, but not both. That is, Cao does not disclose, teach, or suggest "deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region" AND "deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region", nor does Cao disclose, teach, or suggest "generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes"”.
“Neither Jun nor Cao discloses, teaches, or suggests this specific approach
where the above and left templates are respectively and separately used to determine the
first and second modes, which are then subsequently combined”.
Examiner’s Response:
After reviewing the claim limitations and the prior arts, examiner believe that the current prior arts (JUN et al. (US 20200366900) and in view of Cao et al. (US 20220394269)) still teach the aforementioned limitation. Follows are reason:
First, JUN discloses that “deriving a first intra-prediction mode; deriving a second intra-prediction mode; generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes; generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block” not only in fig. 10, and paragraph 0019, but also in fig. 14, fig. 20. For example, in fig. 14, the current block is reconstructed based on the reconstructed sample lines on top template region and left template region; each reconstructed sample lines using some kind of intra prediction modes; therefore, the current block is reconstructed based on the first and second intra prediction modes from top and left template region (the claim limitation does not restrict that the first and second intra prediction modes should be different).
Cao, on the other hand, discloses clearly that the intra-prediction modes (could be multiple of them) are derived based on the top template region and left template region, as in paragraph 0006: “for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode… wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data”; which means for a template region, which can be above or left of a block (current block), no matter its position, an intra-prediction mode is derived. Therefore, it includes the scenario that: deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region.
Therefore, the combination of JUN and Cao discloses the limitations of: “deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region; generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block” in independent claims.
The applicant also argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner disagree.
As discussed in a), the combination of JUN and Cao discloses the limitations of: “deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region; generating first and second predictors for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block” in independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 6, it depends on claim 5, which recites limitations of “using the combined intra-prediction to reconstruct the current block”; however, claim 6 recites the limitation of “wherein the first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, wherein samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction”; which is conflicted with the limitation of “using the combined intra-prediction to reconstruct the current block”; since if the current block is reconstructed using the combined intra-prediction, then it cannot be reconstructed as claim 6 recited (the first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, wherein samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction ).
The claim 5’s limitation is recited as: “generating a combined intra-prediction for the current block by blending the first predictor and the second predictor; and using the combined intra-prediction to reconstruct the current block”; in which, the current block (the meaning of current block is clear: the whole block) refers to the whole current block, not part of the current block. From the limitation, the whole current block is reconstructed using the combined intra-prediction.
However, in its’ dependency claim 6, the current block is not reconstructed using the combined intra-predictions, since it recites: “the first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, wherein samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction”; in other words, three prediction modes are used for three part of the current block (first predictor is used to reconstruct the first partition and the second predictor is used to reconstruct the second partition, only samples along a boundary between the first and second partitions are reconstructed by using the combined intra-prediction), which is obviously conflicted with claim 5’s limitation.
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 9, it recites limitations of “distances” in “wherein weighting values assigned to the first and second predictors are determined based on distances from the above template region and from the left template region”; however, it is not clear how the distances are measured, it is from where to where?
The paragraph 0004 of spec. does not give exactly meaning of “distances from the above template region and from the left template region”, it just repeat that the distance is from the above template region 511 and the left template region 512.
However, there are many pixels (points) in the above template region and the left template region, the distance is from which point in the above template region to which point in the left template region is not disclosed. Therefore, there are many possible values of the distance. Which distance claim 9 is refer to is not clear.
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
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 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.
9. Claim 1-5, 7, 10-12 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUN et al. (US 20200366900) and in view of Cao et al. (US 20220394269).
Regarding claim 1, JUN teaches a video coding method (Fig. 1/fig. 2) comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (fig. 1, input image, fig. 2, bitstream);
identifying an above template region and a left template region of the current block among already-reconstructed pixels of the current picture (fig. 14; in which, top lines are an above template region; reconstructed sample line 1-4 are a left template region);
deriving a first intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, step S1010);
deriving a second intra-prediction mode (paragraph 0019, … deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block);
generating first and second predictors (i.e. intra -prediction with predictors) for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes (fig. 10, step S1030; paragraph 0019, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode… generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode);
and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block (fig. 1, entropy encoding unit 150; fig. 2, reconstructed picture; in which, intra prediction is used; also in fig. 14, fig. 20. For example, in fig. 14, the current block is reconstructed based on the reconstructed sample lines on top template region and left template region; each reconstructed sample lines using some kind of intra prediction modes; therefore, the current block is reconstructed based on the first and second intra prediction modes from top and left template region (the claim limitation does not restrict that the first and second intra prediction modes should be different)).
It is noticed that JUN does not disclose explicitly of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region.
. Cao discloses of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region (fig. 9, step 902; paragraph 0006, … for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode… wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; which means for a template region, which can be above or left of a block (current block), no matter its position, an intra-prediction mode is derived. Therefore, it includes the scenario that: deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region as a modification to the method for the benefit of choose a proper prediction mode with low cost (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 10, JUN teaches an electronic apparatus (fig. 1/fig. 2) comprising:
a video coder circuit configured to perform operations comprising (Fig. 1, 150 /fig. 2, 210) comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (fig. 1, input image, fig. 2, bitstream);
identifying an above template region and a left template region of the current block among already-reconstructed pixels of the current picture (fig. 14; in which, top lines are an above template region; reconstructed sample line 1-4 are a left template region);
deriving a first intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, step S1010);
deriving a second intra-prediction mode (paragraph 0019, … deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block);
generating first and second predictors (i.e. intra -prediction with predictors) for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes (fig. 10, step S1030; paragraph 0019, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode… generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode);
and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block (fig. 1, entropy encoding unit 150; fig. 2, reconstructed picture; in which, intra prediction is used; also in fig. 14, fig. 20. For example, in fig. 14, the current block is reconstructed based on the reconstructed sample lines on top template region and left template region; each reconstructed sample lines using some kind of intra prediction modes; therefore, the current block is reconstructed based on the first and second intra prediction modes from top and left template region (the claim limitation does not restrict that the first and second intra prediction modes should be different)).
It is noticed that JUN does not disclose explicitly of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region.
. Cao discloses of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region (fig. 9, step 902; paragraph 0006, … for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode… wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; which means for a template region, which can be above or left of a block (current block), no matter its position, an intra-prediction mode is derived. Therefore, it includes the scenario that: deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region as a modification to the method for the benefit of choose a proper prediction mode with low cost (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 11, JUN teaches a video decoding method (fig. 2) comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (fig. 2, bitstream);
identifying an above template region and a left template region of the current block among already-reconstructed pixels of the current picture (fig. 14; in which, top lines are an above template region; reconstructed sample line 1-4 are a left template region);
deriving a first intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, step S1010);
deriving a second intra-prediction mode (paragraph 0019, … deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block);
generating first and second predictors (i.e. intra -prediction with predictors) for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes (fig. 10, step S1030; paragraph 0019, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode… generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode);
and reconstructing the current block by using the first and second predictors (fig. 2, reconstructed picture; in which intra prediction is used; also in fig. 14, fig. 20. For example, in fig. 14, the current block is reconstructed based on the reconstructed sample lines on top template region and left template region; each reconstructed sample lines using some kind of intra prediction modes; therefore, the current block is reconstructed based on the first and second intra prediction modes from top and left template region (the claim limitation does not restrict that the first and second intra prediction modes should be different)).
It is noticed that JUN does not disclose explicitly of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region.
. Cao discloses of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region (fig. 9, step 902; paragraph 0006, … for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode… wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; which means for a template region, which can be above or left of a block (current block), no matter its position, an intra-prediction mode is derived. Therefore, it includes the scenario that: deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region as a modification to the method for the benefit of choose a proper prediction mode with low cost (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 12, JUN teaches a video encoding method (Fig. 1) comprising:
receive data for a block of pixels to be encoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (fig. 1, input image);
identifying an above template region and a left template region of the current block among already-reconstructed pixels of the current picture (fig. 14; in which, top lines are an above template region; reconstructed sample line 1-4 are a left template region);
deriving a first intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, step S1010);
deriving a second intra-prediction mode (paragraph 0019, … deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block);
generating first and second predictors (i.e. intra -prediction with predictors) for the current block based on the first and second intra prediction modes (fig. 10, step S1030; paragraph 0019, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode… generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode);
and encoding or decoding the current block by using the first and second predictors to reconstruct the current block (fig. 1, entropy encoding unit 150; fig. 2, reconstructed picture; ; in which intra prediction is used; also in fig. 14, fig. 20. For example, in fig. 14, the current block is reconstructed based on the reconstructed sample lines on top template region and left template region; each reconstructed sample lines using some kind of intra prediction modes; therefore, the current block is reconstructed based on the first and second intra prediction modes from top and left template region (the claim limitation does not restrict that the first and second intra prediction modes should be different)).
It is noticed that JUN does not disclose explicitly of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region.
. Cao discloses of deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region (fig. 9, step 902; paragraph 0006, … for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode… wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; which means for a template region, which can be above or left of a block (current block), no matter its position, an intra-prediction mode is derived. Therefore, it includes the scenario that: deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that deriving a first intra-prediction mode based on the above template region; deriving a second intra-prediction mode based on the left template region as a modification to the method for the benefit of choose a proper prediction mode with low cost (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of JUN and Cao teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Cao further discloses that the first and second intra-prediction modes are identified based on costs of candidate intra-prediction modes (fig. 10, 1008/1018), the cost of a candidate for the first intra-prediction mode is calculated based on reconstructed samples of the above template region and predicted samples of the above template region, wherein the predicted samples of the above template region are generated by using reference samples identified by the candidate for the first intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, 1008), the cost of a candidate for the second intra-prediction mode is calculated based on reconstructed samples of the left template region and predicted samples of the left template region, wherein the predicted samples of the left template region are generated by using reference samples identified by the candidate for the second intra-prediction mode (fig. 10, 1016-1018; paragraph 0158, ….compute prediction samples of template regions using the intra prediction mode in the first candidate list, wherein the template regions are above the block and left of the block; determine a cost for the intra prediction mode in the first candidate list based on the prediction samples of the template regions computed using the intra prediction mode in the first candidate list and reconstructed samples of the template regions).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of JUN and Cao teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, JUN further discloses that the reference samples are identified from a reference region that includes a region above the above template region, a region left of the left template region, or a region above and left of the above and left template regions (fig. 14, reconstructed sample line 4 is region left of the left region line 1; and so on).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of JUN and Cao teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Cao further discloses that the first intra-prediction mode is identified based on a first histogram of gradients for different intra prediction angles based on gradient amplitudes at different pixel positions along the above template region (fig. 10, step 1000-1004), the second intra-prediction mode is identified based on a second histogram of gradients for different intra prediction angles based on gradient amplitudes at different pixel positions along the left template region (fig. 10, 1012; paragraph 0194-0195, ….first intra prediction mode corresponds to a direction with a greatest magnitude in the HoG vector…includes intra prediction modes with directions adjacent to the intra prediction mode corresponding to the direction with the greatest magnitude in the HoG vector).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of JUN and Cao teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Cao further discloses that generating a combined intra-prediction for the current block by blending the first predictor and the second predictor; and using the combined intra-prediction to reconstruct the current block (fig. 10, step 1024-1026; paragraph 0199, …. generate a prediction block based on a fusion (i.e. blending) of at least the preliminary prediction blocks (1024). The video coder may reconstruct the block based on the prediction block or encode the block based on the prediction block).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of JUN and Cao teaches the limitations recited in claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, JUN further discloses that the current block is a first sub-block of a plurality of sub-blocks of a larger block (fig. 3), the above template region is a sub-template of a plurality of sub-templates above the larger block (fig. 14, the top first line is a sub-template of a plurality of sub-templates above the larger block) , the left template region is a sub-template of a plurality of sub-templates left of the larger block (fig. 14, reconstructed sample line 4 is a sub-template of a plurality of sub-templates left of the larger block).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matters:
For claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the limitations of “wherein samples along a boundary between the first sub-block and a second sub-block are reconstructed using a blended prediction that is a weighted sum of (i) the combined intra-prediction of the current block and (ii) an intra-prediction of the second sub-block that is adjacent to the first sub-block, wherein the intra-prediction of the second sub-block is derived from third and fourth intra-prediction modes that are different than the first and second intra-prediction modes”.
11. 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 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 date of this final action.
12. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488