DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 68- 87 are pending in this application.
Claims 68- 87 have been added. Claims 1-67 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting Rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 56, 60, and 65 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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.
Claims 68, 79- 78, and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) further in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu):
Regarding Claim 68, Chen teaches a video decoding device (decoding device [0030]), comprising:
a processor (processor [0147]) configured to:
obtain a first motion vector prediction (MVP) candidate associated with a video block (generating an MVP candidate list for the block, including obtaining a first MVP candidate [0005]; [0030]); and
based on a determination that the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding, perform a template-based function associated with the first MVP candidate associated with the video block (performing a template function that is associated with the MVP candidate[0089]- [0090]; [0103]; [0031]; [0066]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches determine whether the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding based
on a template-based coding constraint (determining whether a candidate can be used for template matching under a constraint [0119]; [0124]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Regarding Claim 76, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68. Chen further teaches the processor (processor [0147]) is further configured to:
wherein whether the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding is determined based on the template constraint indication (a signaled flag determines whether the template matching mode is selected for a candidate [0018]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches obtain a template constraint indication indicating the template-based coding constraint (signaling a lag that indicates how the template matching constraint applies [0124])
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Regarding Claim 77, Chen teaches a video encoding device (encoding device [0030]), comprising:
a processor (processor [0147]) configured to:
obtain a first motion vector prediction (MVP) candidate associated with a video block (generating an MVP candidate list for the block, including obtaining a first MVP candidate [0005]; [0030]); and
based on a determination that the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding, perform a template-based function associated with the first MVP candidate associated with the video block; (performing a template function that is associated with the MVP candidate[0089]- [0090]; [0103]; [0031]; [0066]);
encode the block based on the performed template-based function (encoding the block using template based function[0030])
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches determine whether the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding based on a template-based coding constraint (determining whether a candidate can be used for template matching under a constraint [0119]; [0124]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Regarding Claim 78, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 77. Chen further teaches the processor (processor [0147]) is further configured to:
include an indication that indicates the template-based coding constraint in video data. (a signaled flag determines whether the template matching mode is selected for a candidate [0018]).
Regarding Claim 84, Chen teaches A method performed by a video decoder or a video encoder, (decoding/encoding [0030]), the method comprising:
obtaining a first motion vector prediction (MVP) candidate associated with a video block (generating an MVP candidate list for the block, including obtaining a first MVP candidate [0005]; [0030]); and
based on a determination that the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding, performing a template-based function associated with the first MVP candidate associated with the video block (performing a template function that is associated with the MVP candidate[0089]- [0090]; [0103]; [0031]; [0066]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches determining whether the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding based on a template-based coding constraint (determining whether a candidate can be used for template matching under a constraint [0119]; [0124]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Claims 69, 72, 79, 82, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) further in view of Semih Esenlik (US 20200236387 A1) (hereinafter Esenlik):
Regarding Claim 69, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68; however, do not explicitly teach wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063])
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Regarding Claim 72, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68. Chen further teaches the processor is further configured to:
obtain an MVP candidate list associated with the video block, wherein the MVP candidate list comprises at least the first MVP candidate (generating the MVP candidate list[0030]);
determine whether to perform adaptive re-ordering of merge candidates (ARMC) on a plurality of MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list based on the area constraint (deciding whether to run AMRC or not based on area and size [0037]; [0095]); and
based on a determination to perform ARMC on the plurality of MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list, re-order the MVP candidate list using ARMC (re-ordering the candidate list [0030]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint comprises an area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Regarding Claim 79, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 77; however, do not explicitly teach wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063])
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Regarding Claim 82, Chen in view of Xu teach the video encoding device of claim 77. Chen further teaches obtain an MVP candidate list associated with the video block, wherein the MVP candidate list comprises at least the first MVP candidate (generating the MVP candidate list[0030]);
determine whether to perform adaptive re-ordering of merge candidates (ARMC) on the MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list based on the area constraint (deciding whether to run AMRC or not based on area and size [0037]; [0095]);
based on a determination to perform ARMC on the MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list, reorder the MVP candidate list using ARMC (re-ordering the candidate list [0030]); and
include an index associated with the re-ordered MVP candidate list in video data (the candidate’s index included in the video data [0005]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches obtain an indication indicating the template-based coding constraint (a flag indicating constraint [0124]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Xu does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Regarding Claim 85, Chen in view of Xu teach the method of claim 84; however, do not explicitly teach wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is an area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063])
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Claims 70, 80, and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) further in view of Naeri Park (US 20200296414 A1) (hereinafter Park):
Regarding Claim 70, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint (reference picture constraint [0105]; [0242]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Regarding Claim 80, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 77; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint (reference picture constraint [0105]; [0242]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Regarding Claim 86, Chen in view of Xu teach the method of claim 84; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference picture constraint (reference picture constraint [0105]; [0242]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Claims 71, 81, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) further in view of Xiaoyu Xiu (US 20240430436 A1) (hereinafter Xiu):
Regarding Claim 71, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Xiu teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint. (CTU size constraint [0136]; [0148]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Xiu as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency while maintain high image quality. ( Xiu [0006]).
Regarding Claim 81, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 77; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Xiu teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint. (CTU size constraint [0136]; [0148]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Xiu as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency while maintain high image quality. ( Xiu [0006]).
Regarding Claim 87, Chen in view of Xu teach the method of claim 84; however, do not explicitly teach teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint.
However, in an analogous art, Xiu teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a coding tree unit size constraint. (CTU size constraint [0136]; [0148]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Xiu as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency while maintain high image quality. ( Xiu [0006]).
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Semih Esenlik (US 20200236387 A1) (hereinafter Esenlik) in view of Naeri Park (US 20200296414 A1) (hereinafter Park) further in view of Tzu-Der Chuang (US 20180199057 A1) (hereinafter Chuang):
Regarding Claim 73, Chen in view of Xu and Esenlik teach the video decoding device of claim 72. Chen further teaches wherein the determination of whether to perform ARMC on the MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list based on the area constraint (re-ordering the candidate list [0030]). comprises:
identifying a template, wherein the template is associated with the first MVP candidate in the reference picture or the template is associated with a second MVP candidate in the MVP candidate list ( determining a template for the candidate’s reference block in the reference frame [0105]); and
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches determining a constrained template area in a reference picture based on the video block and the area constraint (defining a bounded sample window around the block that limits which samples the template operates [0021]; [0063]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Esenlik does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Park teaches determining a template cost validity, wherein the template cost validity is determined for a first MVP candidate or a second MVP candidate (determining per MVP candidate template cost [0006]), wherein determining the template cost validity for the first MVP candidate is based on a location of the template associated with the first MVP candidate relative to the constrained template area (determine the candidate’s cost from the template at the reference block’s location [0242]; [0235]), wherein the template cost for the first MVP candidate is determined to be valid based on the template associated with the first MVP candidate being inside the constrained template area (deriving and using the candidate’s template cost from templates with a predetermined region [0246]), wherein determining the template cost validity for the second MVP candidate is based on a location of the template associated with the second MVP candidate relative to the constrained template area (the restricted access. Region bounded cost derivation is applied to every candidate [0235]; [0246]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu and Esenlik to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Park does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Chuang teaches wherein the template cost for the second MVP candidate is determined to be invalid based on the template associated with the second MVP candidate being outside the constrained template area (the candidate is disregarded if outside the valid area [0022]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu, Esenlik, and park to further add the teachings of Chuang as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. (Chuang [0005]).
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Semih Esenlik (US 20200236387 A1) (hereinafter Esenlik) in view of Lien-Fei Chen (US 20230104476 A1) (hereinafter Lien-Fei):
Regarding Claim 74, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 72. Chen further teaches wherein the processor (processor [0147]) is further configured to:
obtain an MVP candidate list associated with the video block, wherein the MVP candidate list comprises a plurality of MVP candidates (generating the MVP candidate list for the current block containing multiple candidate [0030]; [0091]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Esenlik teaches determine, for the plurality of MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list, respective template cost validity based on the template-based coding constraint (determining a template cost for each candidate in the list [0012]; [0069]; [0091]; [0110]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Esenlik as disclosed above to improve the speed of coding ( Esenlik [0062]).
Esenlik does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Lien-Fei teaches based on the plurality of MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list with a valid template cost, determine to perform ARMC on the plurality of MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list (determining to perform ARMC and reordering the candidates by their template matching cost [0148]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu and Esenlik to further add the teachings of Lien-Fei as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Lien-Fei [0100]).
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Naeri Park (US 20200296414 A1) (hereinafter Park) further in view of Hongtao Wang (US 20200280736 A1) (hereinafter Wang):
Regarding Claim 75, Chen in view of Xu teach the video decoding device of claim 68. Chen further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain an MVP candidate list associated with the video block, wherein the MVP candidate list comprises at least the first MVP candidate( MVP candidate list [0030]);
identify a reference picture of the first MVP candidate (identifying each candidate’s reference picture via its reference picture index [0005]).
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint comprises a reference picture constraint, wherein the reference picture constraint indicates a first reference picture ( reference picture constraint, and defining the reference pictures via index[0105]), and
determine whether the first MVP candidate is available for template-based coding based on the reference picture constraint and the reference picture first MVP candidate, wherein the first MVP candidate is determined to be available for template-based coding based on the reference picture of the first MVP candidate belonging to the at least one allowed reference picture (determining the candidate to be usable when its reference picture is the same as the current block’s reference picture [0105]), wherein template costs associated with respective MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list are determined to be useable for template-based analysis if the reference picture associated with the respective MVP candidates is the first reference picture (the candidates are usable only when its reference picture is the same as the current block’s reference picture[0105]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Park does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Wang teaches identify at least one allowed reference picture based on the reference picture constraint ( determining an allowed referenced picture based on constraint [0145])
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu, and Park to further add the teachings of Wang as disclosed above to improve coding complexity. ( Wang [0030]).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Chia Chen (US 20200068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Meng Xu (US 20200021833 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Naeri Park (US 20200296414 A1) (hereinafter Park) in view of Lien-Fei Chen (US 20230104476 A1) (hereinafter Lien-Fei):
Regarding Claim 83, Chen in view of Xu teach the video encoding device of claim 77. Chen further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain an MVP candidate list associated with the video block, wherein the MVP candidate list comprises at least the first MVP candidate (obtaining an MVP candidate list for the block [0030]), and wherein each MVP candidate in the MVP candidate list is associated with a respective reference picture (each candidate carrying a reference picture index identifying its reference picture[0005]),
Chen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Xu teaches obtain an indication indicating the template-based coding constraint (a flag indicating the constraint [0124]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Xu as disclosed above to improve coding efficiency ( Xu [0119]).
Xu does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Park teaches wherein the template-based coding constraint is a reference frame constraint, and wherein the reference frame constraint indicates a first reference picture (the current block’s reference picture is the controlling reference, supplying a reference frame constraint that indicates a first reference picture [0105]);
wherein respective MVP candidates in the MVP candidate list are determined to be usable for template-based analysis if the reference picture associated with the respective MVP candidates is the first reference picture (the candidate is usable only when its reference picture is the same as the current block’s reference picture [0105]);
determine whether each MVP candidate in the MVP candidate list has a valid template cost based on comparing the reference frame constraint to the respective reference picture associated with each MVP candidate (deriving a template cost for a candidate’s reference block. Conditions candidates use on a reference picture comparison[0242]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu to further add the teachings of Park as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. ( Park [0004]).
Park does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Lien-Fei teaches determine a template cost for each MVP candidate in the MVP candidate list (assigning a respective template matching cost to each candidate [0023]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding as disclosed by Chen in view of Xu and Park to further add the teachings of Lien-Fei as disclosed above to improve video coding efficiency. (Lien-Fei [0100]).
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 MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights