DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application 18/945,164 is responsive to communications filed on 4/14/26, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 1/14/26. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Response that Wu does not teach “inter-coding the image frame in a second encoding pass using the lowered compression level for each identified pixel block and using the obtained compression level for each remaining pixel block”.
However, Wu teaches that, in the second pass of the encoding process, the quantization parameters to be applied can be determined. In other words, the encoder 215 can adjust the quantization parameters to be applied to the portions in target image frame 605 (e.g., not the entire image) based on the average quantization parameter (col. 9, lines 55-56, 58-60).
Applicant argues on page 6 of the Response that the above-stated limitation of claim 1 is not taught by Wu because “according to Wu, the QP will be adjusted for all coding blocks in the image while the claimed invention only lowers to QP of a selection of coding blocks while leaving the QP of other coding blocks within the image intact”.
However, the language of claim 1 only requires that an adjusted block be an “identified pixel block” and does not explicitly state that only a “selection of coding blocks” are have their QP adjusted.
In addition, Applicant argues on page 7 of the Response that Lim does not teach “and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold” of claim 1.
However, Lim teaches that the intra predicted coding units 106 require a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units 108. If the prediction mode type for the block of image samples is an intra prediction mode type, the determined QP for compressing the block of image samples is modified by subtracting from it the value of the offset QP 306. The offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by one prediction mode type (e.g., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type. The “threshold” here is interpreted to be that the determination that the intra predicted coding units should have a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units, and then must have an offset (that is subtracted) applied (para[0112], [0117], [0119]).
In response to applicant's argument on pages 7-8 of the Response that the proposed combination of Wu and Lim would not result in the claimed invention in claim 1, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As discussed above, even if it is argued that combining Wu and Lim (as on page 8 of the Response) would result in an image where all blocks have been subjected to a change in QP value, there is no limitation in claim 1 that requires only “a selection of intra-coded blocks” to be modified.
Therefore, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7, 9, and 11-14, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a "computer-readable storage medium" which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. See specification, paragraph [0026], which states that, “…the memory 218 may hence constitute a (non-transitory) computer-readable storage medium…” (emphasis added). The language in paragraph [0026] does not explicitly exclude transitory signals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceeding before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation "non-transitory" to the computer readable medium as recited in the claim in order to properly render the claim in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. Patent No. 10,425,642; cited in the IDS filed 11/12/24) in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0114701).
In regard to claim 1, Wu teaches a method for inter-encoding an image frame in a sequence of image frames (i.e., encoded media content 225 for image frames of the media content) (col. 7, lines 45-48), comprising:
obtaining a compression level for each pixel block of the image frame, wherein the compression level corresponds to a quantization level and is higher for pixel blocks in some regions of the image frame than for pixel blocks in other regions of the image frame (i.e., portions can be assigned a quantization parameter from 0 to 51 based on the difficulty of encoding the portions; in Fig. 6, this results in portion 610 having a quantization parameter of 34, and portion 620 having a quantization parameter of 4) (Fig. 6; col. 9, lines 7-12),
inter-encoding the image frame in a first encoding pass using the obtained compression level for each pixel block of the image frame (i.e., using HEVC/H.265, encoding; the average quantization parameter can be calculated in a first pass of the encoding process) (col. 1, lines 51-56; col. 9, lines 53-54),…,
inter-encoding the image frame in a second encoding pass using the lowered compression level for each identified pixel block and using the obtained compression level for each remaining pixel block (i.e., next, in the second pass of the encoding process, the quantization parameters to be applied can be determined; encoder 215 can adjust the quantization parameters to be applied to the portions in target image frame 605 based on the average quantization parameter) (col. 9, lines 55-56. 58-60).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded nor does it teach identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold and does not teach lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded (i.e., a coding unit 104 can be coded as an intra predicted block (depicted as shaded blocks) 106 or an inter prediction block (depicted as unshaded blocks) 108) (Fig. 1; para[0111]), teaches identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass (i.e., a prediction mode parameter 314 representing or indicating the determined prediction mode type is written into a header 312 of a coding unit 310 as shown in FIG. 3; by way of example only, a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "0" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode and a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "1" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an inter-picture prediction mode) (para[0115]) and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold (i.e., the intra predicted coding units 106 require a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units 108; if the prediction mode type for the block of image samples is an intra prediction mode type, the determined QP for compressing the block of image samples is modified by subtracting from it the value of the offset QP 306; the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by one prediction mode type (e.g., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type; wherein the “threshold” is interpreted to be that the intra predicted coding units should have a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units, and that is why an offset (that is subtracted) must be applied) (para[0112], [0117], [0119]) and teaches lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block (i.e., for example, in the case where the predetermined prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode, the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by the intra prediction mode (i.e., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type such as the inter picture prediction model) (para[0119]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim because Lim teaches achieving similar subjective quality (without increasing the data size of the overall image) between inter and intra predicted coding units by using lower quantization parameters for the intra predicted coding units than the inter predicted coding units (See, for example, para[0008] of Lim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wu with those of Lim.
In regard to claim 2, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the compression level for each identified pixel block is lowered to a value which is equal to or below the compression level threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein the compression level for each identified pixel block is lowered to a value which is equal to or below the compression level threshold (i.e., the intra predicted coding units 106 require a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units 108; if the prediction mode type for the block of image samples is an intra prediction mode type, the determined QP for compressing the block of image samples is modified by subtracting from it the value of the offset QP 306; for example, in the case where the predetermined prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode, the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by the intra prediction mode (i.e., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type such as the inter picture prediction model) (para[0112], [0117], [0119]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 3, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein each pixel block in the image frame has a respective compression level threshold which is set in relation to a compression level used when a spatially corresponding pixel block having a same spatial position as the pixel block was last intra-coded in a previous image frame in the sequence.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein each pixel block in the image frame has a respective compression level threshold which is set in relation to a compression level used when a spatially corresponding pixel block having a same spatial position as the pixel block was last intra-coded in a previous image frame in the sequence (i.e., since the determined QP can be expressed as DELTAQP+QP of a previous CU, the above equation can equivalently be expressed as: modified QP=DELTAQP+QP of a previous CU-offset QP; it will be apparent to the person skilled in the art that the above equation can equivalently be expressed as: modified QP=determined QP+offset QP (or modified QP=DELTAQP+QP of previous CU+offset QP) if the offset QP is expressed as a negative value or number) (para[0117]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 6, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Wu teaches wherein the method is carried out each time an image frame in the sequence of image frames is to be inter-encoded (i.e., Fig. 7 illustrates an example of adjusting quantization parameters; HEVC standard) (col. 8, lines 43-62).
In regard to claim 7, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the method is carried out for a selection of image frames in the sequence of image frames, the selection being fewer than every image frame in the sequence of image frames that is to be inter-coded.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein the method is carried out for a selection of image frames in the sequence of image frames, the selection being fewer than every image frame in the sequence of image frames that is to be inter-coded (i.e., for example, in special prediction modes such as "skip mode" and "direct mode", such a parameter/flag is not present in the coding unit 310 and thus it can be deduced that a transform unit 318 has not been coded. It is apparent to the person skilled in the art that "skip mode" and "direct mode" are a subset of the inter-picture prediction mode) (para[0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 11, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Wu teaches wherein the compression level is higher for pixel blocks which are not within a region of interest of the image frame than for pixel blocks which are within a region of interest of the image frame (i.e., Fig. 6; portions 610, 615, and 620; portion 615 has a higher quantization parameter (e.g., less compression, higher quality) because it includes a significant amount of meaningful image content (e.g., “region of interest”) by portraying a large portion of the basketball from target image frame 605) (Fig. 6; col. 8, line 63-col. 9, line 26).
In regard to claim 12, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Wu teaches wherein the first encoding pass and the second encoding pass are performed by the same encoding unit (i.e., for example, in two pass (or multi-pass) encoding, encoder 215 can analyze each CU and determine custom quantization matrices that can be applied to achieve the desirable attenuation in noise in a first pass) (Fig. 2; col. 7, line 65-col. 8, line 7).
In regard to claim 13, Wu teaches an encoder for inter-encoding an image frame in a sequence of image frames (i.e., encoded media content 225 for image frames of the media content) (col. 7, lines 45-48), comprising circuitry configured to carry out a method for inter-encoding an image frame in a sequence of image frames (i.e., Fig. 2), comprising:
obtaining a compression level for each pixel block of the image frame, wherein the compression level corresponds to a quantization level and is higher for pixel blocks in some regions of the image frame than for pixel blocks in other regions of the image frame (i.e., portions can be assigned a quantization parameter from 0 to 51 based on the difficulty of encoding the portions; in Fig. 6, this results in portion 610 having a quantization parameter of 34, and portion 620 having a quantization parameter of 4) (Fig. 6; col. 9, lines 7-12),
inter-encoding the image frame in a first encoding pass using the obtained compression level for each pixel block of the image frame (i.e., using HEVC/H.265, encoding; the average quantization parameter can be calculated in a first pass of the encoding process) (col. 1, lines 51-56; col. 9, lines 53-54),…,
inter-encoding the image frame in a second encoding pass using the lowered compression level for each identified pixel block and using the obtained compression level for each remaining pixel block (i.e., next, in the second pass of the encoding process, the quantization parameters to be applied can be determined; encoder 215 can adjust the quantization parameters to be applied to the portions in target image frame 605 based on the average quantization parameter) (col. 9, lines 55-56. 58-60).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded nor does it teach identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold and does not teach lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded (i.e., a coding unit 104 can be coded as an intra predicted block (depicted as shaded blocks) 106 or an inter prediction block (depicted as unshaded blocks) 108) (Fig. 1; para[0111]), teaches identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass (i.e., a prediction mode parameter 314 representing or indicating the determined prediction mode type is written into a header 312 of a coding unit 310 as shown in FIG. 3; by way of example only, a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "0" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode and a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "1" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an inter-picture prediction mode) (para[0115]) and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold (i.e., the intra predicted coding units 106 require a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units 108; if the prediction mode type for the block of image samples is an intra prediction mode type, the determined QP for compressing the block of image samples is modified by subtracting from it the value of the offset QP 306; the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by one prediction mode type (e.g., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type; wherein the “threshold” is interpreted to be that the intra predicted coding units should have a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units, and that is why an offset (that is subtracted) must be applied) (para[0112], [0117], [0119]) and teaches lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block (i.e., for example, in the case where the predetermined prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode, the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by the intra prediction mode (i.e., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type such as the inter picture prediction model) (para[0119]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim because Lim teaches achieving similar subjective quality (without increasing the data size of the overall image) between inter and intra predicted coding units by using lower quantization parameters for the intra predicted coding units than the inter predicted coding units (See, for example, para[0008] of Lim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wu with those of Lim.
In regard to claim 14, Wu teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program code which, when executed by a computer (i.e., may be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable storage media or memory device(s), and may be executed according to a variety of computing models including, for example, a client/server model, a peer-to-peer model, on a stand-alone computing device, or according to a distributed computing model) (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 34-48), causes the computer to carry out a method for inter-encoding an image frame in a sequence of image frames (i.e., encoded media content 225 for image frames of the media content) (col. 7, lines 45-48), comprising:
obtaining a compression level for each pixel block of the image frame, wherein the compression level corresponds to a quantization level and is higher for pixel blocks in some regions of the image frame than for pixel blocks in other regions of the image frame (i.e., portions can be assigned a quantization parameter from 0 to 51 based on the difficulty of encoding the portions; in Fig. 6, this results in portion 610 having a quantization parameter of 34, and portion 620 having a quantization parameter of 4) (Fig. 6; col. 9, lines 7-12),
inter-encoding the image frame in a first encoding pass using the obtained compression level for each pixel block of the image frame (i.e., using HEVC/H.265, encoding; the average quantization parameter can be calculated in a first pass of the encoding process) (col. 1, lines 51-56; col. 9, lines 53-54),…,
inter-encoding the image frame in a second encoding pass using the lowered compression level for each identified pixel block and using the obtained compression level for each remaining pixel block (i.e., next, in the second pass of the encoding process, the quantization parameters to be applied can be determined; encoder 215 can adjust the quantization parameters to be applied to the portions in target image frame 605 based on the average quantization parameter) (col. 9, lines 55-56. 58-60).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded nor does it teach identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold and does not teach lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein each pixel block is either inter-coded or intra-coded (i.e., a coding unit 104 can be coded as an intra predicted block (depicted as shaded blocks) 106 or an inter prediction block (depicted as unshaded blocks) 108) (Fig. 1; para[0111]), teaches identifying pixel blocks in the image frame that were intra-coded in the first encoding pass (i.e., a prediction mode parameter 314 representing or indicating the determined prediction mode type is written into a header 312 of a coding unit 310 as shown in FIG. 3; by way of example only, a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "0" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode and a prediction mode parameter 314 having a value "1" may indicate that the prediction mode type is an inter-picture prediction mode) (para[0115]) and for which the obtained compression level exceeds a compression level threshold (i.e., the intra predicted coding units 106 require a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units 108; if the prediction mode type for the block of image samples is an intra prediction mode type, the determined QP for compressing the block of image samples is modified by subtracting from it the value of the offset QP 306; the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by one prediction mode type (e.g., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type; wherein the “threshold” is interpreted to be that the intra predicted coding units should have a lower QP than the inter predicted coding units, and that is why an offset (that is subtracted) must be applied) (para[0112], [0117], [0119]) and teaches lowering the compression level for each identified pixel block (i.e., for example, in the case where the predetermined prediction mode type is an intra prediction mode, the offset QP 306 is determined based on a desired difference in the level of quantization between the coding units 310 coded by the intra prediction mode (i.e., intra prediction coding units) and the coding units 310 coded by another prediction mode type such as the inter picture prediction model) (para[0119]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim because Lim teaches achieving similar subjective quality (without increasing the data size of the overall image) between inter and intra predicted coding units by using lower quantization parameters for the intra predicted coding units than the inter predicted coding units (See, for example, para[0008] of Lim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wu with those of Lim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. Patent No. 10,425,642; cited in the IDS filed 11/12/24) in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0114701), further in view of Winston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,778,991).
In regard to claim 9, Wu and Lim teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Wu and Lim do not explicitly teach wherein the inter-encoding in the first encoding pass operates on a lower resolution of the image frame, than the inter-encoding in the second encoding pass.
In the same field of endeavor, Winston teaches wherein the inter-encoding in the first encoding pass operates on a lower resolution of the image frame than the inter-encoding in the second encoding pass (i.e., the processor changes an encoding parameter from a first setting to a second setting; in one aspect, the processor 202 changes the quantization parameter from the lower resolution setting to the higher resolution setting that is higher than the first setting) (col. 15, lines 3-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim with those of Winston because Winston teaches apparatus and methods for varying the levels of quantization during encoding so as to not require the high number of bits that a higher-end encoding configuration requires (See, for example, col. 1, lines 36-47of Winston). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wu and Lim with those of Winston.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8, and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights