DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/17/2026.
In the filed response, claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 have been amended, where claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims. Further, claim 8 has been canceled.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-11, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Zhao et al. US 2019/0110045 A1 (see PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Zhao. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. The amended independent claims currently recite “and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format, applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component”, where “applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component” was previously found in claim 9 along, with other options (e.g. MTS, NSST, and ISP), to be applied to the luma component and the chroma component. Since claims 1, 11, and 16 now require only applying the Position-Dependent Predictor combination (PDPC) to both components (i.e. the “at least one of” limitation is not applied), along with the imposed constraint in the chroma format (i.e. 4:4:4 or 4:2:2), the examiner respectfully submits there is a change in scope in the claims. For this reason, Zhao is introduced to address the aforementioned features.
3. The work of Zhao pertains to techniques that may improve the PDPC scheme (e.g. ¶0034). Zhao further shows the PDPC scheme can be applied to both luma (Y) and chroma components (Cb, Cr). Please see ¶0109. Although Zhao does not explicitly disclose applying PDPC when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format, Zhao does address the following. ¶0101-¶0103 describe using the Linear Model (LM) for predicting chroma samples with different color formats (e.g. 4:4:4). ¶0131 further shows Zhao’s disclosed PDPC techniques can be applied for the LM mode (¶0131). Since the LM mode relates to chroma samples having different color formats (e.g. 4:4:4), Zhao’s teachings therefore suggest the disclosed PDPC techniques can be applied “when using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format” as required. Please note. Although Zhao does not directly refer to a color format of 4:2:2, Zhao does teach the color format not being 4:4:4 (¶0103). If it is not 4:4:4, this can be interpreted to mean the other color formats are applicable and would therefore be within the level of skill in the art of video coding. As a note, Wang also provides support for “and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format”. See for e.g. ¶0081. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits Wang, He, and Zhao, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the instant claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
4. Regarding the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) (pgs. 5-6 of last office action), Applicant’s response and amendments are acknowledged. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
5. Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection (pgs. 3-5 of last office action), Applicant’s response and amendments are acknowledged. However, after carefully considering the claims, the examiner respectfully submits that both U.S. Patent No. 11,290,722 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 12,192,472 B2, hereinafter referred to as 722 and 472, respectively, teach and/or suggest the amended features of the instant application. Claim 7 of 722 and 472 recite “wherein at least one of a Position-Dependent Predictor combination (PDPC), a Multiple Transform Selection (MTS), a Non-Separable Secondary Transform (NSST), an Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP), and a Multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction is applied to both a luma component and a chroma component.” which is similar to instant claim 9. Claim 7 of 722 and 472 therefore includes the option for applying PDPC to both luma and chroma components. Claim 7 also depends on Claim 1 which teaches/suggests the 4:4:4 and the 4:2:2 chroma formats. Thus, the claims of both 722 and 472 are found to reasonably address “and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format, applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component”, where “applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component” as recited in instant claims 1, 11, and 16. Thus, for these reasons, the examiner respectfully submits the double patenting rejection can be maintained. Please see below.
6. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
7. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been examined and are pending.
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,290,722 B2, hereinafter referred to as 722. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the foregoing claims of the instant application, where both relate to coding a video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format and a 4:2:2 chroma format. Instant Claims 1, 11, and 16 are found to be broader versions of patented Claims 1, 9, and 16 in 722 which do not include the limitation “wherein a maximum allowed transform size is the same for different color components, and wherein when encoding or decoding the video sequence using the 4:2:2 chroma format, a maximum vertical transform size is the same among different color components, and a maximum horizontal transform size for color components is half of a maximum horizontal transform size for luma components.”
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,472 B2, hereinafter referred to as 472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the foregoing claims of the instant application, where both relate to coding a video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format and a 4:2:2 chroma format. Instant Claims 1, 11, and 16 are found to be broader versions of patented Claims 1, 9, and 16 in 472 which do not include the limitation “wherein a maximum vertical transform size is the same among different color components, and wherein a maximum horizontal transform size for color components is half of a maximum horizontal transform size for luma components.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0275118 A1 with reference to Prov. Application No. 62/809,476, hereinafter referred to as 476), in view of He et al. (US 2021/0203947 A1, with reference to Prov. Application No. 62/786,768, hereinafter referred to as 768), and in further view of Zhao et al. US 2019/0110045 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, He, and Zhao, respectively.
Regarding claim1, Wang teaches and/or suggests, “A method for decoding a video sequence, the method comprising: decoding the video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format [Fig. 7 reveals MV determination with 4:4:4 color format. See Fig. 7 of 476] and a 4:2:2 chroma format [Fig. 9 reveals MV determination with 4:2:2 color format. See Fig. 9 of 476], when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format, copying an affine motion vector of one 4x4 luma block using an operation other than an averaging operation [As to the 4:4:4 color format, MVs of a collocated NxM luma block (e.g., 4x4) are reused (i.e. copied) for the current NxM chroma block (e.g., 4x4) in affine mode, i.e. affine MVs. See para 0032, 0116-0117 and Fig. 8 along with para 0080 and Fig. 8 of 476). Applying a reused MV is different than applying an averaged MV. For further support, see He below] and associating the affine motion vector to a co- located 4x4 chroma block [Since Wang discloses using the affine mode (para 0080 of 476), then it follows an affine MV from the collocated 4x4 luma block would be reused for the 4x4 chroma block, i.e. is associated.]; when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:2:2 chroma format, associating each 4x4 chroma block with two 4x4 co-located luma blocks such that an affine motion vector of one 4x4 chroma block is an average of the motion vectors of the two co-located luma blocks; [See Fig. 9 and para 0124-0130 of Wang. Regarding 4:2:2 format, see para 0081 and Fig. 9 of 476 for equivalent support. This may be applied to affine mode as per 0078-0080 of 476, i.e. affine MVs] and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format, applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component.” [Wang (or He) do not address the foregoing features. Please see Zhao below for corresponding support] Although Wang describes the foregoing elements, He from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to provide more explicit support for the limitation “when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format, copying an affine motion vector of one 4x4 luma block using an operation other than an averaging operation and associating the affine motion vector to a co- located 4x4 chroma block” [Given MVs at control points for an affine coded CU, the MV for a chroma component may reuse (i.e., copy) the MV for the luma component, i.e. an affine MV of the luma block can be associated with a co-located chroma block of the CU. See para 0127 along with para 0117 of 768 for support.] Recognizing He’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang to add the teachings of He as above to provide adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding (abstract), where motion vectors at control points for the luma components of a CU can be reused for the chroma components of that CU. As such, He’s teachings allow for improving the accuracy of affine motion estimation and reducing encoding complexity (e.g. para 0094). As to the amended limitation, Wang addresses “and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format” as shown above, however, Wang and He do not appear to address “applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component” when the chroma format is 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 as now claimed. Zhao, however, from the same or similar field of endeavor, is brought in to teach and/or suggest “and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format or the 4:2:2 chroma format [¶0131 shows Zhao’s disclosed PDPC techniques can be applied for the Linear Model (LM) mode which can be used for predicting chroma samples with different color formats such as for e.g. 4:4:4 (¶0101-¶0103).], applying a Position-Dependent Predictor combination to both a luma component and a chroma component” [In ¶0109, Zhao shows the disclosed PDPC scheme can be applied to both luma (Y) and chroma components (Cb, Cr). Since the PDPC scheme can be applied for the LM mode (above) for chroma samples with different color formats (4:4:4 or not 4:4:4), Zhao’s teachings are deemed relevant] Recognizing Zhao’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of both Wang and He to add the teachings of Zhao as above to provide simplified PDPC techniques which when used with other intra prediction modes, can potentially result in improved compression performance. Zhao’s design may also avoid the use of division operations to simplify implementation, conserve power, and accelerate decoding (¶0039).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse operations that enable compressed video data to be decompressed and reconstructed at a receiving device. See fig. 1 of Wang for support. Also refer to figs. 10 and 11 which depict the video encoder and video decoder, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the required hardware, please refer to Wang para 0053-0054, 0250-0252, along with Figs. 10 and 11 (see Figs. 10-11 and associated text of 476) to implement the functions described therein.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, in further view of Zhao, and in further view of Tamse and Park (Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA, 9-18 Jan. 2019, hereinafter referred to as Tamse.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, He, and Zhao teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further address the features of Claim 2. Tamse on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests, “further comprising, regardless of the chroma format, dividing a current 4x4 chroma block into four 2x2 sub- blocks, [Tamse (abstract) discloses MV derivation for chroma sub-blocks of an affine CU, where a sub-block is 4x4 samples. Reference top Figure on pg. 2 with respect to partitioning the block into 2x2 sub-blocks] deriving a first affine motion vector of a co-located luma block for a top-left 2x2 chroma sub-block [See top Figure (pg. 2) under Sect. 1 (Introduction) where MV1 corresponds to a collocated top-left 2x2 luma sub-block], deriving a second affine motion vector of the co-located luma block for a bottom-right 2x2 chroma block [Same Figure, where MV4 corresponds to a collocated bottom-right 2x2 luma sub-block], and deriving an affine motion vector of the current 4x4 chroma block using the average of the first affine motion vector and the second affine motion vector.” [Pg. 2 (below Fig.) the MVs of 4 luma-sub-blocks are averaged together to derive affine MV of chroma sub-block. Also reference Abstract where Tamse’s approach uses averages the top-left and bottom-right luma sub-blocks MVs as the representative MV] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Wang, He, and Zhao to add the teachings of Tamse as above to simplify the motion vector derivation process for chroma subblock of an affine CU by using fewer luma sub-block motion vectors and to also further address the asymmetric rounding issue when averaging the luma sub-blocks (Abstract and Conclusion).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, in further view of Zhao, and in further view of He et al. (US 2019/0166382 A1), hereinafter referred to as He382.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, He, and Zhao teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further disclose “further comprising aligning an interpolation filter used for motion compensation between luma and chroma components.” He382 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing limitation [See para 0066 regarding applying interpolation filters for chroma upsampling in a luma chroma sampling grid for video] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Wang, He, and Zhao to add the teachings of He382 as above for performing a geometric conversion to unaligned chroma and luma components associated with a first chroma sampling scheme of 360-degree video, so as to align the chroma and luma components to a sampling grid associated with a second chroma sampling scheme (abstract); thus, the geometric conversion process facilitates the delivery of 360-degree video for users of VR systems (¶0050).
Regarding claim 4, Wang, He, Zhao, and He382 teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further address “wherein when a video sequence is input using a 4:2:0 chroma format, applying an 8-tap interpolation filter for luma components and chroma components.” He382 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing limitation [See para 0066 where a 4-tap interpolation filter can be applied for example. It would be considered within the level of skill in the art to be able to apply interpolation filters having different taps according to the application(s). For e.g., see para 0074 where longer or shorter tap filters may be used with the disclosed phase re-alignment filter examples] The motivation for combining Wang, He, Zhao, and He382 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, in further view of Zhao, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0059659 A1 with reference to Prov. App. No. 62/789566), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 5, Wang, He, and Zhao teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further disclose “further comprising, coding as three separate trees, components Y, Cb, and Cr, and wherein each tree of the three separate trees codes one component of the components Y, Cb, and Cr.” Chen on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing limitation. [Reference para 0047 with respect to MTT structures which can be coded separately for luma and chroma components in an I-slice. Coding for each component can therefore reasonably imply having three separate tree codes] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Wang, He, and Zhao to add the teachings of Chen as above to provide a video coder that uses a shared candidate list for encoding/decoding multiple blocks of pixels within a shared boundary (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, He, Zhao, and Chen teach all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not address “wherein the coding as three separate trees is performed for an I slice or an I tile group.” Chen on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing limitation. [Given the ‘or’ condition in the above limitation, see para 0047 with respect to MTT structures which can be coded separately for luma and chroma components in an I-slice] The motivation for combining Wang, He, Zhao, and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, in further view of Zhao, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0030067 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhao 067.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, He, and Zhao teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further address “wherein a maximum allowed transform size is the same for different color components.” Zhao 067 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing limitation. [See for e.g., claim 2 of Zhao 067 where the maximum TU size of the color component is 16x16 which can be reasonably construed as applying to both color components] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Wang, He, and Zhao to add the teachings of Zhao 067 as above to provide a means for coded block flag (CBF) coding in HEVC which employs a unified CBF signaling method to help simplify the process and to further improve the efficiency of the signaling method (para 0002, 0011).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, in further view of Zhao, and in further view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0332284 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Wang, He, and Zhao teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang, He, and Zhao however do not further address “wherein a Multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component.” Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses and/or suggests the foregoing features. [Liu para 0049 is found to teach using a multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction approach that can be applied to the nearest luma or chroma values, i.e., both] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Wang, He, and Zhao to add the teachings of Liu as above to provide an intra-prediction approach using multiple reference lines (e.g., Fig. 8) where matching may be improved that results in reduced residual values and hence better compression (para 0049).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein: when the MRL intra prediction is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component, and when decoding the video sequence is performed using the 4:4:4 chroma format, the method further comprises selecting an Nth reference for intra prediction, and using a same reference line without explicit signaling for chroma components; when the Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP) is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component, the method further comprises applying the Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP) at a block level for a current block for components Y, Cb, and Cr; and when different trees are used for different color components, the method further comprises implicitly deriving coding parameters for U and V components from collocated Y components without signaling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights