DETAILED ACTION
1. This is first Office Action in response to application no. 18/975,767 filed on December 10, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
2. 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 conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent no. 9,826,243 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 of Patent no. 9,826,243 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 of Patent no. 9,826,243 calls for similar limitations. In fact, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding, wherein said encoder specifies a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, wherein a first one of the plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points in the bitstream relating to scalable video coding, the first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same dependency ID, wherein a second one of the plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of interoperability points, the second subset of said plurality of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same dependency ID, and wherein each of the plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 9,826,243, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of Patent no. 9,826,243.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of Patent no. 9,826,243.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of Patent no. 9,826,243.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of Patent no. 9,826,243.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent no. 10,154,272 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 of US Patent no. 10,154,272 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Patent no. 10,154,272 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for an apparatus with processors configured to specify a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set into a bitstream; and encode video signal data into said bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said second subset of said plurality of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 10,154,272, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2-4 of the instant application corresponds claims to 2-4 of Patent no. 10,154,272.
Claims 7-9 of the instant application corresponds to claims 6-8 of Patent no. 10,154,272.
Claims 13-15 of the instant application corresponds to claims 14-16 of Patent no. 10,154,272.
Claims 18-20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 18-20 of Patent no. 10,154,272.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent no. 10,511,845 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 6 and 11 of US Patent no. 10,511,845 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 of Patent no. 10,511,845 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for a non-transitory storage media having video signal data encoded thereupon, comprising: transmitting video signal data in a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding; and transmitting a plurality of bitstream restriction information in said bitstream, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first same one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second same one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of interoperability points, said second subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 10,511,845, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of Patent no. 10,511,845.
As per claim 3 of the instant application, some feature of claim 3 are included in claim 2 of Patent no. 10,511,845.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of Patent no. 10,511,845.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent no. 10,897,626 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 of US Patent no. 10,897,626 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 5, 10 and 14 of Patent no. 10,897,626 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said second subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 10,897,626, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2-4 of the instant application correspond to claims 2-4 of US Patent no. 10,897,626.
Claims 7-10 of the instant application correspond to claims 6-9, respectively, of US Patent no. 10,897,626.
Claims 13-14 of the instant application correspond to claims 15-16 of Patent no. 10,897,626; claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of Patent no. 10,897,626.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent no. 11,290,732 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 5, 10 and 14 of US Patent no. 11,290,732 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 5, 10 and 14 of Patent no. 11,290,732 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding; encoding at least a syntax flag indicating that a plurality of bitstream restriction information are present in said bitstream; and specifying said plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said second subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 11,290,732, it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2-4 of the instant application correspond to claims 2-4 of US Patent no. 11,290,732.
Claims 7-10 of the instant application correspond to claims 6-9, respectively, of US Patent no. 11,290,732.
Claims 13-14 of the instant application correspond to claims 15-16 of Patent no. 11,290,732; claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of Patent no. 11,290,732.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent no. 11,785,230 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of US Patent no. 11,785,230 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of Patent no. 11,785,230 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for an apparatus with processors configured to specify a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set into a bitstream; and encode video signal data into said bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of interoperability points relating to scalable video coding, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said first subset of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of interoperability points, said second subset of said plurality of interoperability points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of: (1) if the motion is over picture boundary, (2) maximal number of bytes per picture, (3) maximal number of bits per macroblock, (4) maximal motion vector length, (5) number of reordering frames, and (6) maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 11,785,230 it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2-5 of the instant application correspond to claims 2-5 of US Patent no. 11,785,230.
Claims 7-11 of the instant application correspond to claims 7-11 of US Patent no. 11,785,230.
Claims 13-15 of the instant application correspond to claims 13-15 of Patent no. 11,785,230.
Claims 17-20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 17-20 of Patent no. 11,785,230.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent no. 12,206,871 to Luo et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of the instant application and claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of US Patent no. 12,206,871 are drawn to the same invention. A close look at the instant application will show that, for example, independent claim 1 of the instant application call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein said bitstream includes a plurality of temporal levels and said parameter set indicates a number of temporal levels, wherein a bitstream restriction information is specified for each temporal level in said bitstream, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 16 of Patent no. 12,206,871 calls for similar limitations. In fact, for example, independent claim 1 of the cited Patent call for a method, comprising: encoding video signal data into a bitstream, said bitstream including a plurality of operation points; encoding at least a syntax element indicating a number of operation points in said bitstream; and specifying a plurality of bitstream restriction information using a parameter set, wherein a first one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a first subset of said plurality of operation points, said first subset of said plurality of operation points corresponding to all layers having a first same temporal level, wherein a second one of said plurality of bitstream restriction information is specified for a second subset of said plurality of operation points, said second subset of said plurality of operation points corresponding to all layers having a second same temporal level, and wherein each of said plurality of bitstream restriction information specifies one or more of a maximal number of reordering frames and a maximal decoded frame buffer size.
Therefore, when comparing the claims of the instant application and the claims of the cited Patent. Patent no. 12,206,871 it is clear that the cited Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application since all the limitations of the cited patent are included in the claims of the published patent. To the examiner, it is clear that the differences between the claims do not rise to a patentability level.
Claims 2-5 of the instant application correspond to claims 2-5 of US Patent no. 12,206,871.
Claims 7-11 of the instant application correspond to claims 7-11 of US Patent no. 12,206,871.
Claims 13-15 of the instant application correspond to claims 13-15 of Patent no. 12,206,871.
Claims 17-20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 17-20 of Patent no. 12,208,871.
The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See The Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424