Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re page 8, applicant is submitting a replacement sheet for Figure 6. In view of this replacement, Applicant submits that this objection is now moot and should be withdrawn.
In response, the objection of Figure 6 is herein withdrawn.
In re page 8, applicant requests the non-statutory double patenting rejection to be held in abeyance until such time as one or more of the instant claims are determined to be in an allowable state. If a terminal disclaimer is still required at that time, applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer.
In response, since the terminal disclaimer is not filed, claims 2-21 are again rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as set forth below.
In re pages 8-9, applicant states that the amended independent claims now require a specific reserved-symbol architecture within the transformed-coefficient domain. In particular, at least one value associated with transformed coefficients must be affirmatively assigned as a reserved symbol that is distinct from residual data. The decoder must determine, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that this reserved symbol carries watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for reconstruction. The decoder must then decode the reserved symbol to obtain contextual watermarking information and selectively control one or more decoding or reconstruction operations based on that contextual information, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring reconstruction behavior. These amendments introduce a structural separation between residual reconstruction data and non-residual control data within the coefficient domain, and impose a signaling-driven reinterpretation path in the decoder. Regarding the cited art, Megías is directed to embedding watermark-related information within encoded video data, including watermark level information carried in values associated with transformed coefficients and extracted during decoding. The reference focuses on modifying coefficient-related values so that watermark information can be recovered while maintaining acceptable visual quality. Demos is directed to layered compression and watermarking in encoded video streams, emphasizing encryption and watermarking techniques within layered structures. The Office Action relies on Demos for layered encoding and on Megías for embedding watermark information in coefficient-associated values. Srinivasan is cited for associating tags with signal elements and linking such tags to end-user actions. Rothschild is cited for format-related teachings, including encoding in particular standardized formats. Applicant submits that no combination of the above references teaches or suggests the claimed embodiments, particularly in their current, amended form. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, as discussed above, the pending claims should be found to be distinguished from and patentable over the cited art and rejections of record. While the foregoing remarks have primarily focused on some of the differences between the independent claims and the art, this does not mean that these are the only patentable distinctions. For instance, each of the dependent claims presents additional distinctions over the cited art of record.
In response, the examiner respectively disagrees. As recognized by applicant, Megías is directed to embedding watermark-related information within encoded video data, including watermark level information carried in values associated with transformed coefficients and extracted during decoding. The reference focuses on modifying coefficient-related values so that watermark information can be recovered while maintaining acceptable visual quality. Megías shows in Fig. 2 and discloses in pages 6-8, from paragraphs #0153 to #0209 that the decoder determines, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that reserved symbol carries watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for reconstruction. The decoder then decodes the reserved symbol to obtain contextual watermarking information and selectively controls one or more decoding or reconstruction operations based on that contextual information, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring reconstruction behavior as required by amended claims. Accordingly, Megías discloses the newly added limitations “wherein the watermarking information is embedded by assigning at least one of said values as a reserved symbol that is distinct from residual data (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“) , the method comprising: determining, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that the reserved symbol carries the watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for signal reconstruction (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); decoding the reserved symbol to obtain the watermarking information as contextual information associated with the signal (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); and selectively controlling one or more signal decoding or reconstruction operations based on the watermarking information obtained from the reserved symbol, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring at least one reconstruction operation (page 8, paragraphs #0212-#0217 “In examples where the decoding device 303 comprises electronic means, said decoding device 303 may comprise: … means for recovering at least one first level from the block on the basis of a level of the entropy decoded video signal”)”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a decoder configured to: perform signal decoding operation in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 in view of MEGÍAS JIMENEZ et al. (US 2020/0043120 A1).
Regarding claim 2 of this application, as discussed in the last Office Action, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 recites all the claimed limitations except for the newly added limitations wherein the watermarking information is embedded by assigning at least one of said values as a reserved symbol that is distinct from residual data, the method comprising: determining, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that the reserved symbol carries the watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for signal reconstruction; decoding the reserved symbol to obtain the watermarking information as contextual information associated with the signal; and selectively controlling one or more signal decoding or reconstruction operations based on the watermarking information obtained from the reserved symbol, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring at least one reconstruction operation.
MEGÍAS JIMENEZ et al. in the same field of video watermarking having “wherein the watermarking information is embedded by assigning at least one of said values as a reserved symbol that is distinct from residual data (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“) , the method comprising: determining, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that the reserved symbol carries the watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for signal reconstruction (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); decoding the reserved symbol to obtain the watermarking information as contextual information associated with the signal (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); and selectively controlling one or more signal decoding or reconstruction operations based on the watermarking information obtained from the reserved symbol, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring at least one reconstruction operation (page 8, paragraphs #0212-#0217 “In examples where the decoding device 303 comprises electronic means, said decoding device 303 may comprise: … means for recovering at least one first level from the block on the basis of a level of the entropy decoded video signal”)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of embedding a watermark data in a video signal to the entropy coded as taught by MEGÍAS JIMENEZ et al. into claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 in order to avoid or at least reduce the drawbacks related to transparency, payload, security, bitrate and duration of the extraction of the watermark.
Regarding claims 3-17 of this application, claims 2-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claims 3-17 of this application.
The method claim 18 of this application is rejected over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 in view of MEGÍAS JIMENEZ et al. (US 2020/0043120 A1) for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19 of this application, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 recites the claimed limitations of claim 19 of this application.
Regarding claim 20 of this application, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 recites the claimed limitations of claim 20 of this application.
The decoder claim 21 of this application is rejected over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12192505 B2 in view of MEGÍAS JIMENEZ et al. (US 2020/0043120 A1) for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
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.
Claims 2-14, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US 20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1) as set forth the last Office Action.
Regarding claim 2, MEGÍAS discloses a method of performing signal decoding operations [e.g. FIG. 1-3; decoding device] on one or more portions of a signal [e.g. a block of a video signal], wherein the performing is based at least in part on information [e.g. watermark level] embedded in one or more values [e.g. watermark level values] received in one or more encoded data [e.g. encoded or compressed video data] transmitted within a stream of encoded data [e.g. FIG. 1-3; TABLEs 1-3; compressed video data; the watermark may be embedded at an encoding device site and detected later at a decoding device site], wherein said values are associated with transformed coefficients [e.g. DCT coefficients] intended to be processed by a decoder [e.g. decoder] for deriving elements of the signal [e.g. FIG. 1-3], wherein said information comprises an indication of watermarking information associated with the signal [e.g. FIG. 2-3; obtaining the watermarked level], and wherein the watermarking information is embedded by assigning at least one of said values as a reserved symbol that is distinct from residual data (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“) , the method comprising: determining, based on signaling in a decoded bitstream, that the reserved symbol carries the watermarking information and is not to be interpreted as residual data for signal reconstruction (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); decoding the reserved symbol to obtain the watermarking information as contextual information associated with the signal (pages 6-7, paragraphs #0163-#0185, “According to further examples, obtaining watermark data w.sub.i′ 202 from at least one block of the video signal may comprise: … {tilde over (L)}.sub.b stands for the second level of the block of the video signal having been entropy decoded“); and selectively controlling one or more signal decoding or reconstruction operations based on the watermarking information obtained from the reserved symbol, including conditionally modifying, suppressing, or deferring at least one reconstruction operation (page 8, paragraphs #0212-#0217 “In examples where the decoding device 303 comprises electronic means, said decoding device 303 may comprise: … means for recovering at least one first level from the block on the basis of a level of the entropy decoded video signal”).
It is noted that MEGÍAS differs to the present invention in that MEGÍAS fails to explicitly disclose one or more encoded layers.
However, Demos teaches the well-known concept of one or more layered encoded data [e.g. layered compression to support flexible watermarking techniques].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57].
Regarding claim 3, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the one or more values [e.g. MEGÍAS: watermarked levels] are interpreted by the decoder to derive said information rather than to derive values of transformed coefficients [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3].
Regarding claim 4, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the signal is encoded by means of a tier-based hierarchical format [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: watermarking preferably is applied in portions of the decoding unit chain which are near the end of the hierarchy of units, to yield a minimum impact on each frame within a group of frames].
Regarding claim 5, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the embedded signaling is included in a residual layer at a resolution lower than the full resolution of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 10].
Regarding claim 6, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose at least one of the signal decoding operations performed based on the embedded signaling is performed in-loop on an intermediate rendition of the signal at a resolution lower than full resolution [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 9-10].
Regarding claim 7, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the decoder selectively implements signal decoding operations based on a target level of processing power or battery power consumption to be used by the decoder device [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; reduced power consumption].
Regarding claim 8, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information indicates that the decoder should initiate application of a watermarking operation [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; detectable watermarking] to the decoded signal.
Regarding claim 9, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information comprises compliance information associated with the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14].
Regarding claim 10, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the compliance information comprises any of the following information: the way the signal has been generated [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14], the specific encoder version with which the signal has been generated, the licensing information associated with the signal and/or the encoder version which has generated the signal [e.g. Demos: selected format at rate of 24Hz, 30Hz to encode and decode].
Regarding claim 11, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose upon decoding said watermarking information, prompting the decoder to initiate a compliance process on the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14], wherein the compliance process comprises initiating interruption of a display of the signal [e.g. Demos: selecting a possible display format from a menu].
Regarding claim 12, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the compliance process comprises initiating interruption of a display of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: FIG. 1 and 11-14; selecting a possible display format from a menu].
Regarding claim 13, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the watermarking information comprises a tag associated with one or more elements of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system].
Regarding claim 14, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the tag comprises identification of whether an element of the signal can be selected by an end user of the signal [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system].
Regarding claim 18, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US 20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1) and Srinivasan (US 20070300066 A1) as ser forth in the last Office Action.
Regarding claim 15, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose the tag identifies authorized user to watch the video by a key K, but MEGÍAS and Demos fails to explicitly disclose the detail action of an end-user
However, Srinivasan teaches the well-known concept of the tag identifies: whether an element of the signal is linked to an action to be taken by the end user of the signal [e.g. FIG. 1; the viewer controls to select a desired channel to watch].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos and embedding a watermark in a compressed video stream technique taught by Srinivasan as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57] and identify a compressed digital data stream [See Srinivasan; abstract].
Regarding claim 16, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose said action comprises clicking on said element [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; detecting authorized user to watch the video by a key K; Demos: FIG. 1 and 13-14; proper keys are applied to an authorized decryption system; Srinivasan: control device].
Regarding claim 17, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose the tag identifies an element of the signals belonging to a class of objects [e.g. Srinivasan: FIG. 1-2; the viewer controls to select a desired channel with certain format to watch].
Regarding claim 19, MEGÍAS, Demos and Srinivasan further disclose said encoding uses a tier-based hierarchical coding method [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 1-3; Demos: watermarking preferably is applied in portions of the decoding unit chain which are near the end of the hierarchy of units, to yield a minimum impact on each frame within a group of frames].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGÍAS et al (US20200043120 A1) in view of Demos (US 6957350 B1) and Rothschild (US 20060114338 A1) as set forth in the last Office Action.
Regarding claim 20, MEGÍAS and Demos further disclose at least a portion of the signal and the watermarking information are encoded with MPEG-2 "low complexity enhancement video coding" [e.g. MEGÍAS: FIG. 3; encoder; Demos: FIG. 1], but MEGÍAS and Demos fail to explicitly disclose the signal is encoded with MPEG-5.
However, Rothschild teaches the well-known concept of the format in which at least a portion of the signal and the watermarking information are encoded is MPEG-5 Part 2 LCEVC ("Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding") [e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0029]; Mpeg-5] or SMPTE VC-6 ST-2117.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the watermarking videos system disclosed by MEGÍAS to exploit the well-known layered encoding technique taught by Demos and embedding information in a compressed video stream technique taught by Rothschild as above, in order to provide image compression at high frame rates with high quality for flexible encryption and watermarking techniques [See Demos: column 2 lines 48-57] and securing information associated with the digital images and for verifying activities of a user [See Rothschild; abstract].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THAI Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00am to 6:30pm..
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571)272-1667. 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.
/THAI Q TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights