DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the correspondence filled on 06/23/2025.
Claims 54-73 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 54-57, 62-64, 65-68 and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang’361 (U.S. Pub. No. 20250016361 A1), in view of Blaeser (U.S. Pub. No. 20210227247 A1).
Examiner’s note: Encoding and decoding are done using same and opposite algorithm.
Regarding to claim 54, 63 and 65:
54. Zhang’361 teach a device for video decoding, comprising: (Zhang’361 Fig.1, [0032] FIG. 3 illustrates a block diagram that illustrates an example video decoder)
a processor configured to: (Zhang’361 [0103] The video encoder 200 may be configured to implement any or all of the techniques of this disclosure. In the example of FIG. 2, the video encoder 200 includes a plurality of functional components. The techniques described in this disclosure may be shared among the various components of the video encoder 200. In some examples, a processor may be configured to perform any or all of the techniques described in this disclosure) determine, for a coding block, a first geometric partitioning mode (GPM) partition and a second GPM partition; (Zhang’361 [0806] b. Alternatively, furthermore, for a first type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered, and for a second type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may not be reordered. [0807] i. In one example, the first type is template-based GPM coded block. [0808] ii. In one example, the second type is the MMVD-based GPM coded block (e.g., GMVD) [0809] c. Alternatively, furthermore, for a first type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered with a first rule, and for a second type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered with a second rule.) obtain, for the coding block, a motion information merge candidate list that (Zhang’361 [0845] It is noted that the terminologies mentioned below are not limited to the specific ones defined in existing standards. Any variance of the coding tool is also applicable. For example, the term “GPM” is used to represent any coding tool that derive two or more sets of motion information and use the derived motion information and the splitting pattern/weighting masks to get the final prediction, e.g., TPM is also treated as GPM. [0846] Note that the proposed methods may be applied to merge candidate list construction process for inter coded blocks (e.g., translational motion), affine coded blocks, TM coded blocks, GPM coded blocks, or IBC coded blocks; or other motion candidate list construction process (e.g., normal AMVP list; affine AMVP list; IBC AMVP list; HMVP table)) comprises at least one bi-prediction motion information; (Zhang’361 [0228] FIG. 13 illustrates an example diagram 1300 showing neighboring samples used for calculating SAD. FIG. 14 illustrates an example diagram 1400 showing neighboring samples used for calculating SAD for sub-CU level motion information. The template matching cost is measured by the SAD (Sum of absolute differences) between the neighbouring samples of the current CU and their corresponding reference samples. If a merge candidate includes bi-predictive motion information, the corresponding reference samples are the average of the corresponding reference samples in reference list0 and the corresponding reference samples in reference list1, as illustrated in FIG. 13. If a merge candidate includes sub-CU level motion information, the corresponding reference samples consist of the neighbouring samples of the corresponding reference sub-blocks, as illustrated in FIG. 14.)
predict the first GPM partition based on the first bi-prediction motion information comprising the first motion vector and the second motion vector. (Zhang’361 [0877] e. In one example, whether to and/or how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the coding information. [0878] i. In one example, whether to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on whether a template matching based motion refinement is applied to a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU). [0879] (i) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is NOT refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to false), the corresponding GPM list may NOT be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in OGPMList (e.g., no motion refinement is applied), then merge candidates in OGPMList may NOT be reordered. [0880] (ii) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to true), the corresponding GPM list may be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in AGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using above template is applied), then merge candidates in AGPMList may be reordered. b) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left template is applied), then merge candidates in LGPMList may be reordered. c) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LAGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left and above template is applied), then merge candidates in LAGPMList may be reordered. [0881] ii. In one example, how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the GPM partition information (e.g., partition mode, partition angle, partition distance, etc.). [0882] (i) For example, above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a first partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0883] (ii) For example, left template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a second partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0884] (iii) For example, left and above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0885] (iv) For example, a type of template may be specified corresponding to the first/second/third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0886] (v) For example, at least one look-up table (i.e., mapping table) is used to map what specified partition angles (or partition modes, or partition distances, etc.) corresponding to what type of template (e.g., above template, left template, or above and left template). [0887] f. In one example, the merge candidates in the OGPMList may be not reordered and the merge candidates in the AGPMList and/or LGPMList and/or LAGPMList may be reordered. [0888] 2. The merge candidates can be adaptively rearranged in the final GPM candidate list according to one or some criterions. [0889] a. In one example, the GPM candidate list may be [0890] i. OGPMList, [0891] ii. AGPMList, [0892] iii. LGPMLIst, [0893] iv. LAGPMList. [0894] b. The GPM candidates may be divided into several subgroups. [0895] i. For example, the number of GPM candidates (such as X=3 or 5 or any other integer values) in a subgroup may be pre-defined. [0896] c. In one example, partial or full process of current GPM candidate list construction process is firstly invoked, followed by the reordering of candidates in the GPM list)
Zhang’361 do not explicitly teach determine for the first GPM partition, based on the motion information merge candidate list, first bi- predicted motion information, the first bi-predicted motion information comprising a first motion vector and a second motion vector;
However Blaeser teach determine for the first GPM partition, based on the motion information merge candidate list, first bi- predicted motion information, the first bi-predicted motion information comprising a first motion vector (Blaeser [0252] Two more steps are performed to finish the merge candidate list generation: [0253] 4. Combined bi-predictive candidates are derived [0254] 5. Zero motion vectors are added to fill the list [0255] After the merge list generation, it is checked whether uni-prediction restriction is applied to the current block. This is always true for the case of triangular/geometric inter prediction [GPM partition because Fig. 6]. Then, the uni-prediction restriction is applied by scanning the entire merge list and invalidating the REF_PIC_LIST1 motion vector in the following way:
PNG
media_image1.png
314
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0257] Then, for motion vector storage, depending on the location of each 4×4 block within the current block, either a uni-prediction MV or a bi-prediction MV is stored as shown in FIG. 10.) and a second motion vector; and (Blaeser [0258] Although bi-prediction candidates are stored on the diagonals in this manner, they are only made available for very few neighboring locations. Further, it is noted that the motion vectors indicated as “bi” are some sort of combination of Mv1 and Mv2. [0259] Typically, a uni-prediction restriction is enforced for small rectangular blocks (<8×8 luma samples). If however, a uni-prediction restriction is enforced for larger blocks, such as triangular partitioned blocks, it is believed that this may decrease the coding efficiency of neighboring blocks, which reference the uni-prediction motion vector. It would be beneficial if those neighboring blocks could also reference bi-prediction motion vectors. [0260] Bi-predictive motion vectors are allowed for motion vector storage for at least one 4×4 sub-blocks (such as 4×4 sub-blocks which are located along the direction of the triangle partition (diagonal or anti-diagonal), or all 4×4 sub-blocks) of the triangular/geometric partition, but only uni-directional motion compensation is performed.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’361, further incorporating Blaeser in video/camera technology. One would be motivated to do so, to incorporate determine for the first GPM partition, based on the motion information merge candidate list, first bi- predicted motion information, the first bi-predicted motion information comprising a first motion vector and a second motion vector. This functionality will improve efficiency with predictable results.
Regarding to claim 55, 64 and 66:
55. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine for the second GPM partition, (Zhang’361 [0806] b. Alternatively, furthermore, for a first type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered, and for a second type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may not be reordered. [0807] i. In one example, the first type is template-based GPM coded block. [0808] ii. In one example, the second type is the MMVD-based GPM coded block (e.g., GMVD) [0809] c. Alternatively, furthermore, for a first type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered with a first rule, and for a second type of GPM coded block, the candidate list may be reordered with a second rule.) based on the motion information merge candidate list, second bi-predicted motion information, (Zhang’361 [0228] FIG. 13 illustrates an example diagram 1300 showing neighboring samples used for calculating SAD. FIG. 14 illustrates an example diagram 1400 showing neighboring samples used for calculating SAD for sub-CU level motion information. The template matching cost is measured by the SAD (Sum of absolute differences) between the neighbouring samples of the current CU and their corresponding reference samples. If a merge candidate includes bi-predictive motion information, the corresponding reference samples are the average of the corresponding reference samples in reference list0 and the corresponding reference samples in reference list1 [second bi-predicted motion], as illustrated in FIG. 13.)
the second bi-predicted motion information comprising a third motion vector and a fourth motion vector; and predict the second GPM partition based on the second bi-prediction motion information comprising the third motion vector and the fourth motion vector. (Zhang’361 OGPMList, AGPMList, LGPMList and LAGPMList for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th motion vector. [0877] e. In one example, whether to and/or how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the coding information. [0878] i. In one example, whether to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on whether a template matching based motion refinement is applied to a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU). [0879] (i) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is NOT refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to false), the corresponding GPM list may NOT be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in OGPMList (e.g., no motion refinement is applied), then merge candidates in OGPMList may NOT be reordered. [0880] (ii) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to true), the corresponding GPM list may be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in AGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using above template is applied), then merge candidates in AGPMList may be reordered. b) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left template is applied), then merge candidates in LGPMList may be reordered. c) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LAGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left and above template is applied), then merge candidates in LAGPMList may be reordered. [0881] ii. In one example, how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the GPM partition information (e.g., partition mode, partition angle, partition distance, etc.). [0882] (i) For example, above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a first partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0883] (ii) For example, left template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a second partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0884] (iii) For example, left and above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0885] (iv) For example, a type of template may be specified corresponding to the first/second/third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0886] (v) For example, at least one look-up table (i.e., mapping table) is used to map what specified partition angles (or partition modes, or partition distances, etc.) corresponding to what type of template (e.g., above template, left template, or above and left template). [0887] f. In one example, the merge candidates in the OGPMList may be not reordered and the merge candidates in the AGPMList and/or LGPMList and/or LAGPMList may be reordered. [0888] 2. The merge candidates can be adaptively rearranged in the final GPM candidate list according to one or some criterions. [0889] a. In one example, the GPM candidate list may be [0890] i. OGPMList, [0891] ii. AGPMList, [0892] iii. LGPMLIst, [0893] iv. LAGPMList. [0894] b. The GPM candidates may be divided into several subgroups. [0895] i. For example, the number of GPM candidates (such as X=3 or 5 or any other integer values) in a subgroup may be pre-defined. [0896] c. In one example, partial or full process of current GPM candidate list construction process is firstly invoked, followed by the reordering of candidates in the GPM list)
Regarding to claim 56 and 67:
56. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, wherein the motion information merge candidate list comprises an extended merge candidate list. (Zhang’361 [0148] The history-based MVP (HMVP) merge candidates are added to merge list after the spatial MVP and TMVP. In this method, the motion information of a previously coded block is stored in a table and used as MVP for the current CU. The table with multiple HMVP candidates is maintained during the encoding/decoding process. The table is reset (emptied) when a new CTU row is encountered. Whenever there is a non-subblock inter-coded CU, the associated motion information is added to the last entry of the table as a new HMVP candidate.)
Regarding to claim 57 and 68:
57. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain, for the coding block, a uni-prediction candidate list; (Zhang’361 [0399] iii. For example, new uni-prediction merge candidates may be generated by the reordered L0 or L1 motion.) determine, for the second GPM partition, uni-predicted motion information, based on the uni- prediction candidate list; and predict the second GPM partition based on the uni-predicted motion information. (Zhang’361 [0449] 9. In one example, if the coding mode is GPM, the merge candidates may be reordered. [0450] a. In one example, the reordering process may be applied on the original merge candidates before the merge candidates are used to derive the GPM candidate list for each partition (a.k.a. the uni-prediction candidate list for GPM). [0451] b. In one example, if the coding mode is GPM, the merge candidates in the uni-prediction candidate list may be reordered. [0452] c. In one example, the GPM uni-prediction candidate list may be constructed based on the reordering. [0453] i. In one example, a candidate with bi-prediction (a.k.a. bi-prediction candidate) may be separated into two uni-prediction candidates. [0454] (i) If the number of original merge candidates is M, at most 2 M uni-prediction candidates may be separated from them. [0455] ii. In one example, uni-prediction candidates separated from a bi-prediction candidate may be put into an initial uni-prediction candidate list. [0456] iii. In one example, candidates in the initial uni-prediction candidate list may be reordered with the template matching costs. [0457] iv. In one example, the first N uni-prediction candidates with smaller template matching costs may be used as the final GPM uni-prediction candidates. As an example, N is equal to M. [0458] d. In one example, after deriving a GPM uni-prediction candidate list, a combined bi-prediction list for partition 0 and partition 1 is constructed, then the bi-prediction list is reordered. [0459] i. In one example, if the number of GPM uni-prediction candidates is M, the number of combined bi-prediction candidates is M*(M−1). [0460] e. Alternatively, the reordering method may be different for the GPM mode and other merge modes.)
Regarding to claim 62 and 73:
62. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, wherein the processor configured to determine for the first GPM partition, the first bi-predicted motion information is further configured to refine the first bi-predicted motion information using decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR). (Zhang’361 [0664] In the disclosure, a motion candidate is called to be “refined” if the motion information of the candidate is modified according to information signaled from the encoder or derived at the decoder. For example, a motion vector may be refined by DMVR, FRUC, TM merge, TM AMVP, TM GPM, TM CIIP, TM affine, MMVD, GMVD, affine MMVD, BDOF [bi-predicted] and so on.)
Claims 58 and 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang’361 (U.S. Pub. No. 20250016361 A1), in view of Blaeser (U.S. Pub. No. 20210227247 A1), further in view of Kidani (Geometric Partitioning Mode with Inter and Intra Prediction for Beyond Versatile Video Coding - IEICE TRANS. INF. & SYST., VOL.E105---D, NO.10 OCTOBER 2022)
Regarding to claim 58 and 69:
58. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, Zhang’361 do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: predict the second GPM partition using intra-prediction.
However Kidani teach wherein the processor is further configured to: predict the second GPM partition using intra-prediction. (Kidani page 1691 col 1 para 1 summary -In this paper, we propose a GPM with inter and intra prediction to achieve further enhanced compression capability beyond VVC. Fig. 1 Overview of the generation process for predicted samples by GPM. (a) GPM-Inter/lnter in VVC, (b) GPM-Inter/Intra, and (c) GPM-Intra/lntra. The shaded region of the current picture and the reference picture indicates the reconstructed sample areas available for inter and intra predictions.)
The motivation for combining Zhang’361 and Blaeser as set forth in claim 54 is equally applicable to claim 58. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’361, further incorporating Blaeser and Kidani in video/camera technology. One would be motivated to do so, to incorporate the processor is further configured to: predict the second GPM partition using intra-prediction. This functionality will improve user experience with predictable results.
Claims 61 and 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang’361 (U.S. Pub. No. 20250016361 A1), in view of Blaeser (U.S. Pub. No. 20210227247 A1), further in view of Zhang’914 (U.S. Pub. No. 20220094914 A1).
Regarding to claim 61 and 72:
61. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 55, wherein the processor configured to determine for the first GPM partition, the first bi-predicted motion information is further configured to determine the first bi-predicted motion information and wherein the processor configured to determine for the second GPM partition, (Please see the rejection of claim 55)
Zhang’361 do not explicitly teach using multiple hypothesis prediction (MHP); the second bi- predicted motion information is further configured to determine the second bi-predicted motion information using MHP.
However Zhang’914 teach using multiple hypothesis prediction (MHP); the second bi- predicted motion information is further configured to determine the second bi-predicted motion information using MHP. (Zhang’914 [0344] In JVET-L0100, multi-hypothesis prediction is proposed, wherein combined intra and inter prediction is one way to generate multiple hypotheses. [0345] When the multi-hypothesis prediction is applied to improve intra mode, multi-hypothesis prediction combines one intra prediction and one merge indexed prediction. In a merge CU, one flag is signaled for merge mode to select an intra mode from an intra candidate list when the flag is true. For luma component, the intra candidate list is derived from only one intra prediction mode, i.e., planar mode. The weights applied to the prediction block from intra and inter prediction are determined by the coded mode (intra or non-intra) of two neighboring blocks (A1 and B1). [0483] The detailed listing below should be considered as examples to explain general concepts. These embodiments should not be interpreted in a narrow way. Furthermore, these techniques can be combined in any manner. For example, the embodiments discussed in this document are applicable to geometry partition mode (GPM) in which the current video block is partitioned into at least two non-rectangular sub-blocks. The non-rectangular blocks can be of any geometrical shape, other than a rectangle. For example, the GPM comprises splitting the first video block into multiple prediction partitions to apply motion prediction separately, and at least one partition having a non-rectangular shape. Further, although the embodiments herein are discussed using examples of alternative temporal motion vector prediction coding (ATMVP), in some embodiments, sub-block based temporal motion vector predictor coding (SbTMVP) is also applicable.)
The motivation for combining Zhang’361 and Blaeser as set forth in claim 54 is equally applicable to claim 61. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’361, further incorporating Blaeser and Zhang’914 in video/camera technology. One would be motivated to do so, to incorporate using multiple hypothesis prediction (MHP); the second bi- predicted motion information is further configured to determine the second bi-predicted motion information using MHP. This functionality will improve quality with predictable results.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding to claim 59-60 and 70-71:
Claims 59-60 and 70-71 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the limitations of these dependent claims are not obvious from the prior art search when all the limitations of independent and intervening claims are taken into account.
Regarding to claim 59 and 70:
59. Zhang’361 teach the device for video decoding of claim 54, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, for a second coding block, a third GPM partition and a fourth GPM partition; obtain, for the third GPM partition, (Zhang’361 OGPMList, AGPMList, LGPMList and LAGPMList for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th motion vector. [0877] e. In one example, whether to and/or how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the coding information. [0878] i. In one example, whether to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on whether a template matching based motion refinement is applied to a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU). [0879] (i) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is NOT refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to false), the corresponding GPM list may NOT be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in OGPMList (e.g., no motion refinement is applied), then merge candidates in OGPMList may NOT be reordered. [0880] (ii) For example, if the motion of a GPM partition or two GPM partitions (i.e. a GPM coded CU) is refined based on template matching (e.g., the template matching flag is equal to true), the corresponding GPM list may be reordered. a) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in AGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using above template is applied), then merge candidates in AGPMList may be reordered. b) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left template is applied), then merge candidates in LGPMList may be reordered. c) For example, if a GPM partition is coded using a merge candidate in LAGPMList (e.g., template matching motion refinement method using left and above template is applied), then merge candidates in LAGPMList may be reordered. [0881] ii. In one example, how to reorder merge candidates in a GPM list may be dependent on the GPM partition information (e.g., partition mode, partition angle, partition distance, etc.). [0882] (i) For example, above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a first partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0883] (ii) For example, left template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a second partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0884] (iii) For example, left and above template may be used for the merge candidates reordering in case that the current GPM partition is split by a third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0885] (iv) For example, a type of template may be specified corresponding to the first/second/third partition angle (or partition mode, or partition distance, etc.). [0886] (v) For example, at least one look-up table (i.e., mapping table) is used to map what specified partition angles (or partition modes, or partition distances, etc.) corresponding to what type of template (e.g., above template, left template, or above and left template).)
Prior art do not teach a first affine motion model that uses a uni-prediction candidate as Control Point Motion Vector; and perform affine motion compensation prediction on the third GPM partition based on the first affine motion model.
Closely related prior art
Examiner notes teaching of U.S. Pub. No. 20250267275 A1 is/are pertinent to the independent claim(s), however is not used because dependent claims are better covered by cited reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM N NIRJHAR whose telephone number is (571) 272-3792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8 am to 5 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NASIM N NIRJHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights