DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
3. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 of the issued Patent No. 12,363,279 and of the Patent US 9,066,098, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained below;
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
Specifically, all the components of the video decoding apparatus of the instant application at claim 1, are defined and encompass the limitations claimed by the conflicting patents at the respective claims 1, representing that in both cases a decoding method and apparatus, decodes the bitstream indicated delta quantized parameters of the current block and determining a pre-decoded reference region by using motion information in order to “generate the quantization parameter for the current block by adding the predicted quantization parameter and the delta quantization parameter.”.
The difference between the instant application at claim 1 and the pending patents at claim 1 lies in the fact that the instant claim, additionally includes a processor and memory which would have been obvious for being reciprocally applied by an encoding method at the decoding prediction loop, and being obviated in view of the ordinary skilled in the art.
The conflicting patent amended claim 1, recites; “wherein the prediction information includes indices and motion vectors of reference pictures of the current block.”, which would be obvious in terms of the referenced motion vector index being derived from and be part of the signaled quantization parameters matrix.
Therefore it is concluded that, the invention at claim 1 of in the conflicting patents is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application at claim 1.
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting patents, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named respective claims 1 of the conflicting patent.
Consideration is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 18, is objected for reciting at the claim preamble and at limitations;
“18. A method for storing a bitstream of encoded video data, the method comprising:
encoding video data into the bitstream……etc.,”, and followed by the redundantly claimed limitation of; “storing the bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein encoding the video data comprises:“, is found to similarly follow an ambiguous semantic by which the ordinary skilled in the art when considered under the BRI principles, would have interpreted that the respective “method for storing a bitstream”, would have comprised the encoding process of the video data into the bitstream.
The processing steps of the functional language recited at the subsequent limitations for; “encoding video data into the bitstream……etc.” along with the limitation; “storing the bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein encoding the video data comprises:“, when read in conjunction, would infer that the functional process of; “…..wherein encoding the video data comprises:“, is performed by the “method of storing the bitstream”.
It is interpreted that the recited; “method for storing a bitstream of encoded video data…” at preamble and “storing the bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein encoding the video data comprises:“ as a limitation, represent closed passive statements comprising no execution or processing functionality, but rather indicating resident data storing binary bit sequences of a bitstream deemed to be nothing more than non-functional matter.
In conclusion, the above observed claim semantic discrepancy defines nothing more than printed matter lacking the capability to perform the subsequent functions of the claimed processing limitations, absent of naming any possible related provisions of I/O peripherals and/or the inherently necessary collateral memory management circuitry used in the Read/Write memory operation.
The ability to execute the processing necessary for decoding the bitstream recited at the claim body would be impossible to be achieved absent a processor executing the claimed decoding method.
The recited premise would be in contradiction with the universally accepted configuration of a computing device comprising a storage as a “non-transitory” element which is devoid of executing capability of its own self-contained program code instructions or data stored at a specific address for being solely designated to carry only write/read operations to/from which a dedicated processing unit i.e., of an at least one processor, from which a processor would read and execute the program code instructions to implement the process limitations subsequently claimed.
Supporting information to the above objection is referenced at: MPEP 2111.05 “Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material”
Proposed Corrective Semantic
Examiner suggests an alternative syntax to be recited at preamble as a;
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video bitstream and containing instructions that cause the at least one processor of a (de)coding electronic device to execute:”.
Respectively the limitation reading; “storing the bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein encoding the video data comprises:“, becomes moot based on the same rationale.
4-1. The dependent claims 19-20, are similarly analyzed under the deficient syntax recited at their respective preambles according to their dependency from claim 18.
Procedural reference.
Under MPEP 2111.05(111), the above claims reciting storing instructions on storage medium is merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between a) the stored data (instructions received from the bitstream) and medium or b) the stored data or instructions. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight.
In conclusion, it is determined that Applicant has not used the standard CRM (computer readable media) claim formats specified under;
a) "a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding method [steps of encoding method]" or
b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility).
Under MPEP 2111.05(111), the above claims reciting storing instructions on storage medium is merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between a) the stored data (instructions received from the bitstream) and medium or b) the stored data or instructions. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir.2004).
See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir.2004).
Correction is required.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
5. Claims 1-7, 12 and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu Xiaoan et al., (hereinafter Lu) (US 11,381,818) in view of Heechul Yang et al., (hereinafter Yang) (US 11,438,614) in view of Sung Chank Lim et al., (hereinafter Lim) (US 2021/0227221).
Re Claim 1. Lu discloses, a video decoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Abstract, Col.1 Lin.18-21, Fig.4), the apparatus comprising:
a memory (memory at Col.6 Lin.64-65); and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor (processor connected to memory Col.6 Lin.55-64) configured to:
obtain motion information (motion vector at Col.11 Lin.39-42) on the current block and a delta quantization parameter (the prediction information of the current block includes both, the motion vector (MV) index and delta Quantization Parameter (QP), Col.11 Lin. 1-42Col.12 Lin.38-41);
determine at least one pre-decoded reference region (where the reconstructed reference region is a slice, a macroblocks, blocks, sub-blocks, image regions, Col.2 Lin.11-30, or Col.10 Lin.50-61 etc., and Equations (1) and (2)
for a slice Slice QPy by using the pic_init_qp and adding the slice_qp_delta,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), or for a macroblock layer,
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, using the previous quantization parameter QPy_PREV of the previous macroblock (MB) or slice, Col.2 Lin.21-30 or e.g., Lin.60-64) using the motion information (and using motion vector information for prediction, at step 615, in Fig.6, Col.11 Lin.36-42 );
calculate a predicted quantization parameter using quantization parameters (calculating a QP reference, stored at decoder reference picture buffer 480 according to the prediction inter/intra mode information at 460/470 in Fig.4 Col.9 Lin.45-67 and Col.10 Lin.1-28 i.e., and forming the QP predictor, QPpred of previously decoded coded units, at step 615 Figs.6 or, 9 and 11) corresponding to the at least one reference region (the predicted quantization parameter QP for the region of a slice or macroblock, per Eq. (1) and (2) at Col.2 Lin., e.g., the predictor QP is formed from the multiple QPs of the neighboring blocks, Col.10 Lin.59-63, Fig.9, 11, Col.11 Lin.43-67, Col.12 Lin.1-19); and
generate the quantization parameter for the current block by adding the predicted quantization parameter and the delta quantization parameter (decoding the coding unit by generating the quantization parameter for the current block QPcu by adding the predicted quantization parameter and the delta quantization parameter per step 625 in Fig.6, defined at expression, QPcu = delta_QP + QPpred at Col.11 Lin.4-42, or Figs.9 and 11).
It is remarked that Lu anticipates each and every limitation of clam 1, having the limitations detailed by the secondary art to;
Yang who discloses a similar method of coding based on the delta QP parameters and the predicted QP as in;
determine at least one pre-decoded reference region using the motion information (determining a quantization group that has been decoded before i.e., “pre-decoded reference” the current quantization group, to determine the predicted QP, at the determiner 1610, Col.36 Lin.55-62, or the determiner may use, the quantization parameters of the quantization group, which has been decoded just before the current quantization group, to determine the quantization parameter of the current quantization group per Col.37 Lin.2-13);
calculate a predicted quantization parameter using quantization parameters corresponding to the at least one reference region (computing at determiner 1610, the predicted QP using the decoded QPs corresponding to the reference neighboring blocks at top or left of the current block, Col.36 Lin.55-62); and
generate the quantization parameter for the current block by adding the predicted quantization parameter and the delta quantization parameter (the quantization parameter QP, for the current block is determined from the predicted QP and the delta i.e., the difference QP of the quantization group, per step 2030 in Fig.20, Col.40 Lin.44-49, or step 2440 in Fig.24, Col.43 Lin.50-53).
In an analogous art, Lim discloses the image decoding apparatus and method, using bitstream information of a quantization group and the delta quantization parameter of a current block (Abstract) and,
obtain motion information on the current block (at Par.[0109-0113]) and
a delta quantization parameter (delta quantization parameter Par.[0117]);
determine at least one pre-decoded reference region using the motion information (the pre-decoded region is based on the reconstructed/decoded region including a motion vector, a reference picture index of the reference picture list, Par.[0110]);
calculate a predicted quantization parameter using quantization parameters corresponding to the at least one reference region (using a region stored in a reference picture in buffer 190, Par.[0132] at decoder 200, Par.[0237-0245]); and
generate the quantization parameter for the current block by adding the predicted quantization parameter and the delta quantization parameter (adding the predicted QP of the group to the delta QP, Par.[0272]).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized as obvious to combine the art to Lu anticipating the matter claimed and find the incentive to search for similar arts reaching the same advantages described at Col.16 Lin.23-38, with the art to Yang further emphasizing the details and to further seek improving the coding efficiency by group parameter quantization taught by Lim, (Par.[0811]) and obtaining similar results thus, deeming the combination predictable.
Re Claim 2. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motion information includes indices and motion vectors of reference pictures of the current block, wherein determining the at least one pre-decoded reference region includes:
Yang taches about, deriving at least one index for reference quantization parameter maps using the indices of the reference pictures (using quantization parameter map 2120 Fig.21, Col.41 Lin.5-16, Col.42 Lin.22-25 Figs.23A and 23B of macroblocks i.e., based on an index of the decoded reference pictures list i.e., by an index, Col.41 Lin.14-16); and
deriving the at least one reference region from the reference quantization parameter maps corresponding to the at least one index using the motion vectors (the reference QP, corresponds to a motion vector reference picture list, Col.8 Lin.4-41, or the quantization parameters mapped in a matrix i.e., two-dimensional array of the residual data, the parameter denoting an index applied to the blocks within the reference picture prediction, Col.31 Lin.48-56, or as for the quantization group, Col.32 Lin.45-67).
Re Claim 3. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 2,
Lim teaches that, wherein each of the reference quantization parameter maps is generated from different, pre-decoded reference pictures (mapping the QP Par.[0116]), and
wherein each of the reference quantization parameter maps is a two-dimensional array composed of quantization parameters generated in units of regions in a corresponding reference picture based on quantization parameters applied to the blocks within the reference picture (an array of two-dimensional samples Par.[0084], based on ,motion vector array, Par.[0015]).
Re Claim 4. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 2,
Lim teaches that, wherein, for a picture partitioned into N x M blocks, where N is the number of pixels in the horizontal direction, and M is the number of pixels in the vertical direction, each of the reference quantization parameter maps has a quantization parameter calculated for each of the N x M blocks (MxN blocks at Par.[0106]).
Yang teaches that, wherein, for a picture partitioned into N x M blocks, where N is the number of pixels in the horizontal direction, and M is the number of pixels in the vertical direction, each of the reference quantization parameter maps has a quantization parameter calculated for each of the N x M blocks (the rectangular partition of the QP block, in Fig.21, Col.28 Lin.26-32 or, Col.41 Lin.5-25).
Re Claim 5. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 4,
Lim teaches that, wherein the reference region, which corresponds to one of N x M blocks included in the reference quantization parameter map corresponding to the at least one index, is designated by the motion vector (Par.[0106-0110]).
Re Claim 6. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 4,
Lim teaches that, wherein a quantization parameter corresponding to the N x M block is generated by a weighted sum of quantization parameters of blocks based on first weights, at least part of the blocks overlapping with an N x M region co-located with the N x M block within a reference picture corresponding to a reference quantization parameter map including the N x M block (using weighted average values sum, Par.[0126]).
Re Claim 7. Lu, Yang and Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 6,
Yang teaches that, wherein the first weights are calculated based on the size of an overlapping region between the blocks and the N x M size region (partly overlapping blocks Col.42 Lin.1-19).
Re Claim 12. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 2,
Lim teaches that, wherein the calculating the predicted quantization parameter calculates the predicted quantization parameter by a weighted sum of quantization parameters for the at least one reference region based on second weights (a first and second weighting calculations at Par.[0215, 0235-0236]).
Re Claim 14. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 1,
Lim teaches that, wherein the motion information includes a block vector of the current block, wherein determining the at least one pre-decoded reference region includes: deriving the at least one reference region using the block vector (using the block vector Par.[0248]).
Re Claim 15. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block, (Lu; at Abstract) performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 1, at the prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 16. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Lu; at Abstract), performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 2, at the prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 17. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Lu; at Abstract), performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 3, at the prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 18. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Lu; at encoder, Abstract), comprising a memory storing instructions (Lu; memory at Col.6 Lin.62-63, or claims 9, 14-17), performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 15, at the coder prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Lu; at encoder, Abstract), comprising a memory storing instructions (Lu; memory at Col.6 Lin.62-63, or claims 9, 14-17), performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 16, at the coder prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. This claim represents the video encoding apparatus for generating a quantization parameter for a current block (Lu; at encoder, Abstract), comprising a memory storing instructions (Lu; memory at Col.6 Lin.62-63, or claims 9, 14-17), performing each and every limitation of the decoding process of claim 17, at the coder prediction loop, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
6. Claims 8-11 and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu and Yang in view of Lim and further in view of Kazushi Sato et al., (hereinafter Sato) (US 2014/0321538).
Re Claim 8. Lu and Yang in view of Lim disclose, apparatus of claim 2,
Lim teaches that, wherein the deriving the index designates the Picture Order Count (POC) of a reference picture designated by a reference picture index as an index for the reference quantization parameter map (per the POC for inter prediction in Fig.5, and a (0,0) motion vector, Par.[0037, 0217-0224] or the L0 and L1 predictions at Par.[0229]) but without defining the indexing of the reference pictures within the POC,
The art to Sato teaches about,
wherein the deriving the index designates the Picture Order Count (POC) of a reference picture designated by a reference picture index as an index for the reference quantization parameter map (applying an index when using the quantization process Par.[0179] and the POC, of the frame determination order in Fig.33, as represented by the code, pic_order_ct, at lines-815, in Fig.26).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled to combine the teachings to Lu and Yang with Lim, by which assigning an index to the quantization parameters belonging to mapped blocks of frames during inter-prediction mode is applied, according to the picture order count disclosed in Sato, identifying the signaling under the frame_num, at line-5 of the POC at line-8, and referencing the respective index for the P-slice and B-slice, Line-9-10, by which deeming the combination predictable in terms of the claimed method.
Re Claim 9. Lu, Yang and Lim in view of Sato disclose, the apparatus of claim 8,
Sato teaches that, wherein, when a reference quantization parameter map having the same index as the POC of the reference picture is not pre-stored, the deriving the index designates the index closest to the POC of the reference picture as an index for the reference quantization parameter map (see Step S634 using previously decoded QP values for the coding unit, in Fig.23 Par.[0377]).
Re Claim 10. Lu, Yang and Lim in view of Sato disclose, the apparatus of claim 8, wherein,
Sato teaches that, when a reference quantization parameter map having the same index as the POC of the reference picture is not pre-stored, the deriving the index designates the index closest to the POC of the reference picture as an index for the reference quantization parameter map (Par.[0286]), and
wherein the designated index is greater than current picture's POC and smaller than or equal to the reference picture's POC, or the designated index is greater than or equal to the reference picture's POC and smaller than the current picture's POC (Par.[0185]).
Re Claim 11. Lu, Yang and Lim in view of Sato disclose, the apparatus of claim 9, wherein,
Sato teaches that, when the reference picture's POC is different from the index for the reference quantization parameter map, the deriving the index scales the motion vector using current picture's POC and the reference picture's POC (applying quantization scaling Fig.28, Par.[0077]).
Re Claim 13. Lu, Yang and Lim in view of Sato disclose, the apparatus of claim 11,
Sato teaches about, wherein the second weights are calculated based on a difference between the index for the reference quantization parameter map and the current picture's POC (for inter-prediction calculating the difference per step S703 and S712 in Fig.31, Par.[0015, 0028, 0467] according to the POC for slices P or B, Fig.26).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The other art considered; US 2013/0077871; US10,142,642; US 2019/0306536;
US 8,588,297; US 8,542,730, US 2008/0240250 or US 2011/0274162.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
ay 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights