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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Sachin G. Deshpande et al. [US 20220394301 A1 and incorporated by reference JVET-G1001, JVET-J1001, JVET-P2001].
Regarding claim 1, Sachin teaches:
1. A method for video decoding (i.e. a method of decoding video data- ¶0004…8.6 Decoding process for coding units coded in IBC prediction mode- page 312, JVET-P2001), comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, fractional motion information (i.e. bvd- page 314) for a current block in an intra block copy (IBC) mode (i.e. 8.62 Derivation process for block vector components for IBC blocks… 1. The variable bvd is derived as follows: eq. (1087-1088)- page 314, JVET-P2001);
obtaining, by the decoder, a final block vector (BV) (i.e. the luma block vector in 1/16 fractional-sample accuracy bvL- page 314, JVET-P2001) for the current block based on the fractional motion information (The luma block vector bvL is modified as follows: eq.(1089-1092)- page 314, JVET-P2001); and
obtaining, by the decoder, a final prediction block for the current block based on the final BV (i.e. The decoding process for IBC blocks as specified in clause 8.6.3.1 is invoked with the luma coding block location ( xCb, yCb ), the luma coding block width cbWidth and the luma coding block height cbHeight, the luma block vector bvL, the variable cIdx set equal to 0 as inputs, and the IBC prediction samples (predSamples) that are an (cbWidth)x(cbHeight) array predSamplesL of prediction luma samples as outputs- page 313, JVET-P2001).
Regarding claim 2, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block in the IBC mode comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, fractional BV differences for the current block from an encoder (i.e. bvd- page 314, equations (1087-1088)); and wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the final BV for the current block based on the fractional motion information comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, the final BV for the current block based on the fractional BV differences (i.e. bvL- page 314, equations (1089-1092), JVET-P2001).
Regarding claim 4, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block in the IBC mode comprises: deriving, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block based on template matching (TM) (i.e. MV refinement is a pattern based MV search with the criterion of bilateral matching cost or template matching cost. In the JEM, two search patterns are supported – an unrestricted center-biased diamond search (UCBDS) and an adaptive cross search for MV refinement at the CU level and sub-CU level, respectively. For both CU and sub-CU level MV refinement, the MV is directly searched at quarter luma sample MV accuracy, and this is followed by one-eighth luma sample MV refinement. The search range of MV refinement for the CU and sub-CU step are set equal to 8 luma samples- section 2.3.7.5, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 6, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 4 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein deriving, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block based on TM comprises: receiving, by the decoder, a first flag indicating whether the TM is used for obtaining the fractional motion information for the current block; and in response to determining that the first flag indicates that the TM is used for obtaining the fractional motion information for the current block, obtaining, by the decoder, a plurality of reference blocks in a pre-determined search area of the current block; calculating, by the decoder, template similarities between one of the plurality of reference blocks and the current block; obtaining, by the decoder, one or more best reference blocks with a closest template similarity; obtaining, by the decoder, a template list based on the one or more best reference blocks; receiving, by the decoder, a second flag including an index value indicating a reference block in the template list; and obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information based on the reference block indicated by the index value (i.e. A FRUC flag is signalled for a CU when its merge flag is true. When the FRUC flag is false, a merge index is signalled and the regular merge mode is used. When the FRUC flag is true, an additional FRUC mode flag is signalled to indicate which method (bilateral matching or template matching) is to be used to derive motion information for the block- section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 8, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block in the IBC mode comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, fractional BV differences for the current block from an encoder; obtaining, by the decoder, a first fractional motion information for the current block based on the fractional BV differences(i.e. eq. (1087-1092)- page 314, JVET-P2001); deriving, by the decoder, a second fractional motion information for the current block based on template matching (TM); and obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block based on the first fractional motion information and the second fractional motion information (i.e. Motion derivation process in FRUC merge mode has two steps. A CU-level motion search is first performed, then followed by a Sub-CU level motion refinement. At CU level, an initial motion vector is derived for the whole CU based on bilateral matching or template matching- section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 9, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 8 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein the first fractional motion information is obtained at a lower precision than the second fractional motion information (i.e. Subsequently, the motion information is further refined at sub-CU level with the derived CU motion vectors as the starting points-- section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 10, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 9 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein the first fractional motion information is obtained at half-pel precision or quarter-pel precision, and the second fractional motion information is obtained at quarter-pel precision, eighth-pel precision, or sixteenth-pel precision (i.e. For inter prediction coding, a reference picture is determined and a motion vector (MV) identifies samples in the reference picture that are used to generate a prediction for a current video block. For example, a current video block may be predicted using reference sample values located in one or more previously coded picture(s) and a motion vector is used to indicate the location of the reference block relative to the current video block. A motion vector may describe, for example, a horizontal displacement component of the motion vector (i.e., MVx), a vertical displacement component of the motion vector (i.e., MVy), and a resolution for the motion vector (e.g., one-quarter pixel precision, one-half pixel precision, one-pixel precision, two-pixel precision, four-pixel precision)- ¶0022).
Regarding claim 11, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the final BV for the current block based on the fractional motion information comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, a start BV for the current block based on the fractional motion information; obtaining, by the decoder, refined start BVs by refining the start BV based on template matching (TM); and selecting, by the decoder, a final BV from the refined start BVs, wherein the final BV generates a prediction block having a template matching the current block (i.e. Motion derivation process in FRUC merge mode has two steps. A CU-level motion search is first performed, then followed by a Sub-CU level motion refinement. At CU level, an initial motion vector is derived for the whole CU based on bilateral matching or template matching. First, a list of MV candidates is generated and the candidate which leads to the minimum matching cost is selected as the starting point for further CU level refinement. Then a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed and the MV results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU. Subsequently, the motion information is further refined at sub-CU level with the derived CU motion vectors as the starting points- section 2.3.7, fig. 20, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 12, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 11 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein refining the start BV based on TM comprises: refining, by the decoder, the start BV based on the TM in at least one of following manners:refining the start BV at at least one of following levels: integer-pel level or fractional-pel level (i.e. For the CU coded with normal AMVP mode, either the integer-pel or quarter-pel motion is used- section 2.3.3… Motion derivation process in FRUC merge mode has two steps. A CU-level motion search is first performed, then followed by a Sub-CU level motion refinement. At CU level, an initial motion vector is derived for the whole CU based on bilateral matching or template matching.… Subsequently, the motion information is further refined at sub-CU level with the derived CU motion vectors as the starting points- section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001);refining the start BV according to a refinement set comprising one of following sets: {1/4-pel, 2/4-pel, 3/4-pel} or {1/8-pel, 3/8-pel, 5/8-pel, 7/8-pel}; or refining the start BV according to refinement directions comprising horizontal and vertical directions.
Regarding claim 13, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 12 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein the prediction block generated by the final BV has a closest template similarity to the current block (i.e. ); and wherein an inverse-L shape pixel area adjacent to each of the prediction block and the current block is a template (i.e. As shown in Figure 20, template matching is used to derive motion information of the current CU by finding the closest match between a template (top and/or left neighbouring blocks of the current CU) in the current picture and a block (same size to the template) in a reference picture- page 23, section 2.3.7, fig. 20, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 14, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 9 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the refined start BVs by refining the start BV based on TM comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, a flag indicating whether fractional motion refinement is applied at a specific level, wherein the specific level comprises one of a sequence level, a picture level, a slice level, or a CTU level; and in response to determining that the flag indicates the fractional motion refinement is applied at the specific level, obtaining, by the decoder, the refined start BVs by refining the start BV based on TM (i.e. Motion derivation process in FRUC merge mode has two steps. A CU-level motion search is first performed, then followed by a Sub-CU level motion refinement. At CU level, an initial motion vector is derived for the whole CU based on bilateral matching or template matching. First, a list of MV candidates is generated and the candidate which leads to the minimum matching cost is selected as the starting point for further CU level refinement. Then a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed and the MV results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU. Subsequently, the motion information is further refined at sub-CU level with the derived CU motion vectors as the starting points- section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001).
Regarding claim 15, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and Sachin further teaches:
further comprising: applying, by the decoder, an interpolation filter on the final prediction block to obtain a prediction for the current block (i.e. Identifiers for interpolation filters to be used for motion estimation with sub-pixel precision may be included in the syntax elements. Inter prediction processing unit 610 may use interpolation filters to calculate interpolated values for sub-integer pixels of a reference block. Post filter unit 614 may be configured to perform filtering on reconstructed video data. For example, post filter unit 614 may be configured to perform deblocking and/or Sample Adaptive Offset (SAO) filtering, e.g., based on parameters specified in a bitstream- ¶0312)
Regarding claim 18, apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Regarding claim 19, Sachin teaches:
NOTES: A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded by the decoding method according to claim 1 executed by a processor (i.e. Further, interface 122 may include a computer system interface enabling a compliant video bitstream to be retrieved from a storage device- ¶0302).
Regarding claim 20, Sachin teaches:
20. A method of storing a bitstream (i.e. A video encoder may perform predictive encoding on video blocks and sub-divisions thereof- ¶0015… the term current video block may refer to an area of a picture being encoded or decoded- ¶0014), comprising:
generating a bitstream by performing an encoding method (i.e. Entropy encoded quantized transform coefficients and corresponding entropy encoded syntax elements may form a compliant bitstream that can be used to reproduce video data at a video decoder- ¶0028); and
storing the bitstream on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. Further, interface 122 may include a computer system interface enabling a compliant video bitstream to be retrieved from a storage device- ¶0302), wherein the encoding method comprises:
obtaining fractional motion information for a current block in an intra block copy (IBC) mode (i.e. 8.62 Derivation process for block vector components for IBC blocks… 1. The variable bvd is derived as follows: eq. (1087-1088)- page 314, JVET-P2001…sps_fpel_mmvd_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that merge mode with motion vector difference can use fractional sample precision- page 19, col 1, line 50…pic_six_minus_max_num_ibc_merge_cand specifies the maximum number of IBC merging block vector prediction (BVP) candidates supported in the slices associated with the PH subtracted from 6- page 33, col 1, line 26); and
encoding the current block based on the fractional motion information (i.e. sps_amvr_enabled_flag equal to 1 specifies that adaptive motion vector difference resolution is used in motion vector coding. amvr_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that adaptive motion vector difference resolution is not used in motion vector coding- page 18, col 1, line 15).
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 of this title, 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 currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachin G. Deshpande et al. [US 20220394301 A1 and incorporated by reference JVET-G1001, JVET-J1001, JVET-P2001] in view of Steffen Kamp et al. [Fast Decoder Side Motion Vector Derivation For Inter Frame Video Coding].
Regarding claim 3, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 2 and Sachin further teaches:
obtaining the fractional BV differences based on the quarter-pel refinement (i.e. sps_fpel_mmvd_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that merge mode with motion vector difference can use fractional sample precision- page 19, line 60).
However, Sachin does not teach explicitly:
wherein the fractional BV differences are signaled by the encoder and determined by: determining a first number of integer BVs with a minimum distortion cost; applying half-pel refinement around each of the first number of integer BVs; obtaining a best half-pel position for each of the first number of integer BVs; obtaining quarter-pel refinement by applying quarter-pel refinement around the best half- pel position of each of the first number of integer BVs
In the same field of endeavor, Steffen teaches:
wherein the fractional BV differences are signaled by the encoder and determined by: determining a first number of integer BVs with a minimum distortion cost; applying half-pel refinement around each of the first number of integer BVs; obtaining a best half-pel position for each of the first number of integer BVs; obtaining quarter-pel refinement by applying quarter-pel refinement around the best half- pel position of each of the first number of integer BVs (i.e. Then, let K be the number of hypotheses to be used in DMVD prediction, the K best fullpel positions are subject to sub-pel refinement, searching the minimum cost of the eight surrounding half-pel positions and, subsequently, the eight surrounding quarter-pel positions- page 2, ¶4);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sachin with the teachings of Steffen to further reduce the number of search positions, a
candidate based search is examined (Steffen- page 2, ¶6).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachin G. Deshpande et al. [US 20220394301 A1 and incorporated by reference JVET-G1001, JVET-J1001, JVET-P2001] in view of Mohammed Z. Visharam et al. [US 20090180538 A1].
Regarding claim 5, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 4 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein deriving, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block based on TM (i.e. When the FRUC flag is true, an additional FRUC mode flag is signalled to indicate which method (bilateral matching or template matching) is to be used to derive motion information for the block- Section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001) comprises:
obtaining, by the decoder, a plurality of reference blocks in a pre-determined search area of the current block (i.e. First, a list of MV candidates is generated and the candidate which leads to the minimum matching cost is selected as the starting point for further CU level refinement. Then a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed and the MV results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU… template matching is used to derive motion information of the current CU by finding the closest match between a template (top and/or left neighbouring blocks of- Section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001);
calculating, by the decoder, template similarities between one of the plurality of reference blocks and the current block (i.e. SAD is still used as the matching cost of template matching at sub-CU level search- Page 29, line 7-8, JVET-G1001);
obtaining, by the decoder, one or more best reference blocks with a closest template similarity (i.e. template matching is used to derive motion information of the current CU by finding the closest match between a template (top and/or left neighbouring blocks of- Section 2.3.7, JVET-G1001);
However, Sachin does not teach explicitly:
obtaining, by the decoder, a template list based on the one or more best reference blocks; and obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information based on the template list.
In the same field of endeavor, Mohammed teaches:
obtaining, by the decoder, a template list based on the one or more best reference blocks; and obtaining, by the decoder, the fractional motion information based on the template list (i.e. identifying and sorting into an ordered list a select number (N) of spatially best matches to a matching template for the current block within previously coded and reconstructed blocks which neighbor the current block of video; (b) encoding a selector which identifies which of the templates in the ordered list provides the least actual predictive error for the current block; and (c) communicating the selector for receipt by a decoder configured for performing the same identifying and sorting step and then selecting for use the best template match in response to the selector communicated from the encoder to complete current block prediction. It should be appreciated that by creating, communicating and using the selector, the constraints of single matching and averaging are eliminated, while the decoder overhead associated with averaging of best candidates is eliminated- ¶0030).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sachin with the teachings of Mohammed to reduce maximum error by averaging the errors is a form of compromise (Mohammed - ¶0017).
Regarding claim 7, Sachin and Mohammed teach all the limitation of claim 5 and Sachin further teaches:
wherein an inverse-L shape pixel area adjacent to each of the plurality of reference blocks and the current block is a template (i.e. page 27, fig. 20, JVET-G1001); and wherein deriving, by the decoder, the fractional motion information for the current block based on TM further comprises: determining, by the decoder, the pre-determined search area based on a prefixed, configurable, or signaled number of coding tree units (CTUs), CTU lines, or samples from above, left, or above-left spatial area of the current block (i.e. A FRUC flag is signalled for a CU when its merge flag is true. When the FRUC flag is false, a merge index is signalled and the regular merge mode is used. When the FRUC flag is true, an additional FRUC mode flag is signalled to indicate which method (bilateral matching or template matching) is to be used to derive motion information for the block- section 2.37, JVET-G1001).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachin G. Deshpande et al. [US 20220394301 A1 and incorporated by reference JVET-G1001, JVET-J1001, JVET-P2001] in view of Kazuyo Kanou et al. [US 20130022109 A1].
Regarding claim 16, Sachin teaches all the limitation of claim 15.
However, Sachin does not teach explicitly:
wherein applying, by the decoder, the interpolation filter on the final prediction block to obtain the prediction for the current block comprises: in response to determining that one or more samples associated with the interpolation filter are not available, applying, by the decoder, repeating padding on the one or more samples based on nearest samples in a same row or column.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuyo teaches:
wherein applying, by the decoder, the interpolation filter on the final prediction block to obtain the prediction for the current block comprises: in response to determining that one or more samples associated with the interpolation filter are not available, applying, by the decoder, repeating padding on the one or more samples based on nearest samples in a same row or column (i.e. FIG. 6 is a figure illustrating an example of padding processing in the interpolation filter processor- ¶0011… Regarding the order of the padding processing, the padding processing may be performed after the interpolation filter processing, or between the processings. The number of times the padding processing is performed is not limited to once. For example, the filter processing may be performed in the horizontal direction, and thereafter, the padding processing may be performed, and further, the filter processing may be performed in the vertical direction, and thereafter, the padding processing may be performed again- ¶0064).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sachin with the teachings of Kazuyo to improve prediction efficiency improves by using the ALF and the interpolation filter at the same time (Kazuyo - ¶0014).
Regarding claim 17, Sachin and Kazuyo teach all the limitation of claim 16.
However, Sachin does not teach explicitly:
wherein applying the repeating padding on the one or more samples based on the nearest samples in the same row or column comprises: applying the repeating padding based on one of following manners:applying the repeating padding at a horizontal direction that is followed by a vertical direction; or applying the repeating padding at the vertical direction that is followed by the horizontal direction..
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuyo teaches:
wherein applying the repeating padding on the one or more samples based on the nearest samples in the same row or column comprises: applying the repeating padding based on one of following manners: applying the repeating padding at a horizontal direction that is followed by a vertical direction; or applying the repeating padding at the vertical direction that is followed by the horizontal direction. (i.e. FIG. 6 is a figure illustrating an example of padding processing in the interpolation filter processor- ¶0011… Regarding the order of the padding processing, the padding processing may be performed after the interpolation filter processing, or between the processings. The number of times the padding processing is performed is not limited to once. For example, the filter processing may be performed in the horizontal direction, and thereafter, the padding processing may be performed, and further, the filter processing may be performed in the vertical direction, and thereafter, the padding processing may be performed again- ¶0064).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sachin with the teachings of Kazuyo to improve prediction efficiency improves by using the ALF and the interpolation filter at the same time (Kazuyo - ¶0014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights