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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 31 March 2026. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because Claim 1 was indicated as canceled on the claim set filed on 21 January 2026 and now has a status of “Currently Amended”.
See 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5)—"(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a "new" claim with a new claim number.”
Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has examined the claims on the merit. However, an amendment to the claims is required so that claim 1 is canceled and, if desired, introduced as a new claim with a new claim number. Note that claims dependent on claim 1 will also have to be amended to be dependent on the new claim number.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Patent Office on 05 July 2024. It is noted, however, that a certified copy of the EP24186914.8 application has not been filed as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Also note that the Foreign Priority Information section of the Application Data Sheet states “[u]nder the PDX program, applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign priority application is filed, within the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 22 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the new claim amendments. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim was indicated as “canceled” on the claim set filed on 21 January 2026 and now has a status of “Currently Amended”. An amendment to the claims is required so that claim 1 is canceled and, if desired, introduced as a new claim with a new claim number. See the “Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114” section above.
Regarding claim 1, line 3—“the payload packets” should be amended to state --the plurality of payload packets-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation of the phrase.
Regarding claim 1, line 6—“configured for” should be amended to include a colon --configured for:--.
Regarding claim 1, line 11—“a hash function identifier;”, the semicolon should be changed to a comma in order to match the other items in the list.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13-14—“the combination”, “the hash value”, and “the digital signature” all lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 13-14 to state --a combination--, --a hash value-- and --a digital signature--.
Regarding claim 1, lines 19-20—“the hash function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 19-20 to state --a hash function--.
Regarding claim 1, line 22—“message,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --message;--.
Regarding claim 1, line 32—“encoded video data,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --encoded video data;--.
Regarding claim 5, line 2—“checking,”, the comma should be removed --checking--.
Regarding claim 9, line 10—“SHA-1”, the abbreviation should be written out since it is the first recitation of the abbreviation in the claim --Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-1--.
Regarding claim 9, line 11—“is configured for configured for” should be amended to state --is configured for-- in order to remove the extra words.
Regarding claim 11, line 6—“a further hash value” should be amended to include “and”, --a further hash value; and--, in order to show the conclusion of the list with the next limitation.
Regarding claim 15, line 3—“the payload packets” should be amended to state --the plurality of payload packets-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation of the phrase.
Regarding claim 15, line 6—“configured for” should be amended to include a colon --configured for:--.
Regarding claim 15, line 12—“a hash function identifier;”, the semicolon should be changed to a comma in order to match the other items in the list.
Regarding claim 15, lines 14-15—“the combination”, “the hash value”, and “the digital signature” all lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 14-15 to state --a combination--, --a hash value-- and --a digital signature--.
Regarding claim 15, lines 20-21—“the hash function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 20-21 to state --a hash function--.
Regarding claim 15, line 23—“message,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --message;--.
Regarding claim 15, line 28—“hash function identifier”, the limitation should be amended to end with a semicolon --hash function identifier;--.
Regarding claim 16, line 3—“the payload packets” should be amended to state --the plurality of payload packets-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation of the phrase.
Regarding claim 16, line 10—“a hash function identifier;”, the semicolon should be changed to a comma in order to match the other items in the list.
Regarding claim 16, lines 12-13—“the combination”, “the hash value”, and “the digital signature” all lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 12-13 to state --a combination--, --a hash value-- and --a digital signature--.
Regarding claim 16, lines 18-19—“the hash function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 18-19 to state --a hash function--.
Regarding claim 16, line 21—“message,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --message;--.
Regarding claim 16, line 31—“encoded video data,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --encoded video data;--.
Regarding claim 17, line 3—“the payload packets” should be amended to state --the plurality of payload packets-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation of the phrase.
Regarding claim 17, line 6—“a video data stream” appears to be referring to “a video data stream” of line 2. This objection may be overcome by amending line 6 to state --the video data stream--.
Regarding claim 17, line 13—“a hash function identifier;”, the semicolon should be changed to a comma in order to match the other items in the list.
Regarding claim 17, lines 15-16—“the combination”, “the hash value”, and “the digital signature” all lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 15-16 to state --a combination--, --a hash value-- and --a digital signature--.
Regarding claim 17, lines 21-22—“the hash function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 21-22 to state --a hash function--.
Regarding claim 17, line 24—“message,”, the comma should be changed to a semicolon in order to match the main list of limitations --message;--.
Regarding claim 18, lines 1-2—“the indication of the hash function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 1-2 to state --the hash function identifier--.
Regarding claim 18, line 3—“SHA-1”, the abbreviation should be written out since it is the first recitation of the abbreviation in the claim --Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-1--.
Regarding claim 19, line 2—“SHA-1”, the abbreviation should be written out since it is the first recitation of the abbreviation in the claim --Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-1--.
Regarding claim 20, line 8—“SHA-1”, the abbreviation should be written out since it is the first recitation of the abbreviation in the claim --Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9—“coded video data payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “coded video data packets” of lines 8-9 are referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4 or may be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4. For examination purposes, the “coded video data packets” of lines 8-9 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 8-9 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 8-9 are intended to be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4, then lines 8-9 may be amended to state --between a first coded video data payload packet and a second coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 26—“a hash value”, it is unclear as to whether the “hash value” of line 26 is referring to the “hash value” of line 13. For examination purposes, the “hash value” of line 26 will be interpreted to be referring to the “hash value” of line 13. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 26 to state --the hash value--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 29—“a digital signature”, it is unclear as to whether the “digital signature” of line 29 is referring to the “digital signature” of line 14. For examination purposes, the “digital signature” of line 29 will be interpreted to be referring to the “digital signature” of line 14. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 29 to state --the digital signature--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, lines 31-32—“video payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “video payload packets” of lines 31-32 is referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4 or may be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4. For examination purposes, the “video payload packets” of lines 31-32 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 31-32 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 31-32 are intended to be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4, then lines 31-32 may be amended to state --between a third coded video data payload packet and a fourth coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 4, line 2—“a public key”, it is unclear as to whether “a public key” is referring to “a public key” of claim 1, line 12. For examination purposes, “a public key” of line 2 will be interpreted to be referring to “a public key” of claim 1, line 12. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 2 to state --the public key--.
Regarding claim 9, line 28—“the certification” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim and it is unclear as to whether “the certification” is intended to refer to “a certificate” of line 24 or is a different certification or certificate. For examination purposes, “the certification” will be interpreted to be referring to “certificates” of line 26. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 28 to state --one of the certificates of the register of certificates--, for example.
Regarding claim 15, lines 8-9—“coded video data payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “coded video data packets” of lines 8-9 are referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 4 or may be a subset of the packets of line 4. For examination purposes, the “coded video data packets” of lines 8-9 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 4. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 8-9 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 8-9 are intended to be a subset of the packets of line 4, then lines 8-9 may be amended to state --between a first coded video data payload packet and a second coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 15, line 25—“a hash function”, it is unclear as to whether the “hash function” of line 25 is referring to the “hash function” of lines 20-21. For examination purposes, the “hash function” of line 25 will be interpreted to be referring to the “hash function” of lines 20-21. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 25 to state --the hash function--, for example.
Regarding claim 15, line 36—“a digital signature”, it is unclear as to whether the “digital signature” of line 36 is referring to the “digital signature” of line 15. For examination purposes, the “digital signature” of line 36 will be interpreted to be referring to the “digital signature” of line 15. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 36 to state --the digital signature--, for example.
Regarding claim 15, line 40—“video payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “video payload packets” of line 40 is referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 4 or may be a subset of the packets of line 4. For examination purposes, the “video payload packets” of line 40 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 4. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 40 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of line 40 are intended to be a subset of the packets of line 4, then line 40 may be amended to state --between a third coded video data payload packet and a fourth coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 16, lines 7-8—“coded video data payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “coded video data packets” of lines 7-8 are referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4 or may be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4. For examination purposes, the “coded video data packets” of lines 7-8 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 7-8 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 7-8 are intended to be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4, then lines 7-8 may be amended to state --between a first coded video data payload packet and a second coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 16, line 25—“a hash value”, it is unclear as to whether the “hash value” of line 25 is referring to the “hash value” of line 12. For examination purposes, the “hash value” of line 25 will be interpreted to be referring to the “hash value” of line 12. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 25 to state --the hash value--, for example.
Regarding claim 16, line 28—“a digital signature”, it is unclear as to whether the “digital signature” of line 28 is referring to the “digital signature” of line 13. For examination purposes, the “digital signature” of line 28 will be interpreted to be referring to the “digital signature” of line 13. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 28 to state --the digital signature--, for example.
Regarding claim 16, lines 30-31—“video payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “video payload packets” of lines 30-31 is referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4 or may be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4. For examination purposes, the “video payload packets” of lines 30-31 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of lines 3-4. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 30-31 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 30-31 are intended to be a subset of the packets of lines 3-4, then lines 30-31 may be amended to state --between a third coded video data payload packet and a fourth coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 17, lines 9-10—“coded video data payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “coded video data packets” of lines 9-10 are referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 3 or may be a subset of the packets of line 3. For examination purposes, the “coded video data packets” of lines 9-10 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 3. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 9-10 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of lines 9-10 are intended to be a subset of the packets of line 3, then lines 9-10 may be amended to state --between a first coded video data payload packet and a second coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Regarding claim 17, line 26—“a hash function”, it is unclear as to whether the “hash function” of line 26 is referring to the “hash function” of lines 21-22. For examination purposes, the “hash function” of line 26 will be interpreted to be referring to the “hash function” of lines 21-22. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 26 to state --the hash function --, for example.
Regarding claim 17, line 27—“a hash value”, it is unclear as to whether the “hash value” of line 27 is referring to the “hash value” of line 15. For examination purposes, the “hash value” of line 27 will be interpreted to be referring to the “hash value” of line 15. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 27 to state --the hash value--, for example.
Regarding claim 17, line 33—“a digital signature”, it is unclear as to whether the “digital signature” of line 33 is referring to the “digital signature” of line 16. For examination purposes, the “digital signature” of line 33 will be interpreted to be referring to the “digital signature” of line 16. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 33 to state --the digital signature--, for example.
Regarding claim 17, line 37—“video payload packets”, it is unclear as to whether the “video payload packets” of line 37 is referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 3 or may be a subset of the packets of line 3. For examination purposes, the “video payload packets” of line 37 will be interpreted to be referring to the “coded video payload packets” of line 3. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 37 to state --the coded video data payload packets--, for example. Alternatively, if the packets of line 37 are intended to be a subset of the packets of line 3, then line 37 may be amended to state --between a third coded video data payload packet and a fourth coded video data payload packet of the coded video data payload packets--, for example.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 13, 14, and 18-20 are additionally rejected for being dependent on at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, and 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification. In this case, the allowance is based on the combination of the limitations in each independent claim and not on any single limitation.
Relevant prior art:
Lundberg et al. (US 2022/0368534 A1)—Lundberg discloses at a decoder side the digital signature for the GOP can be used to verify the origin of the GOP, wherein if the digital signature for the GOP has been created by encryption of the GOP hash by means of a private key of a public/private key pair, the signature origin can be verified by decryption using the public key of the public/private key pair, and a GOP hash can be produced from the content of the GOP as received at the decoder side and be compared to the (decrypted) digitally signed GOP hash (Para. 31).
Suter et al. (US 12,445,307 B1)—Suter discloses the process 600 may continue at operation 612, at which the electronic device 401 may generate synchronization data for the encryption signature, where the operation 612 may include generating, based on one or more of the hash data, the initialization vector, the authentication data, the flag or identifier for a hash function, and/or any additional data (identified from the encryption signature at the operation 610 as described above), synchronization data, wherein in some examples, the operation 612 may include performing one or more of the operations 502-534 of the process 500 (e.g., locally at the remote media server 112) in order to generate synchronization data comprising one or more recreated copies of the encryption signature (e.g., recreated copies of the hash data, authentication data, and/or the like) (Fig. 6, el. 612; Col. 46, line 60-Col. 47, line 7).
Bruner (US 2020/0267521 A1)—Bruner discloses a temporary EID (TEID) may be defined as follows: TEID=alg∥nonce∥hash(alg∥nonce∥EID) (Para. 30), and where “alg” is a value that identifies a secure hash algorithm (e.g., SHA256), “nonce” is a random number (e.g., 128 bits), “EID” is the eUICC ID [0034] “∥” represents concatenation, and “hash” is the computation of the hash function identified by “alg”(Para. 31-35).
Joshi et al. (US 2013/0051475 A1)—Joshi discloses transform processing unit 52 may form one or more transform units (TUs) from the residual block, and transform processing unit 52 applies a transform, such as a discrete cosine transform (DCT), a directional transform, or a conceptually similar transform, to the TU, producing a video block comprising transform coefficients (Fig. 2, el. 52; Para. 101).
Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473 A1)—Buffard discloses based on the embedded data for each segment of the plurality of segments, the content access device 140 determines whether the segment was signed by the content owner (operation 720), wherein for example, the content device 140 may send a request that includes the identifier to the identity authority 115, and in response, the content device 140 receives a public key of the identified content owner (Fig. 1, el. 115, 140; Fig. 7, el. 720; Para. 112).
Levy et al. (US 2004/0091111 A1)—Levy discloses the Digital Signature Standard (DSS), or any digital signature (by definition, including the private key encryption of a robust hash), can be used to authenticate the accuracy of every bit in each frame of surveillance video (Para. 113); the DSS, uses the secure hash algorithm (SHA-1) or any other digital signature based upon a robust hash and public key cryptography, is used to demonstrate that no bits in each frame have been modified (Para. 115); the authentication process includes using the public key to decrypt the digital signature and compare it to the robust hash calculation of the video frame data (Para. 120).
Rosewarne (US 2013/0094589 A1)—Rosewarne discloses that decoding includes identifying a scan pattern by which the bitstream is decoded. A set index value is decoded from the bitstream that specifies a set of flags according to the scan pattern that contains a last significant coefficient flag of the significance map, and individual significance flags are decoded and the decoded values written into the significance map according to the scan pattern and including the specified set of flags (Abstract).
Segal et al. (US 2021/0329003 A1)—Segal discloses a hash of the concatenation of an application identifier and a function identifier (Para. 16).
Freed et al. (US 2015/0163545 A1)—Freed discloses while the first video stream is being presented for rendering on a display element, the process 300 continues by processing and analyzing the current segment of video content (task 304), wherein task 304 generates at least one characterizing signature for the current segment of video content (Fig. 3, el. 300, 304; Para. 58).
Lasserre et al. (US 2020/0267403 A1)—Lasserre discloses significance flags in advanced video compression systems are coded using contexts adaptive to the last N significance flags coded taken in a scanning order (Abstract).
Storelli et al. (US 2024/0205002 A1)—Storelli discloses at a first peer, receiving input data sent by a second peer connected to the first peer through a peer-to-peer network, wherein the input data comprises: a hash of a media segment, and metadata associated to a playback position of the media segment; at the first peer, receiving a digital signature sent by the second peer, wherein the digital signature results from signing the input data with a private key; and checking validity of the digital signature from the input data and a public key (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the following limitations in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1:
“an indication of a number of portions of the video data stream, for which respective digital signatures for verifying the trustworthiness of the portions of the video data stream are available in the video data stream, wherein the number of portions are verifiable using the unique identifier, the hash function identified by the hash function identifier, and the public key indicated in the supplemental information message”, and
“deriving a digital signature from a further supplemental information message in a further supplemental information payload packet, wherein the further payload packet is interspersed in the video data stream between video payload packets carrying encoded video data”.
Lundberg et al. (US 2022/0368534 A1) discloses the digitally signed GOP hash for each GOP is included in a subsequent GOP in the video segment, and at a decoder side the digital signature for the GOP can be used to verify the origin of the GOP, wherein if the digital signature for the GOP has been created by encryption of the GOP hash by means of a private key of a public/private key pair, the signature origin can be verified by decryption using the public key of the public/private key pair, and a GOP hash can be produced from the content of the GOP as received at the decoder side and be compared to the (decrypted) digitally signed GOP hash (Para. 31).
However, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the above-stated limitations in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
Claim 16 includes similar limitations and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 15, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the following limitations in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 15:
“an indication of a number of portions of the video data stream, for which respective digital signatures for verifying the trustworthiness of the portions of the video data stream are available in the video data stream, wherein the number of portions are verifiable using the unique identifier, the hash function identified by the hash function identifier, and the public key indicated in the supplemental information message”, and
“signing the verification string using a private key to obtain a digital signature and inserting the digital signature into a further supplemental information message in a further supplemental information payload packet, wherein the further payload packet is interspersed in the video data stream between video payload packets carrying encoded video data”.
Lundberg et al. (US 2022/0368534 A1) discloses the digitally signed GOP hash for each GOP is included in a subsequent GOP in the video segment, and at a decoder side the digital signature for the GOP can be used to verify the origin of the GOP, wherein if the digital signature for the GOP has been created by encryption of the GOP hash by means of a private key of a public/private key pair, the signature origin can be verified by decryption using the public key of the public/private key pair, and a GOP hash can be produced from the content of the GOP as received at the decoder side and be compared to the (decrypted) digitally signed GOP hash (Para. 31).
However, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the above-stated limitations in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 15.
Claim 17 includes similar limitations and is similarly analyzed.
Also see page 16 of applicant’s remarks filed 22 July 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM (ET).
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
30 September 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights