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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/21/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-9 under Group I have been elected without traverse. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-9 remain pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All the independent claims should start with “A” and subsequently all dependent claims should start with “The”.
Claim 7 is missing a punctuation mark (,) after the first occurrence of the sentence “for each higher temporal layer”
Claim 8 is missing a punctuation in the second line after the words “media representation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use generic placeholders in place of “means”, and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses means plus functional languages without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Client device configured to download …” in claim(s) 7-8.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “Client device” is denoted by reference numeral 90 (Fig. 18) with the function of retrieving the file 8, receiving a manifest file 5 and deciding, based on the selected video stream, which of the media representations indicated in the manifest file 5 to download from the server and may download the file 8 comprising the selected media representation (P38, L13 – P39, L15) without elaborating any structure associated with the aforementioned device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 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 1-5, 7-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recites “for each other temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers…”. It is not clear what is meant by the sentence. Does it mean that the two or more temporal layers in the group have something for each other, or there is something for each of the two temporal layers of the group? This anomaly has created indefiniteness in interpreting the actual scope of the claim limitation. Same issue exists in claims 2-3. Other claims are rejected because of their dependence on the rejected base claims.
Claim 5 recites “… using a sample type different from a sample type using which the predetermined STSA picture is indicated in the file”. The meaning of this part of the limitation is not clear. The underlined portion of the limitation does not make any sense as to what the usage of the predetermined STSA picture is in deriving the indication of the RAP picture. It creates an anomaly in interpreting the actual scope of the invention.
Claim element “Client device” of claims 7-8 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function through the use of the generic placeholders as identified in the previous claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
The claimed invention as recited in claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a file format parser neither falls under a process, nor a machine, a manufacture nor a composition of matter. From the original disclosure, Figs. 8-9, 13, 21, Page 19, Line 26 – Page 20, Line 33, a file format parser is nothing but a programming with lines of coded syntax elements that are executable. See MPEP 2106(I). A claim directed towards a program constitutes a signal per se, which violates the basic tenant of subject matter eligibility as mentioned above. All the claims dependent upon the rejected base claim also fall under the same violation of subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US PGPub 2017/0111642 A1) in view of Hannuksela (US PGPub 2022/0078486 A1) (Inventive concepts disclosed in the foreign priority application dated 06/02/2019).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Hendry et al. teach file format parser configured to
receive a file which has temporal layers (Abstract; [0010]; it teaches a file storing a multi-layer bitstream, where a track box containing a sample-to-group box mapping samples of the track into a sample group, where the group is one of a temporal sub-layer access (TSA) sample or a stepwise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample), which a video bitstream is hierarchically composed of (Figs. 3 and 4 show the hierarchical nature of the file which is part of the bitstream. See [0164]-[0168]), inserted into a set of tracks of the file by distributing the temporal layers onto the set of tracks in groups of one or more temporal layers so that each group is inserted into a track associated with the respective group (Abstract; Figs. 3-4; [0010]; It teaches generating, in the track box, a sample-to-group box for the track, the sample-to-group box mapping samples of the track into a sample group, the sample group comprising samples sharing a property specified by the sample group description entry, the sample-to-group box specifying target layers among layers present in the track);
determine, for a predetermined track of the set of tracks, an indication of a predetermined STSA picture in a lowest temporal layer among the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track ([0089], L9-20; it teaches that a step-wise temporal sub-layer (STSA) up-switching may comprise the action of switching from decoding a first temporal sub-layer to decoding a second temporal sub-layer, where a temporal identifier of the second sub-layer is exactly 1 greater than a temporal identifier of the first temporal sub-layer, which means the identifier indicates an STSA picture in a lowest temporal layer among the group of one or more temporal layers),
for which,
for each other temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track ([0164]-[0169]; Fig. 3 shows for each file 300 there is a track box 306, and underneath is a sample to group box 310 containing layer_id_method_idc, which is the layer id within each of the groups), a picture which firstly follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer, is of an STSA type ([0139]; It teaches that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture), or
for each other temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track, a picture which firstly follows the predetermined STSA picture in presentation order among pictures of the respective temporal layer, is of an STSA type, and
use the predetermined STSA picture in the predetermined track as stream access point ([0107]; it teaches that the target_layers syntax element in a ‘sap’ sample group box for a track specifies target layers for SAPs, wherein semantics of the target_layers syntax element depends on the value of the layer_id_method_idc syntax element. When layer_id_method_idc syntax element is equal to 0 it specifies that the target_layers consist of all the layers represented by the track, which means the track with STSA picture is marked as SAP).
Although, Hendry et al. teach that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture, but it does not explicitly say that the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer.
However, Hannuksela, in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teaches a file parsing system where the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer (Hannuksela; [0155]; It teaches that if temporal sub-layers with TemporalId up to N had been decoded until the TSA or STSA picture and the TSA or STSA picture has TemporalId equal to N+1, the TSA or STSA picture enables decoding of all subsequent pictures in decoding order having TemporalId equal to N+1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hendry et al’s invention of switching of layers and sub-layers in multi-layer video files to include Hannuksela's usage of STSA picture following decoding order, because STSA does not impose restrictions on the pictures in higher sub-layers that follow the STSA picture in decoding order and hence enable up-switching only onto the sub-layer where the STSA picture resides (Hannuksela; [0155]).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Hendry et al. and Hannuksela teach file format parser of claim 1, wherein the predetermined track is a dependent track which is dependent on a further track of the set of tracks (Hendry et al.; [0070]; it teaches that the decoding of pictures in one layer may be dependent on the decoding of pictures in another layer. Hence, one layer may be said to depend on another layer, wherein each layer is in its corresponding track as shown in Figs. 3-4. In [0162], L1-6, it says the lowest operating point be the one of all the operating points represented by DTQ (dependency_id, temporal_id and quality_id) combinations that has the least values of dependency_id, temporal_id and quality_id, respectively), which is associated with a further group of one or more temporal layers which are hierarchically beneath each temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track (Hendry et al.; [0162], L18-21; It teaches that all sample groups that are applicable to a multi-layer bitstream, when present, shall be contained only in the track that is referred to by other tracks using an sbas' track reference, wherein Fig. 3 shows the hierarchical nature of the file where tracks which are associated with certain groups and temporal layers are hierarchically beneath each other).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Hendry et al. teach client device configured to download and inspect a manifest file ([0119]; it teaches that a valid subset of a bitstream means the subset of the bitstream is parsable by a file parser that conform to this file format specification and decodable by decoder that conforms to HEVC specification. Here the decoder is the client device which parses (downloads) the file which is same as manifest file. See [0042], L4-6; [0125], L6-9) comprising
a first definition of a set of media representations downloadable by the client along with dependencies among the media representations (Figs. 3-4 show the definition of the media representation file along with the dependencies of track, box layers etc.);
wherein temporal layers, which a video bitstream is hierarchically composed of, are distributed onto the set of representations ([0162], L18-21; It teaches that all sample groups that are applicable to a multi-layer bitstream, when present, shall be contained only in the track that is referred to by other tracks using an sbas' track reference, wherein Fig. 3 shows the hierarchical nature of the file where tracks which are associated with certain groups and temporal layers are hierarchical in nature. Abstract; Figs. 3-4; [0010]; It teaches generating, in the track box, a sample-to-group box for the track, the sample-to-group box mapping samples of the track into a sample group, the sample group comprising samples sharing a property specified by the sample group description entry, the sample-to-group box specifying target layers among layers present in the track);
an indication, which indicates, for a predetermined media representation, which contains a predetermined temporal layer among the temporal layers, segments of the predetermined media representation which contain a STSA picture for which ([0089], L9-20; it teaches that a step-wise temporal sub-layer (STSA) up-switching may comprise the action of switching from decoding a first temporal sub-layer to decoding a second temporal sub-layer, where a temporal identifier of the second sub-layer is exactly 1 greater than a temporal identifier of the first temporal sub-layer, which means the identifier indicates an STSA picture in a lowest temporal layer among the group of one or more temporal layers),
for each higher temporal layer a picture which firstly follows the STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective higher temporal layer, is of an STSA type ([0139]; It teaches that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture), or
for each higher temporal layer, a picture which firstly follows the STSA picture in presentation order among pictures of the respective higher temporal layer, is of an STSA type,
as stream access points in the predetermined representation ([0107]; it teaches that the target_layers syntax element in a ‘sap’ sample group box for a track specifies target layers for SAPs, wherein semantics of the target_layers syntax element depends on the value of the layer_id_method_idc syntax element. When layer_id_method_idc syntax element is equal to 0 it specifies that the target_layers consist of all the layers represented by the track, which means the track with STSA picture is marked as SAP);
decide, based thereon, which media representation or which sub-representation to download from the server ([0125]; it teaches that the device may determine, based on a syntax element in the sample-to-group box, target layers among layers present in the track, wherein the device may identify a sample in the STSA sample group as being appropriate for temporal sub-layer up-switching to a particular temporal sub-layer based on the target layers including a layer containing coded pictures of a particular temporal sub-layer).
Although, Hendry et al. teach that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture, but it does not explicitly say that the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer.
However, Hannuksela, in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teaches a file parsing system where the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer (Hannuksela; [0155]; It teaches that if temporal sub-layers with TemporalId up to N had been decoded until the TSA or STSA picture and the TSA or STSA picture has TemporalId equal to N+1, the TSA or STSA picture enables decoding of all subsequent pictures in decoding order having TemporalId equal to N+1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hendry et al’s invention of switching of layers and sub-layers in multi-layer video files to include Hannuksela's usage of STSA picture following decoding order, because STSA does not impose restrictions on the pictures in higher sub-layers that follow the STSA picture in decoding order and hence enable up-switching only onto the sub-layer where the STSA picture resides (Hannuksela; [0155]).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Hendry et al. teach method for processing a file, the method comprising:
receive the file which has temporal layers (Abstract; [0010]; it teaches a file storing a multi-layer bitstream, where a track box containing a sample-to-group box mapping samples of the track into a sample group, where the group is one of a temporal sub-layer access (TSA) sample or a stepwise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample), which a video bitstream is hierarchically composed of (Figs. 3 and 4 show the hierarchical nature of the file which is part of the bitstream. See [0164]-[0168]), inserted into a set of tracks of the file by distributing the temporal layers onto the set of tracks in groups of one or more temporal layers so that each group is inserted into a track associated with the respective group (Abstract; Figs. 3-4; [0010]; It teaches generating, in the track box, a sample-to-group box for the track, the sample-to-group box mapping samples of the track into a sample group, the sample group comprising samples sharing a property specified by the sample group description entry, the sample-to-group box specifying target layers among layers present in the track);
determine, for a predetermined track of the set of tracks, an indication of a predetermined STSA picture in a lowest temporal layer among the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track ([0089], L9-20; it teaches that a step-wise temporal sub-layer (STSA) up-switching may comprise the action of switching from decoding a first temporal sub-layer to decoding a second temporal sub-layer, where a temporal identifier of the second sub-layer is exactly 1 greater than a temporal identifier of the first temporal sub-layer, which means the identifier indicates an STSA picture in a lowest temporal layer among the group of one or more temporal layers),
for which,
for each other temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track ([0164]-[0169]; Fig. 3 shows for each file 300 there is a track box 306, and underneath is a sample to group box 310 containing layer_id_method_idc, which is the layer id within each of the groups), a picture which firstly follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer, is of an STSA type ([0139]; It teaches that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture), or
for each other temporal layer of the group of one or more temporal layers associated with the predetermined track, a picture which firstly follows the predetermined STSA picture in presentation order among pictures of the respective temporal layer, is of an STSA type, and
use the predetermined STSA picture in the predetermined track as stream access point ([0107]; it teaches that the target_layers syntax element in a ‘sap’ sample group box for a track specifies target layers for SAPs, wherein semantics of the target_layers syntax element depends on the value of the layer_id_method_idc syntax element. When layer_id_method_idc syntax element is equal to 0 it specifies that the target_layers consist of all the layers represented by the track, which means the track with STSA picture is marked as SAP).
Although, Hendry et al. teach that picture in the access unit whose samples are included in a step-wise temporal sub-layer access (STSA) sample group and with nuh_layer_id equal to one of the indicated target layers is an STSA picture, but it does not explicitly say that the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer.
However, Hannuksela, in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teaches a file parsing system where the picture follows the predetermined STSA picture in decoding order among pictures of the respective temporal layer (Hannuksela; [0155]; It teaches that if temporal sub-layers with TemporalId up to N had been decoded until the TSA or STSA picture and the TSA or STSA picture has TemporalId equal to N+1, the TSA or STSA picture enables decoding of all subsequent pictures in decoding order having TemporalId equal to N+1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hendry et al’s invention of switching of layers and sub-layers in multi-layer video files to include Hannuksela's usage of STSA picture following decoding order, because STSA does not impose restrictions on the pictures in higher sub-layers that follow the STSA picture in decoding order and hence enable up-switching only onto the sub-layer where the STSA picture resides (Hannuksela; [0155]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form along with overcoming all the rejections/objection of the dependent claims including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“AN APPARATUS, A METHOD AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR VIDEO CODING AND DECODING” – Hannuksela et al., US 20210250617 A1.
“APPARATUS, A METHOD AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR VIDEO CODING AND DECODING” – Hannuksela, US 20240267560 A1.
“MULTI-LAYER VIDEO FILE FORMAT DESIGNS” – Wang et al., US 20150110192 A1.
“FILE FORMAT FOR VIDEO DATA” – Wang, US 20140098860 A1.
"MP4 File Creator for SVC Adaptive Video Streaming" - Gao et al., 2010 International Conference on Internet Technology and Applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. 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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights