www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/664,084
`
`10/25/2019
`
`Takahiro NISHI
`
`2019-1804A
`
`7418
`
`CP
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`KALAPODAS, DRAMOS
`
`2487
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/25/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoa@ wenderoth.com
`kmiller@wenderoth.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary DRAMOS KALAPODAS
`
`Application No.
`16/664,084
`Examiner
`DRAMOS
`KALAPODAS
`
`Applicant(s)
`NISHI et al.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`STEPHEN W. KOPCHIK
`
`Telephonic
`Attorney of Record PO
`
`Date of Interview: 20 May 2021
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Applicants presented a series of arguments regarding the Final Office action. Upon analyzing the nature
`of the remarksit has been determinedthat the mappedart to Rippel is improperly argued under Terada
`thus deeming them mootfor not addressing the art of references according to the interpretation given by
`the Office. Specifically it is found that contrary to the alleged arguments, Rippel discloses the
`discrimination network and the adversarial neural network, Id. (GAN) while both art to Rippel and Terada
`disclose the feedbackto the prediction unit per mapping at the Final Office Action. Applicant's
`representative along with Examiner reanalyzed the application and the claims in search for elements
`advancing the prosecution without success. Examinerindicated that due to limited time allotted for
`interview the arguments should be presentedin writing in an after final request. No agreement could be
`reached.
`
`Attachment
`
`/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transacted in writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substanceof the
`interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general
`indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/41 3b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20210520
`
`