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
`
`17/141,440
`
`01/05/2021
`
`Ryuichi KANOH
`
`735256.411C2
`
`5403
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`AGHEVLI, REZA
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2485
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/24/2022
`
`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):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-10 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 01/05/2021 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)Z) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)X) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220518
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/141,440
`KANOH etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`REZA AGHEVLI
`2485
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 04/06/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This communication is in response to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 17/141,440filed on
`
`January 5, 2021.
`
`Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
`
`or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
`
`Applicant’s claim for the benefit of PCT national stage application, filed under 35
`
`U.S.C. 371, is acknowledged.
`
`Applicantfiled an amendment on April 6, 2022 under 37 CFR 1.111 in response
`
`to a non-final rejection mailed on January 7, 2022. Applicant has amendedclaims 1, 4,
`
`6 and 9. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments/remarksfiled on April 6, 2022 have been fully considered
`
`but were found not persuasive.
`
`With respect to objection to claims for matters of informalities, in view of
`
`amendments made to claims 1, 4, 6 and 9, objections to said claims are hereby
`
`withdrawn.
`
`With respectto rejection of claims 1 and 2, in combination, on the ground of
`
`nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 3
`
`10,917,641 B2 (Patent ‘641) in view of Sato, US 2013/0028531 A1 and further in view of
`
`Yamazaki et al, US 2014/0140416 A1, applicant has argued that the amendment to
`
`claim 1 overcomes the rejection because the amendedclaim 1
`
`in combination with
`
`claim 2 is patentably distinct from claim 1 of Patent ‘641 (see p. 5 of arguments).
`
`Applicant is respectfully reminded that broadening the scope of a claim does not
`
`overcome the double patenting rejection because the scope of a broadclaim is within
`
`the scope of a narrower claim from which the broader claim was constructed.
`
`Accordingly, the double patenting rejection stands as noted in the Office action
`
`that appears below.
`
`On pp. 5-7 of the applicant's arguments/remarks, with respect to rejection of
`
`independentclaims 1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato,
`
`US 2013/0028531 A1 (Sato) in view of Yamazaki et al., US 2014/0140416 A1
`
`(Yamazaki), applicant argues that:
`
`“Yamazaki’s offset clipping section 812 performs clipping such that change
`
`amounts of each offset always fall within a clip width ranging from -8 to 7, i.e.,
`
`the clip width of 15 (= 7-(-8)). Yamazaki is silent as to providing a first clip width for a
`
`first pixel in a first block and a secondclip width different from thefirst clip width for a
`
`secondpixel in a second block” (see p. 7 of arguments — emphasis NOT added).
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees and reminds applicant that “[a] prior art
`
`reference must be considered in its entirety, .e.. as a whole, including portions that
`
`would lead away from the claimed invention. WL. Gore & Assac., Inc. v. Gariock,
`
`inc., 721 F.2d 1546, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
`
`(1984) —~ See MPEP 2141.02(VD.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 4
`
`Yamazaki pars, 304-305, in ref. to FiG. 15, discloses:
`
`“The adaptive offsetfilter information setting unit 81 includes, as shown in FIG.
`
`15, an offset calculator 811, an offset shifter 816, an offset clipping section 812, an
`
`offset information selector 813, and an offset attribute setting section 815.
`
`“The offset calculator 811 calculates offsets concerning all the offset types and
`
`all the classes for all QAOMUs up to a predeterminedsplit depth includedin the unit
`
`of processing (for example, an LCU). In this case, the offset types and the classes are
`
`the same as those discussed in a description of the video decoding device 1.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`in other words, the offset calculator 617 in cornbination with offset shifter 816
`
`calculates all offset tyoes to a predetermined split depth. The result is to provide a
`
`predetermined first clio width for a first pixel and another predetermined second clip
`
`width far a secand pixel where offset allrioules (oredetermined first and second clio
`
`widths} are set by section S15.
`
`The Examiner maintains his rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine groundedin public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
`
`patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
`
`least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 5
`
`been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
`
`USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
`
`686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
`
`(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timelyfiled terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
`
`commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
`
`result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See
`
`MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146etseq.for
`
`applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the
`
`AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`The USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application
`
`in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26,
`
`PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may
`
`befilled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets
`
`all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For
`
`more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-l.jsp.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 6
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application, in combination, are rejected on the
`
`ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,917,641 B2 (Patent ‘641) in view of Sato, US 2013/0028531 A1 and
`
`further in view of Yamazakiet al., US 2014/0140416 A1.
`
`Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
`
`from each other because:
`
`The claims in conflict simply differ in wordings and not in substance such that
`
`resolving the differences between combination of claims 1 and 2 of the instant
`
`application and claim 1 of Patent ‘641, would have been obvious to a personof ordinary
`
`skill in the art, considering that any differences between the conflicting claims (such as
`
`“a decoder” and “an encoder’) could be resolved by Sato ‘531 and Yamazaki ‘416 as
`
`noted in the following rejection of claims 1 and 2. This is demonstrated in the following
`
`table that showsconflicting claims side by side.
`
`position with respect to the boundary; wherein the
`
`Application 17/144 ,440
`
`Patent ‘641
`
`Claim 1. An encoder comprising: processing
`Claim 1. A decoder comprising: a memory; and
`circuitry; and a memory coupled to the processing
`processing circuitry, which is coupled to the
`circuitry, wherein, using the memory, the
`memory and which, in operation,
`processing circuitry is configured to: change
`changesvalues ofpixels in a first block anda
`values of pixels in a first block and a second block
`second blockto filter a boundary between the first
`to filter a boundary between the first block and the
`block and the second block, using clipping such
`second block, using clipping such that change
`that change amounts of the respective values are
`amounts of the respective values do not exceed
`within respective clip widths, the pixels in the first
`respective thresholds, the pixels in the first block
`block and the second block being arranged along
`and the second block being arranged along a line
`a Straight line across the boundary;[[wherein the
`across the boundary; wherein the respective
`clip widths for the pixels in the first block and the
`second block are selected based on blocksizes of
`thresholdsfor the pixels in the first block and the
`second block are selected to be symmetrical or
`the first block and the second block, ]];
`asymmetrical with respect to the boundary based
`wherein the pixels in the first block include a first
`on blocksizesof the first block and the second
`pixel located at a first position; and the pixels in
`the second block include a second pixel located at
`block;
`wherein the pixels in the first block include a first
`a second position corresponding to the first
`
`position with respect to the boundary, wherein the pixel located atafirst position, and the pixels in
`clip widths include a first clip width and a second
`the second blockinclude a secondpixel located at
`clip width correspondingto the first pixel and the
`a second position corresponding to the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`thresholds includeafirst threshold and a second
`second pixel, respectively; and wherein the first
`clip width is different from the second width.
`threshold correspondingto the first pixel and the
`second pixel, respectively; and wherein the first
`Claim 2. The decoder according to claim 1,
`threshold is larger than the second threshold
`when the first block is larger than the second
`wherein the clip widths for the pixels in the first
`block.
`block and the second block are selected to be
`
`asymmetrical based on the blocksizes.
`
`Page 7
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries 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 presentin the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 8
`
`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 ownedasof 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
`
`ownedas ofthe effectivefiling 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.
`
`Note: In the following, the strikethrough or double-bracketed portions of amended
`
`claims, if any, have been deleted in order to make amended claims more readable.
`
`Only the additions to the claims are marked as underlined.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato, US 2013/0028531 A1 (Sato) in view of Yamazaki et al., US 2014/0140416 A1
`
`(Yamazaki).
`
`With respectto claim 1, Sato discloses a decoder [FIG. 11] comprising: a
`
`memory [FIG. 11, frame memory 61, par. 157]; and processing circuitry [any one of
`
`blocks 52-55], which is coupled to the memory[FIG. 1] and which, in operation,
`
`changesvalues of pixels in a first block [FIG. 2, block P] and a second block[FIG. 2,
`
`block Q — noting that FIG. 2 shows operations involving encoder but decoder performs
`
`similar operation as shownin FIG. 12, block ST76] tofilter [FIG. 12, block ST76] a
`
`boundary between the first block and the second block [FIG. 12, boundary between
`
`block P and block Q], using clipping [pars. 67: “pixel data in blocks P and Q adjacent to
`
`eachother beforefiltering at a block boundary is pO to p4 and q0 to q4 from the position
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 9
`
`of the boundary” and par. 68: “Prior to the filtering, as shown in Table 1, block boundary
`
`strength data Bs (Boundary Strength) is defined for a pixel p and a pixel q in FIG. 2”]
`
`such that change amountsof the respective values are within respective clip widths
`
`[par. 75: “Threshold values a and B as a parameter value for adjusting filter strength’
`
`Bs], the pixels in the first block and the second block being arranged along a straight
`
`line across the boundary [FIG. 2 — p4-p0 and q0-q4 in FIG. 2(A) and respective adjusted
`
`pixel values in FIG. 2(B)]; wherein the pixels in the first block includeafirst pixel [pO as
`
`an example] locatedat a first position [closest to the boundary], and the pixels in the
`
`second block include a second pixel [qO0 as a corresponding example] located at a
`
`second position [also closest to the boundary] corresponding to the first position with
`
`respect to the boundary [same is true for pairs p1/q1, p2/q2, p3/q3 and, p4/p4]; wherein
`
`the clip widths include a first clip width and a second clip width corresponding to the first
`
`pixel and the second pixel, respectively [par. 76, Table 2], and wherein the first clip
`
`width is different from the second width [pars. 79-80, Eqs. 5-7]. While Sato disclosesall
`
`the limitations of the claim, Sato does notclearly disclose the limitation wherein thefirst
`
`clip width is different from the second width. However, Yamazaki discloses the limitation
`
`wherein the first clip width is different from the second width [par. 322 and pars. 304-
`
`305, FIG. 15 — see also Response to Arguments in the above]. Therefore, in view of
`
`disclosures by Yamazaki, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to combine Sato with Yamazaki
`
`with the motivation to devise a method and apparatus for adaptive offsetfiltering for
`
`adding an offset to the pixel value of each pixel forming an input image [Yamazaki:
`
`abstract].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 10
`
`With respectto claim 2, Sato in view of Yamazaki, disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 1. Furthermore, Yamazaki discloses wherein the clip widths for the pixels in the
`
`first block and the second block are selected to be asymmetrical based on the block
`
`sizes. [pars. 72, 643, FIG. 37]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a personof
`
`ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
`
`combine the above-noted references with the same motivation as noted in the above
`
`rejection of claim 1.
`
`With respectto claim 3, Sato, in view of Yamazaki, disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first clip width is determined to be larger than
`
`the second clip width based on the blocksizes [par. 75 — noting that the values of a and
`
`8 can be changed (with a > B in accordance with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standards well-
`
`knownin the art) resulting in adjustment offilter strength that controls the clip widths].
`
`With respectto claims 6-8, the claims are drawn to methods that perform a series
`
`of steps that are commensurate in scope with steps of claims 1-3, respectively.
`
`Therefore, claims 6-8 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness with the same
`
`motivation as noted in the aboverejection of claims 1-3, respectively.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply musteither
`
`comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not
`
`complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 11
`
`Claim 4-5 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
`
`claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
`
`limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
`
`A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter was outlined
`
`in the previous Office action.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
`
`than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
`
`accompanythe issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on
`
`Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
`
`Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
`
`The prior art made of record and notrelied upon but considered pertinent to
`
`applicant’s disclosures:
`
`1.
`
`Kazushi et al., WO 2011/145601 A1, discloses image processing and
`
`coding apparatus for cable TV.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Sato, US 9,253,596 B2, discloses image processing device and method.
`
`Norkin et al., US 9,407,912 B2, discloses deblocking filtering.
`
`Narroschkeet al., US 9,503,749 B2, discloses efficient rounding for
`
`deblocking.
`
`5.
`
`Narroschkeet al., US 9,749,654 B2, discloses efficient rounding for
`
`deblocking.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 12
`
`6.
`
`Nakagami et al., US 8,396,307 B2, discloses image processing system
`
`and method.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst replyis filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date ofthis final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee 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 ofthis final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to REZA AGHEVLI whose telephone number is (571) 272-
`
`9450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
`
`Pacific Time.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/141 ,440
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 13
`
`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 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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.
`
`REZA AGHEVLI
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2485
`
`/REZA AGHEVLI/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
`
`