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
`
`16/254,120
`
`01/22/2019
`
`Masato OHKAWA
`
`2019-0021A
`
`9423
`
`UP
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
`
`2483
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/18/2021
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-15 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) O Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* 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)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ 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)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)X None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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 20210213
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/254, 120
`OHKAWAetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH
`2483
`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 02/01/2021.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)(J This action is FINAL. 2b))This action is non-final.
`3) 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\(Z 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: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`1.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissionfiled on
`
`12/29/2020 has been entered.
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2020 have been fully considered but they
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`2.
`
`Regarding section 103, Applicant argues: “Tanizawa disclosesthat the
`
`prediction mode is determined by cost calculation (See [0071]).... Accordingly,
`
`Tanizawa requires that the transform basis selection information is selected based on
`
`the prediction mode determined by cost calculation, and as such, Tanizawa necessarily
`
`fails to teach "when the current block is determined to have a size smaller than or equal
`
`to the threshold size, transforming the current block using a fixed frequency transform
`
`basis, the fixed frequency transform basis being fixed irrespective of an evaluation value
`
`determined with consideration of a prediction error of the current block and a coding
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 3
`
`amount required for encoding the prediction error," as required by the above-noted
`
`features of claim 1.”
`
`Examiner notes that other, cited portions of Tanizawa, teach this claimed feature.
`
`Similarly, the Specification also “discloses that the prediction mode is determined by
`
`cost calculation’, but that is not evidence that the Specification requires this exclusively.
`
`See Specification, Pages 32-34.
`
`Examiner recommendslimiting the claims to operate under the particular
`
`conditions where the claimed invention can produce improvements or unexpected
`
`results over the prior art.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection
`
`may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are
`
`cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving
`
`the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
`
`2.
`
`During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44
`
`USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Substantially, every claim includes within its breadth or
`
`scope one or more variant embodiments that are not disclosed in the application, but
`
`which would anticipate the claimed invention if found in a reference.
`
`3.
`
`Whereprior art recites claimed features combined with additional features,
`
`omission of the additional features in the claim does notdistinguish it over the prior art
`
`reference. Further, an omission of an element and its function is obvious. MP.E.P.
`
`2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); See also In
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 4
`
`re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omissionof additional
`
`framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art
`
`mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and
`
`In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch
`
`memberand thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`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 groundof
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth insection 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare such thatthe claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinaryskill inthe art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`negated by the mannerin whichthe invention was made.
`
`4.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 5
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`5.
`
`This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art.
`
`In describing an
`
`invention, Applicant mustinevitably reference that which is knownin the art as the basis
`
`for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his owninvention. See 35 U.S.C. 112
`
`(6) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the
`
`specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another asprior art is
`
`an admission which can berelied upon for both anticipation and obviousness
`
`determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as
`
`prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int ’l Corp. v. R.A
`
`Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant
`
`v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art
`
`is applicant’s own work, or the work of another.
`
`In the absence of another credible
`
`explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP
`
`2129.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`20130094581 to Tanizawa (“Tanizawa’) in view of Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”).
`
`Note that Specification, refers to prior art video coding standards, HEVC, H.265, MPEG,
`
`H.264, which are taken as known and admitted prior art, including the ISO/IEC 23008-2
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 6
`
`Part 2: High efficiency video coding, First edition, 2013-12-01 (“HEVC-2013”). See
`
`Specification, Pages 1 and 57.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding Claim 1: “An encoder which performs frequency transform on a
`
`current block to be encoded in an image, the encoder comprising:
`
`a.
`
`a processor; and memory connected to the processor, wherein the
`
`processor, using the memory:
`
`(“computeror built-in system in the present
`
`embodiments is used for performing each processing in the present
`
`embodiments based on the corresponding program storedin a recording
`
`medium” Tanizawa, Paragraph 239.)
`
`b.
`
`
`determines whether or not the current block has a size smaller than
`
`or equal to a threshold size; and (Tanizawa includes and embodiment where a
`
`transformation basis can be selected based only on prediction block size being
`
`within certain threshold values:
`
`“If the number of symbols ( e.g., the numberof
`
`symbols representing a motion vector or the number of symbols representing a
`
`prediction block size) relating to the prediction information 126 required to select
`
`this prediction mode 128 is represented by OH... Instead of the equation (1), the
`
`prediction information 126 may be determined using:
`
`(a) only
`
`prediction
`
`information [OH];” Tanizawa, Paragraphs 71-77, 93, 99, and Figs. 7A-B, 22-
`
`25B.)
`
`C.
`
`performs first frequency transform on the current block, and thefirst
`
`frequency transform includes: ... when the current block is determined to
`
`have a size smaller than or equal to the threshold size, transforming the
`
`current block using a fixed frequency transform basis, (Tanizawaincludes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 7
`
`and embodiment where a transformation basis can be selected based only on
`
`prediction block size:
`
`“If the number of symbols ( e.g., the number of symbols
`
`representing a motion vector or the number of symbols representing a prediction
`
`block size) relating to the prediction information 126 required to selectthis
`
`prediction mode 128 is represented by OH ... Instead of the equation (1), the
`
`prediction information 126 may be determined using:
`
`(a) only
`
`prediction
`
`information [OH];
`
`... generating transformation basis selection information 129
`
`used in an orthogonal transformation based_on input prediction modes 128.
`
`...
`
`”
`
`Tanizawa, Paragraphs 71-77 and Figs. 7A-B, 22-25B. This teaches that multiple
`
`“threshold” block sizes can be used in selecting the corresponding ones of
`
`multiple transform indices, asillustrated in Figs. 7A-B and 25A-B, which includes
`
`the embodiment where only one threshold is used to select between only two
`
`transform indices.)
`
`d.
`
`the fixed frequency transform basis being fixed irrespective of an
`
`evaluation value determined with consideration of a prediction error of the
`
`current block and a coding amount required for encoding the prediction
`
`error; (Examiner notes that this element is obvious, because it omits a
`
`determination that is not required by any part of the claim or the cited portion of
`
`the prior art. See treatment of claiming by omission in the Claim Construction
`
`section above. Cumulatively note that prior art teaches that selection criteria can
`
`be based on the block size, another “evaluation value” or a combination of such
`
`values: “the prediction information 126 may be determined using: (a) only
`
`prediction information [such as block size]; or (b) only SAD,” where the prediction
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 8
`
`information can be block size and the transformation basis is based on the
`
`prediction information. See Tanizawa, Paragraphs 71-77. Also see discussion
`
`of obviousness of arranging or substituting known modes Claim Construction
`
`section.)
`
`e.
`
`and when the current block is determined to havea size larger than
`
`the threshold size: ... (i) selecting an adaptive frequency transformation
`
`basis for the current block from among a plurality of frequency transform
`
`bases; and ... (ii) transforming the current block using the selected
`
`adaptive frequency transform basis.” (Tanizawa includes and embodiment
`
`where a transformation basis can be selected based only on prediction block
`
`size:
`
`“If the number of symbols ( e.g., the number of symbols representing a
`
`motion vector or the number of symbols representing a prediction block size)
`
`relating to the prediction information 126 required to select this prediction mode
`
`128 is represented by OH ... Instead of the equation (1), the prediction
`
`information 126 may be determined using:
`
`(a)
`
`only
`
`prediction information [OH];
`
`... generating transformation basis selection information 129 used in an
`
`orthogonal transformation based on input prediction modes 128.
`
`...
`
`” Tanizawa,
`
`Paragraphs 71-77 and Figs. 7A-B, 22-25B. This teaches that multiple “threshold”
`
`block sizes can be used in selecting the corresponding ones of multiple transform
`
`indices, as illustrated in Figs. 7A-B and 25A-B, which includes the embodiment
`
`where the smallest block(s) (below threshold) can have one transform basis, and
`
`all the larger blocks (larger than the threshold) can have other different transform
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 9
`
`bases “adapted” based on the block size suchas block sizes exemplified in
`
`Tanizawa, Paragraph 93 and/or SAD as indicated in Paragraphs 71-77.)
`
`f.
`
`Cumulatively note that, before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention,
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to
`
`substitute one among known alternatives of a transformation mode bases or
`
`labels for another one among known alternatives of a transformation mode bases
`
`or labels for that type of data. “When a patent claims a structure already known
`
`in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another
`
`known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d
`
`1385 (2007). See selection of alternative coding modes and transformation
`
`bases in Tanizawa, Figs. 22-24 and in AAPA, HEVC-2013, Pages 107-108.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding Claim 2: “The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`processorfurther writes information about the selected adaptive frequency
`
`transform basis onto a bitstream, when the current block has a size larger than
`
`the threshold size.” (See storing video coding information at various level of the
`
`bitstream in Tanizawa, Figs. 11-13 and coding information about transform and coded
`
`bases in Figs. 15-17, 19, 25B-26.)
`
`9.
`
`Regarding Claim 3: “The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`processor further writes information about the threshold size onto a bitstream.”
`
`(“N is an index indicating a block size such that 4 indicates a 4x4-pixel block;”
`
`Tanizawa, Paragraph 93. There, “a block size may be selected taking account of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 10
`
`balance between the number of symbols for transformation coefficients and the local
`
`decoded image.” Tanizawa, Paragraph 231.)
`
`10.
`
`Regarding Claim 4: “The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`selecting of the adaptive frequency transform basis for the current block
`
`includes: selecting a basis set from amonga plurality of basis sets, based ona
`
`predetermined condition; and selecting the basis for the current block from the
`
`basis set selected.” (Note that a transform basis such as “a block size may be
`
`selected taking account of the balance between the number of symbols for
`
`transformation coefficients and the local decoded image.” Tanizawa, Paragraph 231.
`
`Also note “the function of generating transformation basis selection information 129
`
`used in an orthogonal transformation, based on input prediction mode 128” which
`
`includes “an index indicating a block size” Tanizawa, Claim 18, Paragraphs 93, 99.
`
`)
`
`11.
`
`Regarding Claim 5: “The encoder according to claim 4, wherein the
`
`predetermined condition is defined by an intra prediction mode to be used for the
`
`current block, and the selecting of the basis includes: ... when the intra
`
`prediction modefor the current blockis a first intra prediction mode, selecting a
`
`first basis set correspondingto thefirst intra prediction mode; and ... when the
`
`intra prediction mode for the current block is a second intra prediction mode,
`
`selecting a second basis set corresponding to the secondintra prediction mode,
`
`the second basis set and the secondintra prediction mode being different from
`
`the first basis set and thefirst intra prediction mode, respectively.” (“the function
`
`of generating transformation basis selection information 129 used in an orthogonal
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 11
`
`transformation, based on input prediction mode 128” which includes “an index
`
`indicating a block size” Tanizawa, Claim 18, Paragraphs 93, 99, Figs. 18-19A, 22-25.)
`
`12.
`
`Regarding Claim 6: “The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`processor further determines which transform mode amongaplurality of
`
`transform modes includingafirst transform mode and a second transform mode
`
`is to be applied to the current block, and ... the first frequency transform is
`
`performed when thefirst transform modeis determined to be applied, and the
`
`second frequencytransform different from the first frequency transform is
`
`performed when the second transform mode is determined to be applied.” (“the
`
`function of generating transformation basis selection information 129 used in an
`
`orthogonal transformation, based on input prediction mode 128” whichincludes “an
`
`index indicating a block size” Tanizawa, Claim 18, Paragraphs 93, 99, Figs. 18-19A, 22-
`
`25.)
`
`13.
`
`Regarding Claim 7: “The encoder according to claim 6, wherein the
`
`processor further writes information about the transform mode determined to be
`
`applied to the current block onto a bitstream.” (See storing video coding information
`
`at various level of the bitstream in Tanizawa, Figs. 11-13 and coding information about
`
`transform and coded bases and modesin Figs. 15-17, 19, 25B-26. Also note thatit is
`
`well established in the art that “encoding parameters are parameters required to decode
`
`...” Tanizawa, Paragraphs 62, 119.)
`
`14.
`
`Claim 8, “An encoding method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1,
`
`because the apparatus elements of Claim 1
`
`implement the method steps of Claim 8.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 12
`
`15.
`
`Claim 9, “A decoder which performs inverse transform’is rejected for
`
`reasons stated for Claim 1, because the decoding steps of Claim 9 exactly reverse the
`
`encoding steps of Claim 1.
`
`In Taizawa, see decoding of Fig. 21 that exactly reverses
`
`the encoding of Fig. 1. Also,it is well established in the art that “encoding parameters
`
`are parameters required to decode prediction information,
`
`information about
`
`transformation coefficients, information about quantization, and so on.” Tanizawa,
`
`Paragraphs 62, 119.)
`
`16.
`
`Claim 10 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 9
`
`rejection.
`
`17.|Claim 11 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 9
`
`rejection.
`
`18.
`
`Claim 12 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 7 in view of the Claim 11
`
`rejection.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1, 8, and 9.
`
`Regarding Claim 14: “The encoder according to claim 1, wherein in the
`
`selecting the adaptive frequency transform basis for the current block from
`
`among the plurality of frequency transform bases, the adaptive frequency
`
`transform basis is selected according to (i) the prediction error of the current
`
`block or(ii) the evaluation value determined with consideration of the prediction
`
`error of the current block and a coding amount required for encoding the
`
`prediction error.” (“the prediction information 126 may be determined using: (a) only
`
`prediction information; or (b) only SAD,” wherethe prediction information can be block
`
`size and the transformation basis is based on the prediction information. See
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 13
`
`Tanizawa, Paragraphs 71-77. Also see discussion of obviousness of arranging or
`
`substituting known modesin Claim 1 and in Claim Construction section.)
`
`21.
`
`Claim 15is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 14 in view of Claim 8 rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`1.
`
`Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection
`
`may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are
`
`cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving
`
`the claim language.
`
`The referenced citations made in the rejections above are intended to exemplify
`
`areas in the prior art documents in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to
`
`the claimed subject matter. However,
`
`it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze each
`
`prior art documentin its entirety since other areas of the document may berelied upon
`
`at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. See W.L. Gore &
`
`associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 3083 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
`
`denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
`
`alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because
`
`such disclosure doesnotcriticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
`
`claimed...." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`2.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone numberis
`
`(571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.
`
`- Thu. 9am - 8pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/254,120
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 14
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on (571)272-7383. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assignedis 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 https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivateP air. 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.
`
`/MIKHAIL_ ITSKOVICH/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
`Up
`
`