`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/591,903
`
`10/03/2019
`
`Ryuichi KANOH
`
`735256.422C1
`
`3237
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`BOYLAN, JAMES T
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2486
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/21/2021
`
`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):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary JAMES T BOYLAN
`
`Application No.
`16/591,903
`Examiner
`JAMES T BOYLAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`KANOH etal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`SHOKO LEEK
`
`Telephonic
`|Attorney
`
`Date of Interview: 16 September 2021
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Discussed how Narroschkestill reads on the independent claims(i.e. strongfiltering uses Tc3 and weak
`filtering discloses Tc2, and the reference also describes how vertical filtering is performed. Therefore,
`pixels PO in block A would usea different clip width than Pixels Q0 in block B. Pixels PO and Q0lie in the
`same row or arranged on the sameline.). Also, briefly mentioned that Norkin discloses Asymmetric
`deblocking decisions. Discussed possible amendments such asclaiming that horizontalfiltering is being
`performed, a timing constraint (i.e. directing the language to horizontalfiltering without explicitly stating it
`), and/or including cancelling and further narrowing some of the dependent claims such that more pixels
`relative to the boundary are incorporated into the independent claims with regards to the respective clip
`widths.
`
`Attachment
`
`/JAMES T BOYLAN/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2486
`
`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. 20210916
`
`