DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/060618 filed on 12/01/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 is/are independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/01/2022 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20, the claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method/computer program product/system claims under Step 1. However, claim 1-20 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Per claims 1, 9, and 16 the limitations to determine “dividing, by one or more processors, a set of data into at least two smaller data blocks”, “calculating, by the one or more processors, an original value for a data distribution of a respective smaller data block”, “calculating, by the one or more processors, respective sampling values for the data distribution of each set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data”, “selecting, by the one or more processors, a set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block”, and “merging, by the one or more processors, each selected set of sample data for each smaller data block to form a final set of sample data”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation dividing, by one or more processors, a set of data into at least two smaller data blocks”, “calculating, by the one or more processors, an original value for a data distribution of a respective smaller data block”, “calculating, by the one or more processors, respective sampling values for the data distribution of each set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data”, “selecting, by the one or more processors, a set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block”, and “merging, by the one or more processors, each selected set of sample data for each smaller data block to form a final set of sample data” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “one or more processors”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, and “running, by the one or more processors, at least two different sampling methods against the respective smaller data block to produce at least two different sets of sample data for the respective smaller data block” The “one or more processors”, “one or more computer readable storage media” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element running, by the one or more processors, at least two different sampling methods against the respective smaller data block to produce at least two different sets of sample data for the respective smaller data block fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “running” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are running, by the one or more processors, at least two different sampling methods against the respective smaller data block to produce at least two different sets of sample data for the respective smaller data block the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, under prong 2, the “where the at least two smaller data blocks are each equal in size or different in size based on computing resources” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 17, the limitation “wherein the set of data has a sequence and a sequence variable; and wherein dividing the set of data into the at least two smaller data blocks comprises: dividing, by the one or more processors, the set of data equally based on the sequence variable.” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 4, 12, and 18, the limitation “wherein the set of data has no sequence; and wherein dividing the set of data into the at least two smaller data blocks comprises: dividing, by the one or more processors, the set of data using random sampling or based on an election of a certain variable.” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, under prong 2, the “wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective smaller data block at a same time.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, under prong 2, the “wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective smaller data block one at a time.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 7, 14 and 20, the limitation “wherein selecting the set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data …” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, under prong 2, the “wherein the method is implemented using a distributed computing environment.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2020/0413072 to Filippov
performs split or partitioning decisions and prediction based on the partitioning and/or prediction parameters or respective information received from the encoded picture data 21 (e.g. by parsing and/or decoding, e.g. by entropy decoding unit 304).
US 2019/0320208 to Bjorklund
each array of data elements (e.g. video frame) is encoded by dividing the array of data elements into plural blocks of data elements (e.g. plural “source” blocks), and then (independently) subjecting each of the source blocks to one or more encoding operations, e.g. encoding the array of data elements on a block by block basis.
US 2013/0034158 to Kirchhoffer
comparing the predicted image samples and original image samples of the block of the picture defined in the first precision to determine residual sample values for the block; applying a spectral decomposition transform to the achieved residual sample values and using a quantization to achieve a transform coefficient block
US 2001/0055170 to Taguchi
a sample storing part storing sample values obtained by sampling regenerative signals from the original data and from the interleaved data recorded in the recording part; a pass metric calculating part calculating a branch metric and a pass metric based on each of the sample values stored in the sample value storing part
US 2001/0025560 to Sato
it has been carried out that waveform data are divided into plural frames having a certain length (a fixed length whatever the waveform data are), that a divided frame is repeated with joints cross-faded for time expansion, and that a divided frame is eliminated with joints cross-faded for time compression.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 3, 11 and 17.
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 owned as of 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 owned as of the effective filing 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0082225 to Chen et al. (hereafter Chen), and further in view of US 2009/0059256 to Hasegawa et al. (hereafter “Hasegawa”) and US 2013/0282846 to Wang (hereafter “Wang”)
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
dividing, by one or more processors, a set of data into at least two smaller data blocks (FIGs. 4-5 and 11; paragraphs 0030 and 0042: “Encoding unit 104 may split these frames into independently decodable portions (which are commonly referred to as "slices"), which in turn, encoding unit 104 may split into treeblocks. These treeblocks may undergo a form of recursive hierarchical quadtree splitting. Encoding unit 104 may perform this splitting operation to generate a hierarchical tree-like data structure, with the root node being a "treeblock." Each undivided sample block within a treeblock corresponds to a different CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] each node in the treeblock is a different CU split from the sequence/series of frames);
for each of the at least two smaller data blocks (FIGs. 4-5 and 11; paragraphs 0029-0030 and 0042: for each of CU/treeblock node)
running, by the one or more processors, at least two different sampling methods against the respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0029-0030: “The encoder can generate one or more prediction units (PU's) for each of the CU's. The encoder can generate the PU's for a CU by partitioning the sample block of the CU into prediction areas. The encoder may then perform a motion estimation operation with respect to each PU of the CU. When the encoder performs the motion estimation operation with respect to a given PU, the encoder generates motion information for the PU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] more than 2 PU for one CU[Wingdings font/0xE0] more than 2 motion estimation operations with respect to the given PUs for one CU) to produce at least two different sets of sample data for the respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0029-0030: “The encoder compares the prediction block for a CU with the original sample block of the CU to determine residual data for the CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 different residual data for the CU);
calculating, by the one or more processors, respective sampling values for the data distribution of each set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data (paragraphs 0029-0030: “The encoder compares the prediction block for a CU with the original sample block of the CU to determine residual data for the CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 different residual data for the CU).
Chen discloses the original sample block data as an original value for a data distribution of a respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0029-0030), and set of sample data for each smaller data block (FIGs. 4-5 and 11; paragraphs 0030 and 0042: “Encoding unit 104 may split these frames into independently decodable portions (which are commonly referred to as "slices"), which in turn, encoding unit 104 may split into treeblocks. These treeblocks may undergo a form of recursive hierarchical quadtree splitting. Encoding unit 104 may perform this splitting operation to generate a hierarchical tree-like data structure, with the root node being a "treeblock." Each undivided sample block within a treeblock corresponds to a different CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] each node in the treeblock is a different CU split from the sequence/series of frames), however, Guo does not explicitly disclose calculating, by the one or more processors, an original value for a data distribution of a respective smaller data block; selecting, by the one or more processors, a set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block; and merging, by the one or more processors, each selected set of sample data for each smaller data block to form a final set of sample data.
Hasegawa further discloses calculating, by the one or more processors, an original value for a data distribution of a respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0007-0009: “inputting an original image; determining original-image characteristic quantity data expressing a characteristic of the original image”);
selecting, by the one or more processors, a set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0262 and 0289: “the CPU 71 presents the sample images in an order that gives priority to those images that are more similar to the original image and therefore that have a higher probability of being selected by the user, thereby improving selection efficiency.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Hasegawa into Chen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the user can more efficiently select a sample image from which the desired results can be obtained (Hasegawa, paragraph 0064).
Wang further discloses merging, by the one or more processors, each selected set of sample data form a final set of sample data (paragraphs 0093 and 0135).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Wang into Chen’s teaching and Hasegawa’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of receive samples of a preset format, and determine whether the samples of the preset format are a final result of similarity computing; if not, combine or split the samples of the preset format according to a preset criterion to obtain multiple subtask packets, and allocate the multiple subtask packets to multiple similarity computing nodes (Wang, paragraph 0008).
As per claim 7, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting the set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block is based on comparing the respective sampling values for the data distribution of each set of sample data output from each different sampling method to the original value for the data distribution of the respective smaller data block.
Hasegawa further discloses wherein selecting the set of sample data of the at least two different sets of sample data that has the respective sampling value that is closest to the original value for the respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0262 and 0289) is based on comparing the respective sampling values for the data distribution of each set of sample data output from each different sampling method to the original value for the data distribution of the respective smaller data block (paragraphs 0262 and 0289: “the CPU 71 presents the sample images in an order that gives priority to those images that are more similar to the original image and therefore that have a higher probability of being selected by the user, thereby improving selection efficiency.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Hasegawa into Chen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the user can more efficiently select a sample image from which the desired results can be obtained (Hasegawa, paragraph 0064).
As per claim 8, Chen discloses the frame of data is split into independent portions (FIGs. 4-5 and 11; paragraphs 0030 and 0042: “Encoding unit 104 may split these frames into independently decodable portions (which are commonly referred to as "slices"), which in turn, encoding unit 104 may split into treeblocks. These treeblocks may undergo a form of recursive hierarchical quadtree splitting. Encoding unit 104 may perform this splitting operation to generate a hierarchical tree-like data structure, with the root node being a "treeblock." Each undivided sample block within a treeblock corresponds to a different CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] each node in the treeblock is a different CU split from the sequence/series of frames), however, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is implemented using a distributed computing environment.
Wang further discloses wherein the method is implemented using a distributed computing environment (paragraphs 0047, 0078 and 0099).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Wang into Guo’s teaching and Hasegawa’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of receive samples of a preset format, and determine whether the samples of the preset format are a final result of similarity computing; if not, combine or split the samples of the preset format according to a preset criterion to obtain multiple subtask packets, and allocate the multiple subtask packets to multiple similarity computing nodes (Wang, paragraph 0008).
As per claim 9, it is a computer program product claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 14, it is a computer program product claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 15, it is a computer program product claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 16, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Hasegawa and Wang, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of US 2008/0192775 to Fukao et al. (hereafter “Fukao”)
As per claim 2, Chen does not explicitly disclose where the at least two smaller data blocks are each equal in size or different in size based on computing resources.
Fukao further discloses where the at least two smaller data blocks are each equal in size (paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0022 and 0061: same as packet size) or different in size based on computing resources (paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0022 and 0061: smaller than packet size).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fukao into Guo’s teaching, Hasegawa’s teaching, and Wang’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the transmitting apparatus transmits data after checking the state of the receiving apparatus, the communication can be reliably performed (Fukao, paragraph 0024).
As per claim 10, it is a computer program product claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Hasegawa and Wang, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16, and further in view of US 2008/0267216 to Vergnaud and US 2014/0297274 to Cho et al. (hereafter “Cho”)
As per claim 4, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of data has no sequence; and
wherein dividing the set of data into the at least two smaller data blocks comprises:
dividing, by the one or more processors, the set of data using random sampling or based on an election of a certain variable.
Vergnaud further discloses wherein the set of data has no sequence (paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Vergnaud into Guo’s teaching, Hasegawa’s teaching, and Wang’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a transmission of a multimedia data stream in real time, with integrated jitter processing and very low latency times (Vergnaud, paragraph 0024).
Cho further discloses wherein dividing the set of data into the at least two smaller data blocks comprises:
dividing, by the one or more processors, the set of data using random sampling or based on an election of a certain variable (paragraph 0129).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Cho into Guo’s teaching, Hasegawa’s teaching, Wang’s teaching, and Vergnaud’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of dividing a speech signal into a plurality of frames for speech recognition. (Cho, paragraph 0006).
As per claim 12, it is an article of manufacture claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Hasegawa and Wang, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16, and further in view of US 2011/0244810 to Czompo.
As per claim 5, Chen discloses a smaller data block is a data (FIGs. 4-5 and 11; paragraphs 0030 and 0042: “Encoding unit 104 may split these frames into independently decodable portions (which are commonly referred to as "slices"), which in turn, encoding unit 104 may split into treeblocks. These treeblocks may undergo a form of recursive hierarchical quadtree splitting. Encoding unit 104 may perform this splitting operation to generate a hierarchical tree-like data structure, with the root node being a "treeblock." Each undivided sample block within a treeblock corresponds to a different CU.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] each node in the treeblock is a different CU split from the sequence/series of frames), however Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective smaller data block at a same time.
Czompo further discloses wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective data at a same time (FIG. 1 and 6; abst, paragraphs 0009, 0014 and 0041: “efficient and concurrent sampling of a sensor signal to create multiple output signals each at different sampling rates are provided.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] concurrent sampling … (same time as claimed)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Czompo into Guo’s teaching, Hasegawa’s teaching, Wang’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of create multiple output signals each at different sampling rates are provided (Czompo, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 13, it is an product claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of
Hasegawa and Wang, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2012/0051144 to Weingarten et al. (hereafter “Weingarten”).
As per claim 6, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective smaller data block one at a time.
Weingarten further discloses wherein running the at least two different sampling methods involves running the at least two different sample methods against the respective smaller data block one at a time (paragraph 0032: “Processor 104 may iteratively repeat reading the current page using different combinations of multiple thresholds until the current page is read with all or a predefined subset of thresholds in the set of thresholds.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Weingarten into Guo’s teaching, Hasegawa’s teaching, Wang’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of to accelerate the repeated sampling of memory cells by combining multiple thresholds to be sampled by each read instructions (Weingarten, paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. 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://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198