DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 07/22/2026 in which claims 3, 7–9, and 11–15 are cancelled, claims 1, 4–6, and 18–20 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the Office’s diagram supports an interpretation that “the highlighted coefficient value below could be considered…the second coefficient value in the reverse direction.” Examiner does not understand. There is no scenario depicted in Examiner’s diagrams that would lead the skilled artisan to conclude a second position in a scan order. More importantly, Applicant’s remarks are unreasonable in view of the level of skill in the art. As explained painstakingly, infra, the first vs. last semantic label is meaningless. The salient feature is the line of demarcation in the transform block (Applicant’s “logical unit”) between a string of zero-valued coefficients and a string of non-zero valued coefficients. What is “second” is not the point at all. Furthermore, the arguments on pages 15–16 regarding the encoder (?) not being able to tell whether it is the first or last is unclear. What is clear is Examiner’s diagram. The top two figures in the diagram demonstrate that the scan order determines whether the indexed location represents the “first” or the “last.” For artificial images receiving a forward scan, the scan direction dictates that the interpretation is the “first” significant coefficient from the origin (i.e. DC component) and for natural images receiving a reverse scan, the scan direction dictates that the interpretation is the “last” significant coefficient from the origin (i.e. DC component). In the top two scenarios, an inherent preference for coding leading zeros is assumed, but Examiner notes such a preference is arbitrary. Again, just like Applicant’s asserted advantage, the prior art also uses a “single united syntax” (Applicant’s terminology) of “LAST” to designate the last significant coefficient even though it is not necessarily last in terms of its position with respect to the DC component. In fact, as demonstrated in Examiner’s top two figures, it is actually the first significant coefficient in the scanning direction. It is known that natural scenes can benefit most from frequency transforms and that artificial scenes may benefit more from transform skip mode. Such side information, transform skip, can indicate a scan direction and can thus indicate whether the “last” significant coefficient is actually first or last from the DC origin. For all the foregoing reasons, including the fact that the invention is merely based on a semantic meaning that has not been demonstrated to be technical in nature, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 18.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2025/0024081 A1), Kahu (US 2023/0283779 A1) and Bross (US 2023/0007252 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests a method comprising: accessing, by one or more processors, a bitstream representing video content; parsing, by the one or more processors from the bitstream, a flexible coefficient position (FCP) syntax indicating a first index value for a first logical unit of the video content (Examiner interprets this feature consistent with Applicant’s published paragraph [0056] as the position of the last significant coefficient; Examiner further notes that “last” is an arbitrary term in this art as the “last” significant coefficient is where the conventional coding algorithm “starts” to code the significant coefficients in reverse scan order; Evidence for this finding is provided under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see particularly Bross, ¶ 0006, used as a dictionary-type reference; Choi, ¶ 0243: teaches signaling a position of a last significant coefficient using a single position value acting as an indexed position within a one-dimensional array; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra); determining, by the one or more processors, a coefficient scan order for parsing coefficient values encoded in the bitstream for the first logical unit (Examiner interprets this feature in view of original claims 5 and 6, which essentially explain the side information is scan order information; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra); parsing, by the one or more processors from the bitstream, a sequence of coefficient values ordered according to the determined coefficient scan order for the first logical unit (Examiner notes the whole point of coefficient scanning is parsing the coded sequence of coefficient values; All cited references teach this, but see e.g. Kahu, ¶ 0152: teaches reverse scanning order for levels of coefficients and a forward scanning order for the sign; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra); determining, by the one or more processors, side information representing one or more characteristics of an encoded portion of the video content (Examiner interprets this feature consistent with Applicant’s published paragraph [0056], which explains the side information is any contextual information, including transform type; Kahu, ¶¶ 0154 and 0155: teach for VVC and AV2 that when the block is coded in transform skip mode, such an indication means the last significant coefficient position is not signaled and the scanning order is a forward scanning order; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra); interpreting, by the one or more processors, the FCP syntax based on the side information, wherein interpreting the FCP syntax comprises: determining that the first index value indicated by the FCP syntax identifies a specific one of the coefficient values in the sequence of coefficient values (see supra regarding the FCP syntax being the identification of the last significant coefficient in scan order; Choi, ¶ 0243: teaches signaling a position of a last significant coefficient using a single position value acting as an indexed position within a one-dimensional array; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches the position of the last significant coefficient can be based on a function utilizing syntax elements for x and y (i.e. column and row) index components Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra), selecting from among two different interpretations of the FCP syntax based on the side information (Examiner interprets this feature in view of original claims 5 and 6, which essentially explain the side information is scan order information; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra), wherein the two different interpretations comprise: a first interpretation of the FCP syntax whereby the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value is interpreted as a sequentially first significant coefficient value in the sequence of coefficient values for the logical unit according to the determined coefficient scan order for the logical unit, and a second interpretation of the FCP syntax whereby the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value is interpreted as a sequentially last significant coefficient value in the sequence of coefficient values for the logical unit according to the determined coefficient scan order (Examiner notes that, conventionally, the “last” significant coefficient in the art means last in view of a forward scanning direction from the low frequency DC coefficient (top-left) to the high frequency coefficient (bottom-right) and also notes that, conventionally, a reverse scan is used starting from the “last” coefficient and working backwards toward the DC coefficient so as to front-load the zeros (taking advantage of the “trailing zeros” phenomenon, but arbitrarily putting them at the beginning); All this means that the last coefficient is the first coefficient to get scanned in a reverse scanning order; See Examiner’s helpful diagram provided, infra, under the rejection of claim 1; Examiner further notes that adaptive coefficient scanning has been prior art for at least a decade prior to Applicant’s priority date such that any scan order is contemplated by the skilled artisan; Finally, Examiner notes that rotating or flipping the block prior to transforming and scanning has known utility such that a rotation or flip can obviously make a “last” coefficient a “first” coefficient and vice versa; Kahu, ¶ 0152: teaches reverse scanning order for levels of coefficients and a forward scanning order for the sign; Kahu, ¶ 0155: teaches that the scanning order is forward scanning in some implementations and is indicated by side information; see also concurrent explanation regarding the arbitrary nature of first vs. last in view of the teachings of Choi and Bross; Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches that the purpose of signaling the position of the first significant coefficient in a scan order is to avoid coding leading zeros; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra); and decoding, by the one or more processors, the first logical unit of the encoded portion of the video content according to the selected interpretation (Examiner notes the position of the last coefficient signals many things to the decoder to help it decode the data, including whether other coefficient groups (sub-blocks) are all zero, how long a run of zeroes is for the highest frequency coefficients after the last significant (i.e. non-zero) coefficient, among others; Choi, ¶ 0246: teaches the last significant coefficient can, for example, be used to decide a type of transform to use; Examiner notes additional rationale provided after the Examiner-provided diagrams, infra).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Choi, with those of Kahu, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of residual transform coding would be led to their relevant teachings regarding the coding of coefficient positions and because combining Choi’s teachings regarding the position of the last non-zero coefficient with Kahu’s teachings regarding transform skip represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Choi and Kahu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Choi and Kahu, with those of Bross, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of residual transform coding would be led to their relevant teachings regarding the coding of coefficient positions and because combining Choi’s teachings regarding the position of the last non-zero coefficient with Bross’s teachings regarding the coding of the first (last) significant coefficient depending on scan order represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Choi, Kahu, and Bross used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As explained in the Final Office Action dated 10/16/2025, both Choi and Bross teach changing the interpretation of the last significant coefficient information based on scan order. The prior art teaches, for example, that the last significant coefficient information, signaled for example as x, y positional information, would have a different interpretation based on whether the scan was a forward scan or a reverse scan. Obviously, signaling that the row and column of the last significant coefficient is (1, 1) in a forward scan means something different from a position of (1, 1) in a reverse scan if your origin (reference) changes based on scan order. See e.g. Filippov ‘881, Fig. 11. According to paragraphs [0061] and [0123] of Applicant's published Specification, Applicant explains the two claimed interpretations are that the signaled information either represents the last (LP) or first (FP) significant coefficient positions. Likewise, as the prior art explains, the “LAST” significant coefficient is signaled to differentiate between a group of significant (non-zero) coefficients and a group of zeros. Because the prior art convention is to prefer to group the zeros as leading zeros, for natural scenes a reverse scan order is typically selected. Bross, para. [0006]. Notice that the term, “trailing zeros” (using DC position as origin) can flip to the opposite meaning during a reverse scan, changing the “trailing zeros” to “leading zeros” (using scan order as origin). According to one NOT skilled in this art, he would assume the difference between first and last would be significant, i.e. the terms have opposite meaning, so how could they be the same. As Applicant's claim actually demonstrates in using the term, “interpretations,” it is simply an issue of differing semantics, but not actually representative of any technological advancement. Examiner has provided, supra, a diagram of significant coefficients and scanning order for consideration and further explanation. As one can see from the diagram provided by Examiner, when a scan is performed on a certain distribution of transform coefficients in a certain direction, the coefficient designated the “last significant coefficient” can change meaning (i.e. interpretation) to one having limited or no skill in this art. However, because the art uses the term, “last significant coefficient” not for the purpose of actually conveying last vs. first, but rather to convey where the leading or trailing zeros are in the dataset, the “interpretation” of what the “last significant coefficient” means is merely semantic. Regardless of whether the location of the “last significant coefficient” is actually the first or indeed the last according to some convention, the art, and signal processing more generally, is only concerned with conveying the location of demarcation between a string of zero-valued coefficients and non-zero-valued coefficients. As demonstrated in the provided diagram, whether or not it is semantically labeled first or last is not technologically significant because the demarcation is all that matters and is identical across the depicted scenarios. Notice that in the top two scenarios, the zeros are leading zeros. Notice in the bottom two scenarios, the zeros are trailing zeros. Notice that the two scenarios in the right-hand column depict natural images having the same data distribution but differing in scan direction. The cited prior art definitively teaches these scenarios in teaching forward and reverse scan directions (see Final Office Action, explaining Bross's paragraph [0006] teaches non-zeros concentrated in top left and tending to become zero in bottom-right corner). See also Filippov ‘881 Figs. 11 and 12. Fig. 11 shows that after reordering the coefficients according to a scan pattern, the position of the last significant coefficient changes, such that the interpretation of where the last significant coefficient is, changes according to scan pattern and scan direction. Fig. 12 shows different scan patterns, i.e. horizontal and vertical and how data distribution can influence which scan pattern might be better. As explained in Bross's paragraph [0006], an assumption often made is that the scan order (or direction) preferences ordering the group of zero-valued coefficients first (i.e. top-right scenario in Examiner’s diagram), but this convention is arbitrary and the preference could be to order the group of zero-valued coefficients after the significant coefficients. Importantly, Applicant has not demonstrated that anything novel is being presented in this application for patent. Also important, one must realize the universe of possibilities is two, i.e. the position represents either a first significant coefficient or a last significant coefficient, making Applicant's purported solution obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art. Either the last means the last or the last means the first. All Applicant appears to have done is fooled around with the semantic language the art uses to describe these concepts (the prior art demonstrably does not care about the semantics and uses “last significant coefficient” even though it could actually be the first significant coefficient while Applicant needlessly cares about the semantics) and then claims that a new way of describing the old technology amounts to a new technological advancement. Because there is no apparent underlying technical advancement presented by the patent application, the claimed subject matter is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the cited prior art and level of skill in this art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the encoded portion of the video content comprises at least one of a coding unit or a transform unit of the video content (Examiner notes this is extraordinarily basic in this art; Choi, Abstract: teaches transform blocks; Kahu, ¶¶ 0131–0132: teaches transform units and coding units).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the coefficient scan order comprises: determining that the coefficient scans order is one of a forward coefficient scan order or a reverse coefficient scan order (Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches forward and reverse scan orders are possible; Kahu, ¶ 0155: teaches, as side information, a transform skip scenario in which the coefficient scan order is forward instead of reverse when transform skip is not applied).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein decoding the first logical unit of the video content comprises decoding the first logical unit of the video content according to the forward coefficient scan order (Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches forward and reverse scan orders are possible, which would obviously require side information to signal which type to use between encoder and decoder; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size), and performing a forward coefficient scan with respect to the first logical unit of the video content starting with the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value, wherein the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value is a first coded coefficient position (Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches that the purpose of signaling the position of the first significant coefficient in a scan order is to avoid coding leading zeros).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein decoding the first logical unit of the video content comprises decoding the first logical unit of the video content according to the reverse coefficient scan order (Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches forward and reverse scan orders are possible, which would obviously require side information to signal which type to use between encoder and decoder; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size), and performing a reverse coefficient scan with respect to the first logical unit of the video content starting with the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value, wherein the specific one of the coefficient values identified by the first index value is a last coded coefficient position (Bross, ¶ 0006: teaches that the purpose of signaling the position of the first significant coefficient in a scan order is to avoid coding leading zeros and teaches that for the reverse scan the last coefficient is the position being signaled).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the side information comprises determining at least one of: a transform type of the encoded portion of the video content, coding block dimensions of the encoded portion of the video content, a transform unit size of the encoded portion of the video content, a plane type of the encoded portion of the video content, a coding mode of the encoded portion of the video content, or information regarding one or more additional encoded portions of the video content neighboring the encoded portion of the video content (Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches the size of the block can be side information for determining scan order and thus the position of the last significant coefficient; Kahu, ¶ 0155: teaches transform skip or identity transform can indicate no signaling of last coefficient position; see also Kahu, ¶ 0139: teaching the size and prediction mode influence transform kernels and transform kernels influence scan order and scan order influences whether last actually means first or last).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the side information comprises determining that the encoded portion of the video content is encoded according to at least one of a discrete cosine transform (DCT) type, asymmetric discrete sine transform (ADST) type, discrete sine transform (DST) type, flipped DCT type, flipped DST type, or flipped DST type (Kahu, ¶ 0138: teaches flipped transforms like flipped DSTs; see also Kahu, Table 2), and wherein interpreting the one or more FCP syntax comprises determining a sequentially last significant coefficient position of the encoded portion of the video content based on the one or more FCP syntax (Examiner interprets this feature consistent with Applicant’s published paragraph [0056] as the position of the last significant coefficient; Examiner further notes that “last” is an arbitrary term in this art as the “last” significant coefficient is where the conventional coding algorithm “starts” to code the significant coefficients in reverse scan order; Evidence for this finding is provided under Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see particularly Bross, ¶ 0006, used as a dictionary-type reference; Choi, ¶ 0243: teaches signaling a position of a last significant coefficient using a single position value acting as an indexed position within a one-dimensional array; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Choi, Kahu, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the side information comprises determining that the encoded portion of the video content is encoded according to an identity transform type (Kahu, ¶ 0138: teaches flipped transforms like flipped DSTs; see also Kahu, Table 2), and wherein interpreting the one or more FCP syntax comprises determining a sequentially first significant coefficient position of the encoded portion of the video content based on the one or more FCP syntax (Examiner interprets this feature consistent with Applicant’s published paragraph [0056] as the position of the last significant coefficient; Examiner further notes that “last” is an arbitrary term in this art as the “last” significant coefficient is where the conventional coding algorithm “starts” to code the significant coefficients in reverse scan order; Evidence for this finding is provided under Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see particularly Bross, ¶ 0006, used as a dictionary-type reference; Choi, ¶ 0243: teaches signaling a position of a last significant coefficient using a single position value acting as an indexed position within a one-dimensional array; Choi, ¶ 0244: teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size, i.e. side information).
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists essentially the same elements as claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 2025/0024081 A1) teaches signaling a position of a last significant coefficient using a single position value acting as an indexed position within a one-dimensional array (¶ 0243) and teaches positional (x, y, column, row) signaling of the last significant coefficient wherein the position can be assigned according to a reference system of a pre-defined scan order or the reverse of the pre-defined scan order wherein the forward or reverse scan can be determined based on, for example, block size (¶ 0244).
Kahu (US 2023/0283779 A1) teaches the identity transform is identical to transform skip and teaches that both VVC and AV1/AV2 similarly propose modifications to residual coding when transform skip is applied wherein the scan order is the forward scanning order (e.g. ¶¶ 0154–0155).
Chen (US 2025/0055997 A1) teaches coding significant coefficients starts at the last significant coefficient and works backwards to the DC coefficient (¶ 0111).
Buys (US 2024/0015329 A1) teaches coefficient positions can be referenced by their indices (e.g. ¶ 0018).
Jeppe (US 2023/0361914 A1) teaches a “pivot position” that indicates that coefficients before that position are all zero while the coefficients after that position can be made up of non-zero coefficients (¶ 0030).
Koo (US 2021/0105477 A1) teaches the position of a coefficient can be indicated by an index according to a scan order (¶ 0197).
Filippov (US 2020/0404257 A1) teaches row and column indices can indicate a position of a coefficient (¶ 0225).
Filippov (US 2019/0020881 A1) teaches that the skilled artisan would have reason to determine both the first and last non-zero coefficient position indices (¶ 0216).
Bross (US 2023/0007252 A1) teaches the first (last) significant coefficient according to a scan order, teaches it is known that although the art is largely in agreement to use a backward/reverse scan, the skilled artisan knows of many other scan patterns and directions that can be used, and teaches the point of signaling the first (last) coefficient is, “To prevent coding and decoding a sequence of zeros before the first non-zero coefficient.” (e.g. ¶ 0006).
An (US 2017/0188029 A1) teaches flipped DCT means the index of transform coefficients are flipped too (¶ 0019).
Nalci et al., “Transform and Entropy Coding in AV2,” Feb 7, 2026. This publication explains EOB is for a reverse scan and BOB is for a forward scan wherein the goal is to skip preceding zeros (See Section L, page 12). Examiner notes overlapping authorship with the current application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory 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 of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
