Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
I. 11,800,109
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,109. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 11,800,109 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A method comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
determining a first position of a non-overlapping region in the picture based on a first scan order; dividing a picture into a first sub-picture and a second sub-picture;
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (11,800,919 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
generating a first coded sub-picture by at least coding the first sub-picture based on the second position of the non-overlapping region;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (11,800,919 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 50–60 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
determining a second position of the non-overlapping region in the first sub-picture based on the first position and based on a second scan order;
generating a second coded sub-picture by at least coding the second sub-picture in parallel with the coding of the first sub-picture;
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (11,800,919 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at col. 4, ln. 1–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
encoding the first coded sub-picture into a bit stream; and
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
encoding the second coded sub-picture into the bit stream sequentially with the encoding the first coded sub-picture.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–20 of US 11,800,109, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
II. 11,425,383
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,425,383. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 10 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 11,425,383 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A system, comprising: a memory; one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
determine a position for each non-overlapping region in a frame in a first sub-frame scan order, the first sub-frame scan order being based on a position of each non-overlapping region in the frame, the frame comprising:
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (11,425,383 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
a first sub-frame having a first set of non-overlapping regions; a second sub-frame having a second set of non-overlapping regions; and
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (11,425,383 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 49–59 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
determine a sub-frame position of a single non-overlapping region from the frame position of the single non-overlapping region by:
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (11,425,383 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at col. 4, ln. 1–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
determining a sub-frame from the first sub-frame or the second sub-frame that contains the single non-overlapping region; and
determining the sub-frame position of the single non-overlapping region based on a second sub-frame scan order,
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
the second sub-frame scan order based on the position of the single non-overlapping region in the determined sub-frame.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–8 of US 11,425,383, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
III. US 10,939,113
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,939,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 10 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 10,939,113 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory configured to store a bit stream for a picture, the picture comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
the bit stream comprising: data for each non-overlapping block in the first set of non-overlapping blocks in a first sub-picture scan order,
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (10,939,113 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
a first sub-picture comprising a first set of non-overlapping blocks; and a second sub-picture comprising a second set of non-overlapping blocks; and
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (10,939,113 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 50–60 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
the first subpicture-scan order being based on the position of each non-overlapping block of the first set of non-overlapping blocks in the first sub-picture; and
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (10,939,113 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at col. 4, ln. 1–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
following the data for each non-overlapping block in the first set of non-overlapping blocks in the first sub-picture scan order, data for each non-overlapping block in the second set of non-overlapping blocks in a second sub-picture scan order,
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
the second subpicture-scan order being based on the position of the each non-overlapping block of the second set of non-overlapping blocks in the second sub-picture.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–26 of US 10,939,113, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
IV. US 10,623,741
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,741. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 10 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 10,623,741 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A method for sub-picture based raster scanning coding order, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
dividing a picture into a plurality of non-overlapping blocks;
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (10,623,741 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
grouping the non-overlapping blocks into a plurality of sub-pictures;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (10,623,741 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 45–55 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
coding of a first of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a first processing core and coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a second processing core,
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (10,623,741 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at cols. 3–4, lns. 65–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
wherein the coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-picture is performed in parallel; and
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
encoding the plurality of sub-pictures sequentially into a bit stream upon completion of the coding wherein the non-overlapping blocks in each of the plurality of sub-pictures is encoded in a raster scan order.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–19 of US 10,623,741, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
V. US 10,574,992
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,574,992. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 10 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 10,574,992 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A method for sub-picture based raster scanning coding order, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
dividing a picture into a plurality of non overlapping blocks;
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (10,574,992 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
partitioning the non overlapping blocks into a plurality of sub-pictures with sub- picture boundaries;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (10,574,992 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 45–55 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
coding of a first of the plurality of the sub-pictures and
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (10,574,992 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at cols. 3–4, lns. 65–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures such that the coding of the first sub-picture and the coding of the second sub-picture is independent around the sub-picture boundaries;
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
coding of the first sub-picture and the coding of the second sub-picture in parallel; and
encoding the first and second sub-pictures sequentially into a bit stream upon completion of the coding wherein each of the first and second sub-pictures is encoded in a raster scan order.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–5 of US 10,574,992, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
VI. US 10,110,901
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,110,901. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 10,110,901 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A method for sub-picture based raster scanning coding order, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
dividing a picture into a plurality of non overlapping blocks;
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (10,110,901 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
grouping the non overlapping blocks into a plurality of sub-pictures with sub-picture boundaries;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (10,110,901 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 41–51 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
coding of a first of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a first processing core and
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (10,110,901 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at cols. 3–4, lns. 60–5 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a second processing core wherein the coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-pictures is independent around the sub-picture boundaries, and
wherein the coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-picture is performed in parallel; and
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
encoding the plurality of sub-pictures sequentially into a bit stream upon completion of the coding wherein the non overlapping blocks in each of said plurality of sub-pictures is encoded in a raster scan order.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–10 of US 10,110,901, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
VII. US 8,988,531
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,988,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 8,988,531 Claim 1
A system comprising:
A method for sub-picture based raster scanning coding order, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture, wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
dividing a picture into a plurality of non overlapping macroblocks;
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions, wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (8,988,531 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
partitioning the non overlapping macroblocks into a plurality of sub-pictures with sub-picture boundaries;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (8,988,531 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 40–50 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
coding of a first of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a first processing core and
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and (8,988,531 teaches that “each core is designed to deal with real-time encoding/decoding of the sub-picture of largest size” at col. 3, ln. 50–65 recognizing the explicit similarities between encoding and decoding)
coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a second processing core wherein the coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-pictures is independent around the sub-picture boundaries, and
wherein the coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-picture is performed in parallel; and
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
encoding the plurality of sub-pictures sequentially into a bit stream upon completion of the coding wherein each of said plurality of sub-pictures is encoded in a raster scan order.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 2–7 of US 8,988,531, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
VIII. 12,192,465
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,465. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 4 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
US 19/010,695 Claim 1
US 12,192,465 Claim 4
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture,
a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture; and one or more processors configured to:
wherein the picture includes a first sub-picture including a first set of non- overlapping regions,
determine a first position for a single non-overlapping region in the picture based on a first scan order,
wherein the picture includes a second sub-picture including a second set of non-overlapping regions,
wherein the picture includes: a first sub-picture having a first set of non-overlapping regions; and
wherein the first sub-picture is a left adjacent neighbor of the second sub- picture, and (12,192,465 teaches vertical sub-picture boundaries in Figs. 2(b)-2(d) where the first sub-picture is “a left adjacent neighbor” of the second sub-picture)
a second sub-picture having a second set of non-overlapping regions;
wherein data for the first set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream immediately precedes data for the second set of non-overlapping regions in the bit stream; and (12,192,465 teaches the scan order as “raster-scan order” at col. 1, ln. 54–64 where the first set “immediately precedes” the second set)
determine that the first sub-picture contains the single non-overlapping region; and
determine a second position of the single non-overlapping region in the first sub-picture based on the first position and based on a second scan order,
wherein the second scan order is based on a position of the single non-overlapping region in the first sub-picture.
one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: decode the data for the first set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream; and
wherein the one or more processors include: a first processing core configured to decode the first sub-picture; and
decode the data for the second set of non-overlapping regions from the bit stream.
a second processing core configured to decode the second sub-picture in parallel with the second processing core decoding the second sub-picture.
Claims 2–20 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claims 1–3 and 5–20 of US 12,192,465, respectively, and are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426