CTNF 19/178,394 CTNF 87973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 13 recite the broad recitation “ when it is determined that a neural network in-loop filter (NNLF) is to be applied to a portion of the reconstructed video ”, and the dependent claims 2 and 14 also recite “ the NNLF is determined always applied to an entirety of the video ” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation that contradicts the scope of the previous limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim Construction Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young , 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See, MPEP 2115. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production . If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 20 is rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50). The claims are directed to statutory categories of articles of manufacture (under Step 1). Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to storing data. As noted in the Claim Construction above, patentability of a medium for storing a bitstream does not depend on the process of producing the bitstream. The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information ( a bitstream of a video, ), collecting information (); outputting information ( for storing ), and/or analyzing information (). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA , 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “ A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, ” do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (a general purpose storage medium in not a particular machine); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (storage does not change the nature of data as data). This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. data linked to a video,). Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC , (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016) (Method for recording, transmitting, organizing, and administering digital images is ineligible); In re Lowry , 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Media content does not distinguish the claimed process or apparatus from the substantially identical process or apparatus in the prior art); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. , 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Using profiles in a digital image processing system is ineligible); Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality ( A non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing ). The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) as being anticipated by US 20220321919 to Deshpande (“Deshpande”) also cited in an IDS . Regarding Claim 1: “ A method for decoding a video, comprising: receiving a bitstream of the video; … decoding the bitstream to obtain a reconstructed video; (“A compliant bitstream is a data structure that may be received and decoded by a video decoding device to generate reconstructed video data.” Deshpande, Paragraph 3.) when it is determined that a neural network in-loop filter (NNLF) is to be applied to a portion of the reconstructed video, identifying the NNLF and extracting from the reconstructed video a set of filter parameters associated with the NNLF; and (“determining one or more neural network in-loop filter parameters based on the parsed syntax element; and applying a neural network in-loop filter based on the determined neural network in-loop filter parameters.” Deshpande, Paragraph 7.) applying the NNLF with the set of filter parameters to the portion of the reconstructed video to generate a filtered video portion. ” (“applying a neural network in-loop filter based on the determined neural network in-loop filter parameters.” Deshpande, Paragraph 7.) Regarding Claim 2: “ The method of claim 1, wherein the NNLF is determined always applied to an entirety of the video. ” (See reasons for rejection under section 112(b) above. It is also noted that this claim does not limit the method to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art provides an example: “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … In particular, JVET-T2001 includes the following four types of parameter sets: video parameter set (VPS),” which indicates methods that apply to the entire video. Deshpande, Paragraphs 32, 66. See similarly in Tavakoli, Paragraph 285.) Regarding Claim 3: “ The method of clam 1, further comprising extracting a signaling information item from the bitstream which indicates whether the NNLF is to be applied to the portion of the reconstructed video. ” (For example, : “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … receiving an adaptation parameter set syntax structure; parsing one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information … an APS applies to zero or more slices,” which are portions of the reconstructed video. Deshpande, Paragraphs 32, 7, 66. See similarly in Tavakoli, Paragraph 50.) Regarding Claim 4: “ The method of claim 3, wherein the signaling information item is included in a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS), a Picture Parameter Set (PPS), a Sequence Header (SH), a Picture Header (PH), or Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) in the bitstream. ” (“signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … JVET-T2001 includes the following four types of parameter sets: video parameter set (VPS), sequence parameter set (SPS), picture parameter set (PPS), and adaption parameter set ( APS),” Deshpande, Paragraphs 7, 66. Also note that “an ID enables using an NN signaled in an adaptation parameter set, by signaling the ID of the adaptation parameter set in a slice header or a picture header.” Tavakoli, Paragraphs 50, 280.) Regarding Claim 5: “ The method of claim 1, wherein whether the NNLF is to be applied to the portion of the reconstructed video is controlled by an output of at least one VCM (Video Coding for Machine) processing module applied to the bitstream. ” (First, note that this claim language describes a preference for an operation of an encoder, but does not limit the method of Claim 1 to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches video coding for machines embodied in a video encoder “signaling one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information in an adaptation parameter set syntax structure … The process for applying the ALF specified in JEM at a video encoder …” as noted in Deshpande, Paragraphs 6, 32 and Fig. 1. Regarding Claim 6: “ The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one VCM processing module comprises one or more of a Region of Interest (Roi) processing module, a bit depth truncation module, a spatial sampling module, or temporal sampling module. ” (Note that this claim language appears to describe intended features of an encoder but does not limit the method for decoding to performing particular steps. Cumulatively, prior art teaches elements of video encoder as noted in the quantization unit that performs bit depth truncation, an intra-prediction unit that performs spatial sampling, an inter-prediction unit that performs temporal sampling. Deshpande, Fig. 5 and Paragraph 268. Cumulatively see “how to optimize the down-sampling, encoding, and/or up-sampling to maximize coding efficiency in Deshpande, Paragraph 33. Also see an example of “a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest of a picture” Deshpande, Paragraphs 65, 21.) Regarding Claim 7: “ The method of claim 5, wherein whether the NNLF is to be applied to the portion of the reconstructed video is determined at a sequence or sub-sequence level. ” (Again, note that this claim language describes a preferred result but does not clearly limit the method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … JVET-T2001 includes the following four types of parameter sets: video parameter set (VPS), sequence parameter set (SPS), picture parameter set (PPS), and adaption parameter set ( APS),” which are sub-sequence level parameter sets. Deshpande, Paragraphs 7, 66. Also note that “an ID enables using an NN signaled in an adaptation parameter set, by signaling the ID of the adaptation parameter set in a slice header or a picture header,” which are also sub-sequence level parameter sets. Tavakoli, Paragraphs 50, 280.) Regarding Claim 8: “ The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one VCM processing module comprises an Roi processing module and (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: VCM embodied in elements of video encoder as noted in the quantization unit that performs bit depth truncation, an intra-prediction unit that performs spatial sampling, an inter-prediction unit that performs temporal sampling. Deshpande, Fig. 5 and Paragraph 268.) the NNLF is or is not applied to a sequence or subsequence when a total Roi space of each frame within the sequence or subsequence is greater or less than a predetermined Roi space threshold, respectively. ” (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Regarding Claim 9: “ The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one VCM processing module comprises an Roi processing module and (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: VCM embodied in elements of video encoder as noted in the quantization unit that performs bit depth truncation, an intra-prediction unit that performs spatial sampling, an inter-prediction unit that performs temporal sampling. Deshpande, Fig. 5 and Paragraph 268.) the NNLF is or is not applied to a sequence or subsequence when Roi space of majority of frames within the sequence or subsequence is greater or less than a predetermined Roi space threshold, respectively. ” (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Regarding Claim 10: “ The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one VCM processing module comprises an Roi processing module and (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: VCM embodied in elements of video encoder as noted in the quantization unit that performs bit depth truncation, an intra-prediction unit that performs spatial sampling, an inter-prediction unit that performs temporal sampling. Deshpande, Fig. 5 and Paragraph 268.) the NNLF is or is not applied to a sequence or subsequence when Roi space of at least one of frames within the sequence or subsequence is greater or smaller than a predetermined Roi space threshold, respectively. ” (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Regarding Claim 11: “ The method of claim 5, wherein whether the NNLF is to be applied to the portion of the reconstructed video is determined at a frame or slice level. ” (“signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … JVET-T2001 includes the following four types of parameter sets: video parameter set (VPS), sequence parameter set (SPS), picture [frame] parameter set (PPS), and adaption parameter set ( APS),” which are sub-sequence level parameter sets. Deshpande, Paragraphs 7, 66. Also note that “an ID enables using an NN signaled in an adaptation parameter set, by signaling the ID of the adaptation parameter set in a slice header or a picture [frame] header .” Tavakoli, Paragraphs 50, 280.) Regarding Claim 12: “ The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one VCM processing module comprises an Roi processing module and (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: VCM embodied in elements of video encoder as noted in the quantization unit that performs bit depth truncation, an intra-prediction unit that performs spatial sampling, an inter-prediction unit that performs temporal sampling. Deshpande, Fig. 5 and Paragraph 268.) the NNLF is or is not applied to a frame or slice when Roi space of the frame or slice is greater or smaller than a predetermined Roi space threshold, respectively. ” (Again, note that this appears to describe desired features of an encoder but does not limit the decoding method claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Claim 13: “ A method for processing a video, ” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “ encoding a portion of the video as part of an encoded bitstream; (“A video encoder may perform predictive encoding on video blocks and sub-divisions thereof” Deshpande, Paragraphs 16-17.) reconstructing the encoded portion of the video in an in-loop process to generate a reconstructed portion of the video; (“A compliant bitstream is a data structure that may be received and decoded by a video decoding device to generate reconstructed video data. … a method of applying a neural network in-loop filter to reconstructed video comprises: … and applying a neural network in-loop filter based on the determined neural network in-loop filter parameters.” Deshpande, Paragraphs 3, 7.) Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 13 rejection. Regarding Claim 15: “ The method of claim 13, further comprising including in the encoded bitstream a signaling information item for indicating whether the NNLF is applied in the in-loop process. ” (For example, : “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video);“. Deshpande, Paragraphs 32, 7, 66. See similarly in Tavakoli, Paragraph 50.) Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 13 rejection. Regarding Claim 17: “ The method of claim 15, wherein whether the NNLF is applied to the reconstructed portion of the video is controlled by an output of at least one VCM processing module applied to the reconstructed portion of the video in the in-loop process. ” (First, note that this claim language describes intended result of an operation, but does not specify that this operation is performed by the claimed method or limit the method to performing a particular step. Cumulatively, prior art teaches video coding for machines embodied in a video encoder “signaling one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information in an adaptation parameter set syntax structure … The process for applying the ALF specified in JEM at a video encoder …” as noted in Deshpande, Paragraphs 6, 32 and Fig. 1.) Regarding Claim 18: “ The method of claim 17, wherein: whether the NNLF is applied to the reconstructed portion of the video is determined at a sequence or sub-sequence level; and (See reasons for rejection in Claims 7-9.) the method further comprising determining to apply the NNLF and including a corresponding signaling indicator in the encoded bitstream for the sequence or subsequence (For example, : “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … receiving an adaptation parameter set syntax structure; parsing one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information … an APS applies to zero or more slices,” which are portions of the reconstructed video. Deshpande, Paragraphs 32, 7, 66. See similarly in Tavakoli, Paragraph 50.) when: … a total Roi space of each frame within the sequence or subsequence is greater than a predetermined Roi space threshold; … when Roi space of majority of frames within the sequence or subsequence is greater than a predetermined Roi space threshold; or …when Roi space of at least one of frames within the sequence or subsequence is greater than a predetermined Roi space threshold. ” (“It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Regarding Claim 19: “ The method of claim 17, wherein: whether the NNLF is applied to the reconstructed portion of the video is determined at a level of a frame or slice; and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 11.) the method further comprising determining to apply the NNLF and including a corresponding signaling indicator in the encoded bitstream (For example, : “signaled: whether an NN ILF is on or off (at various level of video); … receiving an adaptation parameter set syntax structure; parsing one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information … an APS applies to zero or more slices,” which are portions of the reconstructed video. Deshpande, Paragraphs 32, 7, 66. See similarly in Tavakoli, Paragraph 50.) for the frame or slice when a total Roi space of the frame or slice is greater than a predetermined Roi space threshold. ” (“It should be noted that subpictures may be useful for encapsulating regions of interest within a picture and a sub-bitstream extraction process may be used to only decode and display a particular region of interest.” Deshpande, Paragraph 66, 22, and Fig. 2. As noted in Fig. 2, regions of interest are embodied as subpictures which have particular sizes, which are necessarily greater or less than a predetermined threshold.) Claim 20: “ A non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a bitstream of a video, the bitstream comprising … ” is rejected for reasons stated under section 101 above, for reasons stated for Claim 13 and because prior art teaches: “video encoder 500 represents an example of a device configured to signal one or more syntax elements providing neural network in-loop filter information in an adaptation parameter set syntax structure … transmit and/or store the data to a communications medium. … Storage devices may include any type of device or storage medium capable of storing data.” Deshpande, Paragraphs 352-353, 360, 260.) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220256227 to Tavakoli (“Tavakoli”) that teaches similar and variant embodiments of the claimed inventions. See citations above. US 12323608 to Li (“Li”) that teaches variant embodiments relevant to using neural networks for loop filtering during video coding. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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. /MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 2 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 3 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 4 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 5 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 6 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 7 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 8 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 9 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 10 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 11 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 12 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 13 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 14 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 15 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 16 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 17 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 18 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/178,394 Page 19 Art Unit: 2483
Prosecution Insights