DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This written action is responding to the Amendment dated 06/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 13-14 are submitted for examination.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 13-14 are pending.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed on June 9, 2026, has claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 13-14 submitted for examination.
Applicant’s remark, filed on June 9, 2026, at pages 2-4, indicates, “… Applicant respectfully traverses the foregoing rejections based on the grounds as set forth in detail below. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Nagasawa, Fukui, and Inui fails to render obvious at least the features of "notify a user that the authority division is not performed in the second apparatus in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are all the same" and "transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus, in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same" in claim 1. … the claimed invention recites "... authority holders ... of the second apparatus are all the same", thereby indicating that the authority holders within the single apparatus are the same. In addition, Nagasawa throughout the entire disclosure does not disclose or teach that the setting information/setting items of the single apparatus are the same. Therefore, Nagasawa does not disclose the feature of "notify a user that the authority division is not performed in the second apparatus in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are all the same" in claim 1. … in Inui, the user changes the settings of the input/output device of the apparatus 10 rather than changing the settings of the authority holders of the input/output device of the apparatus 10. It is respectfully submitted that the concepts of "authority holders" and "the input/output device" are different from each other. In addition, Inui does not teach or suggest changing the authority holders of the input/output device of the apparatus 10. By contrast, the claimed invention indicates that the authority holders are different (i.e., the feature "respective authority holders ...are not all the same"). Therefore, Inui does not disclose the feature of "transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus, in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same" in claim 1. For the above rationales, claim 1 is non-obvious and patentable over the prior arts of record. Withdrawal of the rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.”
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not found persuasive. After carefully reviewing the applied combination of references, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, as follows:
Examiner acknowledges that Nagasawa does not expressly disclose notify a user that the authority division is not performed in the second apparatus. However, Nagasawa does disclose an information processing system in which setting information of a user is transferred from one information processing apparatus to another information processing apparatus so that the setting information of the two apparatuses is the same and not when the settings are assigned to different users. Specifically, col. 4, lines 39-44 of Nagasawa teaches, “… processing apparatus 20-N transfers the setting information of each user from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) to the information processing apparatus 20-N by an administering user of the information processing apparatus 20-N ….”. In addition, in col. 5, lines 14-25, Nagasawa teaches “The CPU 1000 functions as a transfer instruction information setting unit 200, a storage location pointer setting unit 210, and an apparatus-specific setting updating unit 220, in accordance with a portion of a transfer program for transferring the setting information, where this portion is operating while the user having administrator authority is logged in. … a setting information updating unit 260 and a specific file transfer unit 270”. Therefore, Examiner submits that the transfer process from one apparatus to another is interpreted as setting the same authority setting items on each apparatus, therefore authority division is not performed because the settings are the same. Additionally, disclosure in parag. [0098] of Fukui describes how the transmission of settings is carried out to the second device. Therefore, Fukui discloses “transmitting the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus”. Therefore, the examiner submits that the combination of Nagasawa, Fukui, and Inui teaches the features claimed at independent claim 1 and would still renders the amended claim features obvious.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for independent claims 13-14. Please refer to the aforementioned response in item 7, which addresses how the combination of prior-art references by Nagasawa, Fukui, and Inui would render the claimed limitations obvious.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for dependent claims. Please refer to the aforementioned response, which addresses how the combination of prior-art references by Nagasawa, Fukui, and Inui, would render the claimed limitations obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa et al. (US 7,571,462) hereinafter Nagasawa in view of Fukui et al. (JP 200446366A) hereinafter Fukui and further in view of Inui et al. (JP 4270376) hereinafter Inui.
As per Claim 1, Nagasawa teaches an information processing apparatus (Nagasawa, Col. 4, lines 29-32; “FIG. 1 shows a configuration of an information processing system 10, according to an embodiment of the invention. The information processing system 10 includes information processing apparatuses 20-1 to 20-N”) comprising:
a processor (Nagasawa, Col. 5, lines 6-7; “CPU”) configured to:
acquire authority setting information [indicating an authority holder who has an authority for each of a plurality of first authority setting items], for a first apparatus that is one of a plurality of authority setting target apparatuses (Nagasawa, Col. 2, lines 54-56; “In one embodiment, the information processing apparatus may also include a login user setting information acquiring unit and/or a setting information updating unit.” … Col. 3, lines 1-4; “A system of an embodiment of the invention includes a first information processing apparatus of a first user, and a second information processing apparatus to replace the first information processing apparatus of the first user.” … Col. 4, lines 29-39; “FIG. 1 shows a configuration of an information processing system 10, according to an embodiment of the invention. The information processing system 10 includes information processing apparatuses 20-1 to 20-N, a management server 30, and a transfer file database (DB) 40. The information processing apparatus 20-N (i.e., second apparatus) is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer destination to which setting information for setting up an operating environment for each user is transferred from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) (i.e., first apparatus), which is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer source.”);
acquire [a plurality of second authority setting items for which authorities are able to be set], for a second apparatus that is an apparatus other than the first apparatus, among the plurality of authority setting target apparatuses (Nagasawa, Col. 2, lines 54-56; “In one embodiment, the information processing apparatus may also include a login user setting information acquiring unit and/or a setting information updating unit.” … Col. 3, lines 1-4; “A system of an embodiment of the invention includes a first information processing apparatus of a first user, and a second information processing apparatus to replace the first information processing apparatus of the first user.” … Col. 4, lines 29-39; “FIG. 1 shows a configuration of an information processing system 10, according to an embodiment of the invention. The information processing system 10 includes information processing apparatuses 20-1 to 20-N, a management server 30, and a transfer file database (DB) 40. The information processing apparatus 20-N (i.e., second apparatus) is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer destination to which setting information for setting up an operating environment for each user is transferred from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) (i.e., first apparatus), which is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer source.”);
in a case where respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are set to the authority holders of the first authority setting items corresponding to the second authority setting items, shown in the authority setting information (Nagasawa, Col. 4, lines 39-44; “In addition, the information processing apparatus 20-N transfers the setting information of each user from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) to the information processing apparatus 20-N by an administering user of the information processing apparatus 20-N without requiring each user to do complicated work.” … Col. 5, lines 14-25; “The CPU 1000 functions as a transfer instruction information setting unit 200, a storage location pointer setting unit 210, and an apparatus-specific setting updating unit 220, in accordance with a portion of a transfer program for transferring the setting information, where this portion is operating while the user having administrator authority is logged in. Moreover, the CPU 1000 functions as a login process determination unit 230 and a rule setting information setting unit 240 by the operating system. Furthermore, the CPU 1000 functions as a login user setting information acquiring unit 250, a setting information updating unit 260 and a specific file transfer unit 270”, [determine whether the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus has authority division, wherein the authority division indicates that the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are divided among different authority holders];
[notify a user] that the authority division is not performed in the second apparatus in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are all the same (Nagasawa, Col. 4, lines 39-44; “In addition, the information processing apparatus 20-N transfers the setting information of each user from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) to the information processing apparatus 20-N by an administering user of the information processing apparatus 20-N without requiring each user to do complicated work.” … Col. 5, lines 14-25; “The CPU 1000 functions as a transfer instruction information setting unit 200, a storage location pointer setting unit 210, and an apparatus-specific setting updating unit 220, in accordance with a portion of a transfer program for transfer ring the setting information, where this portion is operating while the user having administrator authority is logged in. Moreover, the CPU 1000 functions as a login process determination unit 230 and a rule setting information setting unit 240 by the operating system. Furthermore, the CPU 1000 functions as a login user setting information acquiring unit 250, a setting information updating unit 260 and a specific file transfer unit 270” Examiner submits that the transfer process from one apparatus to another is interpreted as setting the same authority setting items on each apparatus, therefore authority division is not performed because the settings are the same.); and
[transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus, in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same].
Nagasawa does not expressly teach:
a processor configured
… indicating an authority holder who has an authority for each of a plurality of first authority setting items,
… a plurality of second authority setting items for which authorities are able to be set,
determine whether the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus has authority division, wherein the authority division indicates that the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are divided among different authority holders;
notify a user …
transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus, in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same.
However, Fukui teaches:
… indicating an authority holder who has an authority for each of a plurality of first authority setting items (Fukui, Abstract; “service providing system includes a first use authority setting system including an authentication server, a first printer device, a first information processing terminal, and a first setting device.” … Parag. [0009]; “The setting information stored in the use right setting information storage means can be read by the use right setting means, and the use right setting means uses the system user for the service providing apparatus based on the read use right setting information. Authority can be set.” … Parag. [0012]; “The use authority setting information is information for setting the use authority of the system user for the service providing apparatus. The use authority is, for example, if the service providing apparatus is a printer, the system use requesting the service is used. This information indicates whether a user can use this printer device.” … Parag. [0036]; “According to a twelfth aspect of the present invention, in the usage right setting system according to any one of the first to eleventh aspects, the usage right setting information includes an owner of the service providing apparatus and other information.”),
… a plurality of second authority setting items for which authorities are able to be set (Fukui, Abstract; “A second use authority setting system including a second printer device 13, a second information processing terminal 14, a virtual object management server 15, and a second setting device 19.” … Parag. [0066]; “The short-range wireless communication unit 13a reads from the second setting device 19 setting information for setting the use authority of the system user for the second printer device 13 in the second use authority setting system.” … Parag. [0067]; “The use authority setting unit 13b is for setting the use authority of the system user for the second printer device 13 based on the use authority setting information read from the second setting device.”),
determine whether the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus has authority division, wherein the authority division indicates that the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are divided among different authority holders (Fukui, Parag. [0063]; “The use authority setting database 10c is a database that stores the contents of the use authority set in the use authority setting unit 10b. The settings can be detected. Further, in this database, the use authority of the first printer device 11 for the system user in the use authority setting system different from the first use authority setting system is set and stored in advance.” … Parag. [0067]; “The use authority setting unit 13b is for setting the use authority of the system user for the second printer device 13 based on the use authority setting information read from the second setting device. Here, the use authority setting information includes information in which information of a system user is associated with an ID used on a network, and further, these system users use the second printer device 13. This includes information on use authority such as whether or not it is possible. The present invention is not limited to this. For example, other information such as information indicating the relationship between the owner of the second printer device 13 and the system user may be included, and the use authority may be set based on the information.” … Parag. [0069]; “The use authority setting database 13e is a database that stores the contents of the use authority set in the use authority setting unit 13b, and uses the read identification information as a keyword to convert the use authority information stored in the database into a system of the identification information. It is possible to detect the setting contents of the use authority for the user. Further, the database also stores the setting contents of the use authority of the second printer device 13 for the system user in the use authority setting system different from the first use authority setting system.”)
transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus (Fukui, Parag. [0098]; “When the process proceeds to step S1108, an instruction is given to the second setting device to transmit the use authority setting information to the second printer device 13, and the process proceeds to step S1100.”)
Nagasawa and Fukui are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a method for secure management of authority settings in an information processing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fukui system into Nagasawa system, with a motivation to acquire the settings assigned to an authority holder (Fukui, Parag. [0036])
The combination of Nagasawa and Fukui does not expressly teach:
a processor configured to …
notify a user …
… in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same.
However, Inui teaches:
a processor configured (Inui, Page 3, line 8; information processor 10) to …
notify a user (Inui, Abstract; “An assistance program (i.e., authority division) which assists a user of an information processing apparatus in operating the apparatus causes the information processing apparatus to function as a detection mechanism for detecting whether or not a setting of a set of input/output devices has been changed within a reference time period. The assistance program further causes the information processing apparatus to function as a notification mechanism for conditionally notifying the user that the user can change the setting of the input/output devices. One such notification condition exists where no setting of the input/output devices has changed (i.e., settings are the same) in the reference period.” … Page 2, Parag. 4; “The central processing unit 100 includes a detection unit 200 and a notification unit 210. That is, the support program installed and executed in the information processing apparatus 10 causes the central processing unit 100 of the information processing apparatus 10 to function as the detection unit 200 and the notification unit 210. The detection unit 200 detects whether or not the setting of the input/output device of the information processing apparatus 10 has been changed within a predetermined reference period. Then, when the setting of the input/output device is not changed within the reference period, the notification unit 210 notifies the user that the setting of the input/output device can be changed.”).
[transmit the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items to the second apparatus], in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are not all the same (Inui, Abstract; “An assistance program (i.e., authority division) which assists a user of an information processing apparatus in operating the apparatus causes the information processing apparatus to function as a detection mechanism for detecting whether or not a setting of a set of input/output devices has been changed within a reference time period. The assistance program further causes the information processing apparatus to function as a notification mechanism for conditionally notifying the user that the user can change the setting of the input/output devices. One such notification condition exists where no setting of the input/output devices has changed (i.e., settings are the same) in the reference period.” … Page 2, Parag. 4; “The central processing unit 100 includes a detection unit 200 and a notification unit 210. That is, the support program installed and executed in the information processing apparatus 10 causes the central processing unit 100 of the information processing apparatus 10 to function as the detection unit 200 and the notification unit 210. The detection unit 200 detects whether or not the setting of the input/output device of the information processing apparatus 10 has been changed within a predetermined reference period. Then, when the setting of the input/output device is not changed within the reference period, the notification unit 210 notifies the user that the setting of the input/output device can be changed.” … Page 8, Parag. 2; “If the operating system does not give the user the authority to change the setting of the input/output device or the like, the above processing need not be performed. At this time, if the authority to change the setting is set for each input/output device, it is desirable to determine whether or not to perform the above processing for each input/output device according to this authority.” … Page 8, Parag. 5; “When the setting is changed (S410: YES), the detection unit 200 ends the process. In this case, when the reference period elapses without the setting being changed in the future, the detection unit 200 may cause the user to input whether to notify the fact.” Examiner submits that when a user changes the settings is interpreted as the setting items on the apparatus are different.).
Nagasawa, Fukui and Inui are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a method for secure management of authority settings in an information processing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Inui system into Nagasawa-Fukui system, with a motivation to notifying to the user apparatus information regarding the settings applied or not to a device/apparatus (Inui, Abstract).
As per claim 3, the combination of Nagasawa, Fukui and Inui teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, from the user who has received the notification, a correction authority setting instruction indicating a corrected authority holder of each of the plurality of first authority setting items, and [notify again the user] that the authority division is not performed in the second apparatus, in a case where the respective authority holders of the second authority setting items of the second apparatus are set to the authority holders of the first authority setting items corresponding to the second authority setting items, shown in the correction authority setting instruction, and in a case where the respective authority holders of the plurality of second authority setting items of the second apparatus are all the same (Nagasawa, Col. 4, lines 39-44; “In addition, the information processing apparatus 20-N transfers the setting information of each user from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) to the information processing apparatus 20-N by an administering user of the information processing apparatus 20-N without requiring each user to do complicated work.” … Col. 5, lines 14-25; “The CPU 1000 functions as a transfer instruction information setting unit 200, a storage location pointer setting unit 210, and an apparatus-specific setting updating unit 220, in accordance with a portion of a transfer program for transfer ring the setting information, where this portion is operating while the user having administrator authority is logged in. Moreover, the CPU 1000 functions as a login process determination unit 230 and a rule setting information setting unit 240 by the operating system. Furthermore, the CPU 1000 functions as a login user setting information acquiring unit 250, a setting information updating unit 260 and a specific file transfer unit 270” Examiner submits that the transfer process from one apparatus to another is interpreted as setting the same authority setting items on each apparatus, therefore authority division is not performed because the settings are the same.).
In addition, Inui teaches:
notify a user (Inui, Abstract; “An assistance program (i.e., authority division) which assists a user of an information processing apparatus in operating the apparatus causes the information processing apparatus to function as a detection mechanism for detecting whether or not a setting of a set of input/output devices has been changed within a reference time period. The assistance program further causes the information processing apparatus to function as a notification mechanism for conditionally notifying the user that the user can change the setting of the input/output devices. One such notification condition exists where no setting of the input/output devices has changed (i.e., settings are the same) in the reference period.” … Page 2, Parag. 4; “The central processing unit 100 includes a detection unit 200 and a notification unit 210. That is, the support program installed and executed in the information processing apparatus 10 causes the central processing unit 100 of the information processing apparatus 10 to function as the detection unit 200 and the notification unit 210. The detection unit 200 detects whether or not the setting of the input/output device of the information processing apparatus 10 has been changed within a predetermined reference period. Then, when the setting of the input/output device is not changed within the reference period, the notification unit 210 notifies the user that the setting of the input/output device can be changed.”).
As per claim 7, the combination of Nagasawa, Fukui and Inui teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Nagasawa teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is the first apparatus (Nagasawa, Col. 2, lines 54-56; “In one embodiment, the information processing apparatus may also include a login user setting information acquiring unit and/or a setting information updating unit.” … Col. 3, lines 1-4; “A system of an embodiment of the invention includes a first information processing apparatus of a first user, and a second information processing apparatus to replace the first information processing apparatus of the first user.” … Col. 4, lines 29-39; “FIG. 1 shows a configuration of an information processing system 10, according to an embodiment of the invention. The information processing system 10 includes information processing apparatuses 20-1 to 20-N, a management server 30, and a transfer file database (DB) 40. The information processing apparatus 20-N (i.e., second apparatus) is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer destination to which setting information for setting up an operating environment for each user is transferred from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) (i.e., first apparatus), which is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer source.”).
As per claim 9, the combination of Nagasawa, Fukui and Inui teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Nagasawa further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is the first apparatus (Nagasawa, Col. 2, lines 54-56; “In one embodiment, the information processing apparatus may also include a login user setting information acquiring unit and/or a setting information updating unit.” … Col. 3, lines 1-4; “A system of an embodiment of the invention includes a first information processing apparatus of a first user, and a second information processing apparatus to replace the first information processing apparatus of the first user.” … Col. 4, lines 29-39; “FIG. 1 shows a configuration of an information processing system 10, according to an embodiment of the invention. The information processing system 10 includes information processing apparatuses 20-1 to 20-N, a management server 30, and a transfer file database (DB) 40. The information processing apparatus 20-N (i.e., second apparatus) is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer destination to which setting information for setting up an operating environment for each user is transferred from the information processing apparatus 20-(N-1) (i.e., first apparatus), which is an information processing apparatus that is a transfer source.”).
As per claim 13, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recites similar limitations as independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 1.
As per claim 14, it is a method claim that recites similar limitations as independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishikawa (JP 6379953) relates to a processing device having a plurality of functions that use image data, a processing device, a processing system including one or a plurality of connection devices communicably connected to the processing device, an authority setting method executed in the processing device, In addition, the present invention relates to a program installed in a computer of a processing device.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALEX D CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/A.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights