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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment to RCE filed on 8/29/2025 to the Application filed on 10/19/2022.
This application claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. JP2021-177389 filed on 10/29/2021.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-18 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “in response to detecting by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the single window mode, controlling such that the object acceptance area is not displayed”. The “in response to” clause indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitation followed by “in response to” clause does not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to the “in response to” clause. For example, in claim 1, examiner suggests “detecting by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the single window mode, controlling such that the object acceptance area is not displayed, in response to detecting by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the single window mode, controlling such that the object acceptance area is not displayed”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “detecting a sharing operation of an object which cannot be handled by the second application is performed in the object acceptance area, and in response to detecting a sharing operation of an object which cannot be handled by the second application, displaying a confirmation screen to cancel sharing of the object”.
The “in response to” clause indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitation followed by “in response to” clause does not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to the “in response to” clause. For example, in claim 11, examiner suggests “detecting a sharing operation of an object which cannot be handled by the second application is performed in the object acceptance area, and in response to detecting a sharing operation of [[an]] the object which cannot be handled by the second application, displaying a confirmation screen to cancel sharing of the object”.
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 (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.
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, 15 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120289290 filed on 5/14/2012 (hereinafter Chae) in view of Choi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150012830, filed on 7/2/2014 (hereinafter Choi).
As for independent claim 1, Chae discloses apparatus and method of controlling an information processing apparatus that executes a first application and a second application different from the first application, the method comprising:
(Chae paragraph [0068] discloses executing a first application, first application window 200, as shown in fig. 3(A) and second application 300 as shown in fig. 3 (F))
activating the second application either (i) in a single window mode, wherein after the second application is activated in the single window mode the first application is activated in a multi-window mode, or (ii) in the multi-window mode, wherein before the second application is activated the first application is activated in the single window mode;
(Chae paragraph [0057] discloses activating second application in the multi-window mode, before second application 300 is activated as shown in fig 3(f), the first application 200 is activated in a single window as shown in fig. 3(a))
detecting, by the second application, the information processing apparatus is in the multi-window mode;
(Chae paragraph [0061], [0065], [0099]-[0100], [0108], [0112]-[0116], [0122] discloses detecting by second application whether or not apparatus in a multi-window mode, second application displays visual affect for receiving transferring object)
in response to detecting by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the multi-window mode, newly displaying, in a display window of the second application, an object acceptance area, an object acceptance area for passing an object displayed in a display window of a first application to the second application,
(Chae paragraph [0110]-[0112], [0115]-[0116] discloses newly displaying object acceptance area, clipboard 41, in the application 200, to accept objects from application 300 as shown in fig. 7 (C), the clipboard may be displayed any portion of first application window)
detecting a sharing operation of dragging and dropping the object displayed in the display window of the first application to the object acceptance area displayed in the display window of the second application is performed; and in response to detecting the sharing operation of dragging and dropping the object displayed in the display window of the first application to the object acceptance area displayed in the display window of the second application, executing a predetermined process using the object
(Chae paragraph [0048], [0009], [0012], [0020], [0061], [0064], [0065], [0112]-[0116], [0122] discloses executing a predetermined process using the object, may resize the clipboard to an original size and display the object within first application window 200, after object is dragged and dropped to the destination application as shown in fig. 7).
Chae does not appear to explicitly disclose apparatus and method comprising the object acceptance area being newly displayed before the object displayed in the display window of the first application is dragged to the display window of the second application. However, Choi discloses system and a method of
controlling an information processing apparatus that executes a first application and a second application different from the first application, the method comprising:
(Choi paragraph [0116] discloses first application in the first window 210 and the second application in second window 230 as shown in fig. 2)
activating the second application either (i) in a single window mode, wherein after the second application is activated in the single window mode the first application is activated in a multi-window mode, or (ii) in the multi-window mode, wherein before the second application is activated the first application is activated in the single window mode;
(Choi paragraph [0116] discloses first application is executed in single mode, a full screen, before second application is activated and is displayed in a divided screen with first application in the first window 210 and the second application in second window 230)
in response to detecting a case where it is detected by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the multi-window mode, newly displaying, in a display window of the second application, an object acceptance area, an object acceptance area for passing an object displayed in a display window of a first application to the second application, and in response to detecting by the second application that the information processing apparatus is in the single window mode, controlling such that the object acceptance area is not displayed, the object acceptance area being newly displayed before the object displayed in the display window of the first application is dragged to the display window of the second application that detected that the information processing apparatus is in the multi-window mode; and
(Choi paragraph [0143]-[0146] discloses object acceptance area 230 to which map can be dragged to is displayed before drag input starts as shown in figs. 10 and 11; Choi paragraph [0135] discloses second application, email application, in a single mode where the email application displays a list of emails received and object acceptance area is not displayed as shown in fig. 8; Choi paragraph [0139] discloses displaying second application, email application in a multi-window mode with an object acceptance area where writing function is activated by the user copying a text from memo application as shown in fig. 9)
detecting a sharing operation of dragging and dropping the object displayed in the display window of the first application to the object acceptance area displayed in the display window of the second application is performed, andin response to detecting the sharing operation of dragging and dropping the object displayed in the display window of the first application to the object acceptance area displayed in the display window of the second application,executing a predetermined process using the object
(Choi paragraph [0143]-[0146] discloses when dragging operation of from the first application, map application, to message application is performed executing a predetermined process of determining attribute to be a filling function and displaying the map application through the message application).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Choi with Che for the benefit of having “various functions to enhance a convenient use of a user device based on a multi-screen”, (Choi [0007]) to “allow a single user device to simultaneously perform two or more independent tasks and also to greatly promote task efficiency even when a single task is performed”, (Choi [0006]).
As for claim 15, claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Yamada, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180246691, filed on 1/30/2018 (hereinafter Yamada).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Yamada discloses apparatus and method wherein
the predetermined process is a process of displaying a setting screen for performing image processing of the object
(Yamada paragraph [0072]-[0073] discloses displaying setting screen as shown in fig. 8 when object is dragged and dropped as shown in fig. 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to “provide a server, a program, and a transmission processing method for receiving a process object and transmitting the process object to an output apparatus by a simple operation”, (Yamada [0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Yamada in view of Nakai, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020021310, published on 2/21/2002 (hereinafter Nakai).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Nakai discloses apparatus and method wherein
the predetermined process is a process of displaying a preview screen for printing
(Nakai paragraph [0055]-[0056] discloses displaying preview screen as shown in fig. 11 when objects, files 15 and 15, are dragged and dropped onto printer icon as shown in figs. 4A and 4B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nakai with Chae, Choi, and Yamada for the benefit of being able to “provide such a print control operation system using icons that when conducting printing after altering print processing setting, print processing can be made without opening a file to be printed, on an application”, (Nakai [0010]).
Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Yamada in view of Nakai in view of Hommi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180063369, filed on 2/13/2017 (hereinafter Hommi).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 5 have been discussed above. Hommi discloses apparatus and method wherein
in the executing, a preview screen is displayed which varies depending on a type of the accepted object
(Hommi paragraph [0091] discloses varying preview screen based on object type, preview area may be changed according to file type).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hommi with Chae, Choi, Yamada, and Nakai for the benefit of “speeding up the process of generating the preview image, and thus quickly displaying the preview image”, (Hommi [0019]).
Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Hur, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160077717, filed on 12/14/2014 (hereinafter Hur).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Hur discloses apparatus and method wherein
in a state where the object acceptance area is displayed in the displaying, a part for hiding the object acceptance area is further displayed in a display window of the second application
(Hur paragraph [0200] discloses displaying a UI part for hiding the object acceptance area, circle with x, as shown in fig. 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hur with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to close the object acceptance area when it is no longer needed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Igeta, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100125806 published on 5/20/2010 (hereinafter Igeta).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Igeta discloses apparatus and method wherein
the second application detects whether the information processing apparatus is in multi-window mode is used based on information from an operating system operating in the information processing apparatus
(Igeta paragraph [0123]-[0127], [0134]-[0135] discloses detecting multi-window mode based on information from an operating system).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Igeta with Chae and Choi for the benefit of enabling user to exchange object between applications.
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Chae discloses apparatus and method wherein the object acceptance area is displayed on the window of the second application
(Chae paragraph [0110]-[0112], [0115]-[0116] discloses displaying object acceptance area, clipboard 41, in the application 200, to accept objects from application 300 as shown in fig. 7 (C), the clipboard may be displayed in the second the application window).
Choi also discloses apparatus and method wherein the object acceptance area is displayed on the window of the second application
(Choi paragraph [0143]-[0146] discloses object acceptance area 230 in the second application, email application, as shown in figs. 10 and 11).
Chae does not appear to explicitly disclose apparatus and method wherein the object acceptance area is floatingly displayed. However, Igeta discloses apparatus and method wherein
the object acceptance area is floatingly displayed
(Igeta paragraph [0197] discloses the object acceptance area is floatingly displayed on the application).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Igeta with Chae and Choi for the benefit of displaying the area such that it is noticeable to the user so that user can easily see the destination area.
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Iida eta al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190369930, published on 12/5/2019 (hereinafter Iida2019).
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Iida2019 discloses apparatus and method comprising
detecting a sharing operation of an object which cannot be handled by the second application is performed in the object acceptance area, and in response to detecting a sharing operation of an object which cannot be handled by the second application, displaying a confirmation screen to cancel sharing of the object
(Iida2019 paragraph [0192], [0195] discloses displaying confirmation screen to cancel sharing object, error message is displayed after file is dragged to acceptance area 1002 as shown in figs. 10A and 11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iida2019 with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to notify user when an error occurs.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Iida eta al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200034087, published on 1/30/2020 (hereinafter Iida2020).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Iida2020 discloses apparatus and method comprising
Determining that the second application cannot accept sharing of the object and in response to determining that the second application cannot accept sharing of the object, controlling a display mode of the object acceptance area to be different from a display mode in a state where the sharing of the object can be accepted
(Iida2020 paragraph [0137] discloses display mode of object acceptance area when object can be accepted as shown in fig. 8D; Iida paragraph [0133]-[0134] discloses display mode of object acceptance area when object cannot be accepted is different as shown in fig. 7D).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iida2020 with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to notify user status of application.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 12 have been discussed above. Iida2020 discloses apparatus and method comprising
detecting that the second application is executing a specific process which cannot be executed in parallel with the predetermined process, and in response to detecting that the second application is executing a specific process which cannot be executed in parallel with the predetermined process, determining that the second application cannot accept the sharing of the object
(Iida2020 paragraph [0167]-[0169] discloses when executing a specific process which cannot be executed in parallel with the predetermined process displaying application cannot accept the sharing of the object, when file is in transmission application cannot accept sharing object, drag and drop here is no longer displayed, as shown in fig. 12B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iida2020 with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to notify user that another operation is already in progress.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Ko eta al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140229888, filed on 2/10/2014 (hereinafter Ko).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Ko discloses apparatus and method wherein
in the multi-window mode, between the display window of the second application and a display window of the first application, a bar for changing sizes of both display windows simultaneously is displayed
(Ko paragraph [0357] discloses bar, split bar 1830, for changing size of both display windows as shown in fig. 18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ko with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to change the window size of both applications simultaneously.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Choi in view of Kanamoto eta al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200042260, published on 2/6/2020 (hereinafter Kanamoto).
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Kanamoto discloses apparatus and method wherein
in the object acceptance area, an indication that an object is allowed to be accepted is displayed
(Kanamoto paragraph [0165] discloses displaying indication that an object can be accepted, "drag and drop file here", as shown in fig. 12A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kanamoto with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to provide users a visual notification regarding where files can be accepted.
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Kanamoto discloses apparatus and method wherein the displaying includes:
In response to the object being accepted by the sharing operation in the object acceptance area, deleting the object acceptance area from the display window of the second application; and in response to the object acceptance area being deleted from the display window of the second application, displaying an area for executing a predetermined process using the object on the display window of the second application
(Kanamoto paragraph [0165]-[0166], [00173] displaying area for executing a predetermined process, selecting ok or cancel in print setting screen, after object has been accepted, as shown in fig. 12C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kanamoto with Chae and Choi for the benefit of being able to provide users a with further options after transferring an object to different application to provide user with further control over the object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “the cited art fails to disclose or suggest at least the above-mentioned features of Claim 1”, (Remarks page 3) because “the rectangular region displayed by the message application in Choi is just a frame to receive from a user the content of a message sent by the message application, which is always displayed by the message application to send a message. In other words, this frame displayed by the message application is naturally displayed regardless of whether the two applications are displayed in a multi-screen mode or the message application is displayed in a single-screen mode. Since the message application always displays the frame, in order to realize its message sending function, the message application does not perform control to newly display the frame in response to detecting the multi-window mode”, (Remarks page 3-4).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111) and that a reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
As stated in the rejection above, the object acceptance area is not initially displayed when the email application is displaying a list of email as shown in fig. 8. The object acceptance area is only displayed when a second mode, an email composition mode, is started by user input to compose an email as shown in fig. 9.
Applicant argues “Chae neither discloses that that an object acceptance area is newly displayed in response to detecting the multi-window mode (and before an object is dragged from the display window of the first application to the display window of the second application), nor that control is performed such that an object acceptance area is not displayed in response to detecting the singe window mode”, (Remarks page 5-6) because “a clipboard generally has the function of storing a copied object, and it is a function managed by a terminal (for example, by an operating system of a device) and not by an application”, (Remarks page 5).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111) and that a reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Choi discloses a first application and a second application being displayed “in an embodiment, while the first application is executed on a full screen, a user's manipulation for executing the second application on the basis of a multi-screen environment may be received. Then, in response to such a user's manipulation, the control unit 170 divides a full screen into two windows, displays an object of the first application on one window (e.g., the first window 210), and displays an object of the second application on the other window (e.g., the second window 230).", (Choi [0116]). Choi further discloses the object acceptance area, the clipboard is displayed in the display window of the second application (“That is, mobile terminal 100 may determine the first application window as the destination application window because the drag input stops at menu bar 40 of first application window 200. Furthermore, mobile terminal 100 may create a clipboard and display the clipboard within first application window 200.", Chae [0111] ;"When the user holds the dragged object in the displayed clipboard for a given time, mobile terminal 100 may expand displayed clipboard 41 corresponding to the dragged object as shown in a diagram (C) of FIG. 7", Chae [0112]; "After transferring, mobile terminal 100 may resize the clipboard to an original size and display the object within first application window 200 as shown in a diagram (E). That is, mobile terminal 100 may control the first application to display the object within first application window and enable the first application associated with first application window 200 to process in response to an input from a user", Chae [0114]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights