Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 12/09/2025 for application number 18/752,142.
Response to Amendments
3. The Amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, and 20-21 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that cited references do not teach the amended independent claims 1, 13, and 20. However, the argument is moot since this is a newly presented limitation, thus changes the scope of the claim. However, a newly found reference, Leondires, is applied.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20190190868 A1) in view of Kabbes et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20160182412 A1) and further in view of Leondires (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20160100019 A1).
Claim 1: Zhong teaches a task creation method, executed by a first application (i.e. FIG. 3A, one view 314A in a progression of views of an email client 300 is shown. Email client 300 may be any application or collection of applications, module or collection of modules, service or services, or any variation or combination thereof capable of facilitating sharing of content, communication, collaboration, conversations, and the like. Examples of the email client 300 include Microsoft® Outlook®, Outlook® Web App, Mobile Outlook®, Hotmail®, Outlook.com, and Gmail, as well as any other email client and/or email application; para. [0038]), comprising:
acquiring a trigger operation of a user on a target task (i.e. the email inbox 312 includes one or more email messages. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3A, the email inbox 312 includes email message 350 and email message 352. When an email message (e.g., email message 350) is selected, contents associated with the selected email message may be displayed in the reading pane 316. In this regard, the reading pane 316 may include contents associated with a selected message from the plurality of messages in the email inbox 312; para. [0039]) in a task catalog (i.e. The navigation pane 318 includes contents and options for activating various modules, services, and/or applications that are part of the email client 300. For example, the navigation pane 318 may include options for activating mail, calendars, tasks, contacts, notes, folders, and the like. In one example, the navigation pane 318 may include a plurality of folders. As illustrated in FIG. 3A, the navigation pane 318 includes an inbox folder among other folders. In some cases, the inbox folder may include subfolders; para. [0038]), wherein the target task has a target attachment (i.e. fig. 5, The email client may include any email application configured to read, access, and manage email messages such as Outlook®, Outlook Web App®, Mobile Outlook®, Outlook.com, Mozilla®, Thunderbird®, Mail, and the like. The URL may be turned into a clickable link and indicate a location/source of an item. The at least one item may include data such as files, photos, music, email attachments, documents, web pages, and the like. In another example, the at least one item may include a folder including a plurality of items. For example, a folder may include a plurality of files and/or documents. In another example, a folder may include a photo album including a plurality of photos/pictures. A file may include a word document, a spreadsheet, an electronic slide presentation, an email, a chat conversation, and the like; para. [0048]); and
in response to the trigger operation, displaying, on the basis of a permission of the user, a task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, wherein the task viewing panel has a first presentation style and a second presentation style regarding the target attachment, and the displaying, on the basis of the permission of the user (i.e. figs. 3-5, when it is determined that the recipient of the URL does have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds to operation 508 where content for the permission protected preview of the at least one item is received at the email client. As such, the client may generate the permission protected preview of the at least one item using the received content. In one example, when the at least one item includes a folder, the previewed is generated as a folder preview. For example, a folder may include a plurality of items. As such, the folder preview may include a tile for every item inside the folder. As such, the folder preview includes a preview of the items inside the folder. In another example, when the at least one item includes a file, the preview is generated to include at least a file title, a file thumbnail, and a file description; para. [0051, 0052]), the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task comprises: displaying the task viewing panel on the basis of the permission of the user and by means of the first presentation style or the second presentation style (i.e. figs. 3-5, at decision operation 506, it is determined whether a recipient of the URL has permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service. For example, the email server may send a request to the data service for recipient permissions (e.g., the data service at which the item identified in the URL is located). When it is determined that the recipient of the URL does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds back to operation 502 where another email message including a URL may be received at the email client. As such, when the recipient does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, the permission protected preview may not be rendered to the recipient in the user interface to the email client. For example, the recipient may not receive the email message at all or may receive the email message without the URL and the permission protected preview of the item identified by the URL; para. [0050]).
Zhong does not explicitly teach determining whether to allow the user to add another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task based on whether the user has a write permission for the target attachment, adding the target attachment in a task creation panel, and setting an operation permission for the target attachment and a task expiration time; and creating the target task based on the target attachment and settings in the task creation panel; or receiving task creation information sent by a second application through an application programming interface (API), the task creation information comprising: data of the target attachment, operation permission information of the target attachment, and a task expiration time; and creating the target task based on the task creation information.
However, Kabbes teaches determining whether to allow the user to add another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task based on whether the user has a write permission for the target attachment (i.e. messages can include one or more attachments. Where attachments are supported, some or all of the authors can be granted permission to add and/or edit attachments to the message. In some instances editing of attachments can also be a collaborative process; para. [0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhong to include the feature of Kabbes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because different roles can have different levels of attachment rights.
However, Leondires teaches wherein before the acquiring the trigger operation of the user on the target task in the task catalog, the method further comprises: adding the target attachment in a task creation panel (i.e. users associated with a contextual collaboration may collaborate in and/or by: modifying the list of users associated with that collaboration (e.g., adding or deleting users or owners); adding tasks and/or assigning users to tasks; adding and/or removing files, documents, and/or resources associated with the contextual collaboration; para. [0064]), and setting an operation permission for the target attachment and a task expiration time (i.e. Users of a contextual collaboration generally have permission to perform certain actions with respect to the contextual collaboration, based on each user's level (e.g., generic user, creator, owner). Such permissions may include executing commands; receiving notifications; adding, modifying, and/or removing users; adding, modifying, and/or removing documents; adding, modifying, and/or removing resources, instantiating live-share; modifying and/or applying version numbers to documents and/or resources; setting permissions; setting and/or modifying priorities; setting and/or modifying expiration dates; deleting and/or archiving contextual collaborations; changing and/or adding states of contextual collaborations; and the like; para. [0044]); and creating the target task based on the target attachment and settings in the task creation panel (i.e. figs. 1-3, the contextual collaboration … is created and/or modified throughout the lifecycle of the contextual collaboration; para. [0037]); or receiving task creation information sent by a second application through an interface, the task creation information comprising: data of the target attachment, operation permission information of the target attachment, and a task expiration time (i.e. Users of a contextual collaboration generally have permission to perform certain actions with respect to the contextual collaboration, based on each user's level (e.g., generic user, creator, owner). Such permissions may include executing commands; receiving notifications; adding, modifying, and/or removing users; adding, modifying, and/or removing documents; adding, modifying, and/or removing resources, instantiating live-share; modifying and/or applying version numbers to documents and/or resources; setting permissions; setting and/or modifying priorities; setting and/or modifying expiration dates; deleting and/or archiving contextual collaborations; changing and/or adding states of contextual collaborations; and the like; para. [0044]); and creating the target task based on the task creation information (i.e. figs. 1-3, the contextual collaboration … is created and/or modified throughout the lifecycle of the contextual collaboration; para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong and Kabbes to include the feature of Leondires. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it improves security and manageability in collaborative sharing.
Claim 2: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 1. Zhong further teaches wherein the task viewing panel displays the target attachment in the first presentation style (i.e. figs. 3-5, when it is determined that the recipient of the URL does have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds to operation 508 where content for the permission protected preview of the at least one item is received at the email client. As such, the client may generate the permission protected preview of the at least one item using the received content. In one example, when the at least one item includes a folder, the previewed is generated as a folder preview. For example, a folder may include a plurality of items. As such, the folder preview may include a tile for every item inside the folder. As such, the folder preview includes a preview of the items inside the folder. In another example, when the at least one item includes a file, the preview is generated to include at least a file title, a file thumbnail, and a file description; para. [0051, 0052]); and the task viewing panel does not display the target attachment in the second presentation style (i.e. figs. 3-5, at decision operation 506, it is determined whether a recipient of the URL has permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service. For example, the email server may send a request to the data service for recipient permissions (e.g., the data service at which the item identified in the URL is located). When it is determined that the recipient of the URL does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds back to operation 502 where another email message including a URL may be received at the email client. As such, when the recipient does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, the permission protected preview may not be rendered to the recipient in the user interface to the email client. For example, the recipient may not receive the email message at all or may receive the email message without the URL and the permission protected preview of the item identified by the URL; para. [0050]).
Claim 3: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 2. Zhong further teaches wherein the displaying, in response to the trigger operation, on the basis of the permission of the user, the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task comprises: in response to the trigger operation of the user on the target task, determining, on the basis of the permission of the user, that the user has an operation permission for the target attachment, and displaying the target attachment in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task (i.e. figs. 3-5, when it is determined that the recipient of the URL does have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds to operation 508 where content for the permission protected preview of the at least one item is received at the email client. As such, the client may generate the permission protected preview of the at least one item using the received content. In one example, when the at least one item includes a folder, the previewed is generated as a folder preview. For example, a folder may include a plurality of items. As such, the folder preview may include a tile for every item inside the folder. As such, the folder preview includes a preview of the items inside the folder. In another example, when the at least one item includes a file, the preview is generated to include at least a file title, a file thumbnail, and a file description; para. [0051, 0052]).
Claim 4: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 3. Zhong further teaches wherein if the operation permission for the target attachment that the user has is a read permission, the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of the user on the target attachment, allowing the user to view and/or download the target attachment (i.e. FIG. 3B, the interactive item view 330 includes interactive options 360 for interacting with the patent application 332. The options 360 include open in Word, edit and reply, and download. In this regard, the recipient may quickly and easily view the preview 340 of the patent application 332, determine that she wants to review the patent application 332, click on the URL 328 to quickly view and/or edit the patent application 332 within the email client 300 and respond to the email message with any comments; para. [0041, 0042]).
Claim 6: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 3. Zhong further teaches wherein if the operation permission for the target attachment that the user has is a write permission (i.e. FIG. 3B, the interactive item view 330 includes interactive options 360 for interacting with the patent application 332. The options 360 include open in Word, edit and reply, and download. In this regard, the recipient may quickly and easily view the preview 340 of the patent application 332, determine that she wants to review the patent application 332, click on the URL 328 to quickly view and/or edit the patent application 332 within the email client 300 and respond to the email message with any comments; para. [0042]).
Zhong does not explicitly teach in response to a trigger operation of adding another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task.
However, Kabbes further teaches wherein if the operation permission for the target attachment that the user has is a write permission, the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of adding another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task (i.e. messages can include one or more attachments. Where attachments are supported, some or all of the authors can be granted permission to add and/or edit attachments to the message. In some instances editing of attachments can also be a collaborative process; para. [0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong and Leondires to include the feature of Kabbes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because different roles can have different levels of attachment rights.
Claim 7: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 6. Zhong does not explicitly teach wherein the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task displays an ADD ATTACHMENT control; and the in response to the trigger operation of adding another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the ADD ATTACHMENT control in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task.
However, Kabbes further teaches wherein the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task displays an ADD ATTACHMENT control; and the in response to the trigger operation of adding another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the ADD ATTACHMENT control in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, allowing the user to add the another attachment to the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task (i.e. Attachment control 1026 can be operated by the user to attach a file, and camera control 1028 can be operated by the user to take and attach a photo using a camera function of the user's client device; para. [0108, 0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong and Leondires to include the feature of Kabbes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because improves collaboration.
Claim 9: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 2. Zhong further teaches wherein the displaying, in response to the trigger operation, on the basis of the permission of the user, the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task comprises: in response to the trigger operation of the user on the target task, determining, on the basis of the permission of the user, that the user does not have an operation permission for the target attachment, and not displaying the target attachment in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task (i.e. figs. 3-5, at decision operation 506, it is determined whether a recipient of the URL has permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service. For example, the email server may send a request to the data service for recipient permissions (e.g., the data service at which the item identified in the URL is located). When it is determined that the recipient of the URL does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, flow proceeds back to operation 502 where another email message including a URL may be received at the email client. As such, when the recipient does not have permissions to the at least one item stored in the data service, the permission protected preview may not be rendered to the recipient in the user interface to the email client. For example, the recipient may not receive the email message at all or may receive the email message without the URL and the permission protected preview of the item identified by the URL; para. [0050]).
Claim 10: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 1. Zhong does not explicitly teach wherein the adding the target attachment in the task creation panel comprises: in response to a trigger operation of adding the target attachment in the task creation panel, adding the target attachment in the task creation panel.
However, Kabbes teaches wherein the adding the target attachment in the task creation panel comprises: in response to a trigger operation of adding the target attachment in the task creation panel, adding the target attachment in the task creation panel (i.e. Attachment control 1026 can be operated by the user to attach a file, and camera control 1028 can be operated by the user to take and attach a photo using a camera function of the user's client device. In some embodiments, all authors can view an interface screen similar or identical to screen 100; para. [0108, 0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong and Leondires to include the feature of Kabbes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because by enabling file attachment permissions in creating a more connected, efficient, and responsive communication environment.
Claim 12: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 1. Zhong further teaches wherein the task creation information further comprises: participant identification information; and the method further comprises: analyzing the task creation information to acquire the participant identification information; and respectively pushing the target task to a client corresponding to the participant identification information, the target task having the target attachment (i.e. FIG. 2, a sequence diagram 200 for rendering a preview of protected data in a user interface to an email client is illustrated. The sequence diagram 200 includes a sender 202, an email server 204, a data service 206 and a recipient 208. A sender 202 may compose an email message that includes a URL. For example, as discussed herein, the URL may be a link to at least one item stored at a data service. The email message including the URL may be sent to the email server 204 from the sender 202 (e.g., from a client computing device). The email server 204 may send the email message to the recipient 208 indicated in the email message. The recipient 208 receives the email message at an email client at a client computing device; para. [0037]).
Claim 21: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 1. Zhong further teaches wherein the receiving the task creation information sent by the second application through API comprises: receiving an API call request sent by the second application, the API call request being configured for requesting calling a target API (i.e. the request for recipient permissions and/or information associated with the one or more items stored at the data service (e.g., the data service identified by the URL/link) may be sent through a different application programming interface (API) for each data service (e.g., data service 130A, data service 130B). For example, the email server 120 may call and/or execute an API associated with the first data service 130A to request recipient permissions and/or information associated with the one or more items from the first data service 130A. In another example, the email server may call and/or execute an API associated with the second data service 130B to request recipient permissions and/or information associated with the one or more items from the second data service 130B; para. [0030]); and providing the target API to the second application, and receiving the task creation information sent by the second application through the target API (i.e. the email server may receive information associated with the at least one item stored in the data service and/or the at least one item itself. The email server processes the information to create content for a preview of the at least one item. The email server sends the content for the preview of the at least one item to the email client for rendering the preview of the at least one item in a user interface to the email client; para. [0019]).
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Kabbes, Leondires, and further in view of Aziz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20210141930 A1).
Claim 5: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 3. Zhong further teaches wherein if the operation permission for the target attachment that the user has is a write permission, the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of the user on the target attachment, allowing the user to view, download the target attachment (i.e. FIG. 3B, the interactive item view 330 includes interactive options 360 for interacting with the patent application 332. The options 360 include open in Word, edit and reply, and download. In this regard, the recipient may quickly and easily view the preview 340 of the patent application 332, determine that she wants to review the patent application 332, click on the URL 328 to quickly view and/or edit the patent application 332 within the email client 300 and respond to the email message with any comments; para. [0042]).
Zhong does not explicitly teach delete the target.
However, Aziz teaches delete the target (i.e. FIG. 6 illustrates a collaboration user interface 600 presented by the content management service to the first user, System Admin, allowing the first user to share Project Folder with collaborators, including individual users (internal or external users) and user groups. The user interface 600 includes a control 602 to allow the user to add collaborators to the folder and assign each collaborator a role with respect to the folder, where each role has an associated level of access. In this example, the roles are “Manager,” 604 “Collaborator,” 606 “Viewer” 608 and “Limited” 610. In one embodiment, a Manager has broad permissions to, for example, add users to the folder, update share permissions, view, edit, move, copy, download, delete, add files and folders, promote versions; para. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires to include the feature of Aziz. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it helps users maintain control over their data, reduce storage and security risks, and improve overall efficiency in managing digital information.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20190190868 A1) in view of Kabbes, Leondires, and further in view of Hayes et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20200404000 A1).
Claim 8: Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires teach the method according to claim 3. Zhong does not explicitly teach wherein the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task displays an ADD ATTACHMENT control; and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the ADD ATTACHMENT control in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task, if the user does not have a write permission, displaying prompt information of prohibiting adding another attachment.
However, Kabbes further teaches wherein the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task displays an ADD ATTACHMENT control; and the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the ADD ATTACHMENT control in the task viewing panel corresponding to the target task (i.e. Attachment control 1026 can be operated by the user to attach a file, and camera control 1028 can be operated by the user to take and attach a photo using a camera function of the user's client device. In some embodiments, all authors can view an interface screen similar or identical to screen 100; para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong and Leondires to include the feature of Kabbes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because different roles can have different levels of attachment rights.
However, Hayes teaches if the user does not have a write permission, displaying prompt information of prohibiting adding another attachment (i.e. prevent user computing device 140 from uploading other, non-image binary objects to the first potentially-malicious site corresponding to the first uniform resource locator associated with the first email message. For example, the cloud browser on isolation server 120 may intercept any attempts by user computing device 140 to upload binary objects and may block such event(s) and/or notify the user of user computing device 140 of the disallowed behavior; para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhong, Kabbes, and Leondires to include the feature of Hayes. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it maintains a safer, more efficient, and compliant communication system.
8. Claims 13-20 are similar in scope to Claims 1-7 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
LaFave (Pub. No. US 20230101672 A1), non-limiting examples of access permissions that may be associated with a user account identifier in a content item entry include view, edit, delete, share, download, etc.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the 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 TAN TRAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm MT.
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, Matt Ell can be reached on 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141