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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 15-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendment of claim 1 overcomes:
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1, hereafter Stengel) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1, hereafter Ihn), Ji et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1, hereafter Ji), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo),
the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Chiang et al (“Red-Emitting Fluorenes as efficient emitting hosts for non-doped organic red-light-emitting diodes”, Adv. Func. Mater. 2005, vol. 15, page 231-238, hereafter Chiang),
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao),
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012),
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Xia et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1, hereafter Xia), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1),
the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Xia et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama),
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Xia et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1),
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Xia et al. (US 2020/0161568 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 24-25 of the reply filed 08/08/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Ji/Seo, the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Ji/Seo/Chiang, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Ji/Seo/Liao, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Ji/Seo/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Ji fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of the amended claims.
The rejections refer to the Compound p14-6 of Ji as the third compound (see section 50 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the Formula 3-2 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 24-25 of the reply filed 08/08/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Xia/Seo, the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Xia/Seo/Hatakeyama, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Xia/Seo/Liao, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel/Ihn/Xia/Seo/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Xia fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of the amended claims.
The rejections refer to the Compound 229 of Xia as the third compound (see section 137 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the Formula 3-2 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
While the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, the prior arts including Stengel, Ihn, Seo, Chiang, Hatakeyama, Liao, and Pang are still applicable because the amendment has updated the limitation of the third compound only. New grounds of rejection are applied using new secondary reference of Ji (US 2018/0212165 A1) which teaches the third compound.
Stengel in view of Ihn and Seo teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, a phosphorescent emitter as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, the phosphorescent emitter, and the fluorescent emitter.
The only deficiency of the device is the third compound.
However, Stengel does teach that a Pt-based phosphorescent compound can be used as the sensitizer in the device of Stengel ([0039]-[0040], [0045]). That is, any Pt complex known to be used as a phosphorescent emitter in an OLED device can be used as the sensitizer of the device of Stengel as modified by Ihn and Seo.
Ji discloses a Pt-based phosphorescent compound (Formula 1 in [0016]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]). Ji exemplifies Compound 24 ([0058]). The Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 3-2 of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the compound provides high emission quantum yield and superior photochemical and electrochemical stability ([0015]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn and Seo by incorporating Compound 24 of Ji as the sensitizer, as taught by Stengel and Ji. New grounds of rejection are applied.
It is informed that there are some more prior arts to teach Pt-based phosphorescent emitters each having identical structure as the Formula 3-2 of the instant claim. The instant Office Action provides the references under the Pertinent Arts below.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 24-25 of the reply filed 08/08/2025 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-14, and 18-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 15, and 20 of copending Application No. 16/987,332 (reference application, hereafter ‘332 Application) in view of Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejections refer to the Compound 3-16 as the third compound (see section 208 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the Formula 3-2 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections 1-14, 18, and 20 are withdrawn. However, for the claim 19, the amended claim 19 has 112(b) and (d) issues as described below, and the Compound 3-16 reads on the limitation of the third compound of the instant claim 19. The rejection to claim 19 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 claims Compound 3-16 as the third compound wherein the substituents at the positions corresponding to R33 and R34 of Formula 3-2 are linked to form a benzene ring. However, claim 1 does not allow R33 and R34 to be linked to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted carbocyclic group. Currently claim 19 is dependent from claim 1. Thus, the Compound 3-16 is not encompassed by the Formula 3-2 of claim 1. It is unclear whether claim 19 claims Compound 3-16 as the third compound.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that claim 19 claims Compound 3-16 as the third compound regardless the compound is not encompassed by the Formula 3-2 of claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 claims Compound 3-16 as the third compound wherein the substituents at the positions corresponding to R33 and R34 of Formula 3-2 are linked to form a benzene ring. However, claim 1 does not allow R33 and R34 to be linked to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted carbocyclic group. Currently claim 19 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1, hereafter Stengel) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1, Ihn), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1, hereafter Ji), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, Seo).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14, Stengel discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0001], [0005]).
Stengel teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode ([0118]).
Stengel teaches ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material and LiQ as the electron injection layer material ([0177], Table 4).
Stengel does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising ETM:LIQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material; however, Stengel does teach that ETM:LiQ used as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ used as the electron injection layer material ([0177], Table 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Stengel by incorporating ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material, as taught by Stengel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the electron transport layer materials, and the electron injection layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Each selection of ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Stengel comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (a sensitizer and a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (ETM:LiQ), an electron injection layer (LiQ), and a second electrode (anode).
Stengel does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising two hosts in the emission layer; however, Stengel teaches that carbazole derivatives as the host material of the emission layer ([0109]).
Ihn discloses a composition comprising a donor compound and an acceptor compound, wherein the donor and acceptor compounds form an exciplex and used for the organic layer of an organic light emitting device ([0008]- [0012], [0024]- [0027]). Ihn teaches that the composition is used as the host of an organic light emitting device ([0330], Table 6).
Ihn exemplifies Compound D1 as a donor compound and Compound A5 is an acceptor compound ([0187]).
PNG
media_image2.png
277
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ihn teaches the composition provides a low voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime ([0008]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Stengel by incorporating a donor Compound D1 of Ihn and an acceptor Compound A6 of Ihn into the emission layer of the device, as taught by Stengel and Ihn.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the organic light emitting device with a low voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime based on the teaching of Ihn.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (ETM:LiQ), an electron injection layer (LiQ), and a second electrode (anode).
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn does not contain a sensitizer having structure represented by Applicant’s Formula 3-2; however, Stengel does teach that a Pt-based phosphorescent compound can be used as the sensitizer in the device of Stengel ([0039]-[0040], [0045]).
Ji discloses a Pt-based phosphorescent compound (Formula 1 in [0016]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]). Ji exemplifies Compound 24 ([0058]). The Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 3-2 of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the compound provides high emission quantum yield and superior photochemical and electrochemical stability ([0015]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn by incorporating Compound 24 of Ji as the sensitizer, as taught by Stengel and Ji.
The motivation of doing so would be to provide improved performance and sublimation, high stability, high efficiency, and long lifetime, based on the teaching of Ji.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known Pt-based phosphorescent compounds used for OLEDs would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, and Ji comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode.
The device does not comprise an intermediate layer comprising at least one of the first compound, the second compound, and the fourth compound, as required in the instant claim 1.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic electronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; “1st mixed region” and “2nd mixed region” in Fig. 19; [0050]).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, and Ji by incorporating a first mixed layer between the emission layer and the hole transport layer and a second mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic electronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The compounds D1 of Ihn, A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, a fluorescent dopant, ETM of Stengel, and LiQ are each equated with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth compound of the instant claims, respectively.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV in claim 1).
It is reasonable to presume that 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the third compound satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV ([0011]). The Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as the third compound of Formula 3-2 of the instant disclosure ([0026]).
Therefore, 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1 (claim 1), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 9, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The device does not have particular concentrations of the third and the fourth compounds.
However, Stengel does teach that the concentration of the sensitizer can be preferably 20 to 40% by weight ([0130]) and the concentration of the fluorescent emitter can be preferably 3 to 10% by weight ([0131]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by incorporating the sensitizer with 20 to 40wt% and the fluorescent emitter with 3 to 10wt% as taught by Stengel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the concentrations of the sensitizer and the fluorescent emitter would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo (2) wherein the device has identical structure as the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo except that the concentration of the sensitizer is 20 to 40 wt% and the concentration of the fluorescent emitter is 3 to 10 wt%. The ratio of the fluorescent emitter (fourth compound) to the sensitizer (third compound) is 0.075 to 0.5.
Applicant claims that concentration of the fourth compound is about 1/3 or less of concentration of the third compound.
The claimed range about 1/3 is overlapped with the prior art range (0.075 to 0.5).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The device does not comprise a specific fluorescent dopant having structural formula 501 of the claim 18; however, Stengel does teach any fluorescent compound can be used ([0055], [0068]).
Hatakeyama discloses DABNA-2 used as the fluorescent emitter of an organic light emitting device (Figs. 2 and 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
253
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound DABNA-2 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 5(1) of claim 18 and the specific embodiment 4-8 of the instant claim 19.
Hatakeyama teaches that DABNA-2 provides pure blue emission with a narrow FWHM which represents record-setting performance for blue OLED (page 2780, col. 2, last paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, J, and Seo by incorporating DABNA-2 as the fluorescent emitter as taught by Stengel and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would provide pure blue emission with a narrow FWHM which represents record-setting performance for blue OLED based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known fluorescent compounds would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8).
It is reasonable to presume that 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less ([0018]). The DABNA-2 has identical structure as the fourth compound of Formula 5(1) of the instant disclosure ([0028]) and the specific embodiment Compound 4-8 ([0319]).
Therefore, 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8), meeting all the limitations of claims 8 and 18.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo has a single emission layer, which does not read on the limitation of claim 6.
Liao discloses a stacked organic light emitting device emitting white light ([0016]- [0022]).
Liao teaches that the device can be made by stacking three EL units each of which includes a red, green, or blue emitting dopant in the light emitting layer (Fig. 7).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by stacking EL units between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit has the same organic layer structure as the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo except that the light emitting dopant of each EL unit is a blue, green, or red dopant, as taught by Stengel and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Liao comprising a first electrode, a blue EL unit, a green EL unit, a red EL unit, and a second electrode, wherein the blue, green, and red EL units have the organic layer structure of a first region, an intermediate layer, an emission layer comprising a first compound (D1 of Ihn), a second compound (A6 of Ihn), a third compound (Compound 24 of Ji), and a fourth compound (emitter), an intermediate layer, a second region; and the fourth compound of the blue, green, and red EL unit are each a blue, green, and red fluorescent emitter.
In the device, the combined layers of the blue EL unit, a green EL unit, and a red EL unit is equated with an emission region; the blue EL unit is equated with a first emission layer; the red EL unit is equated with a second emission layer; the green EL unit is equated with the intermediate layer. The green EL unit comprises a layer containing a first compound (D1 of Ihn), a second compound (A6 of Ihn), a third compound (Compound 24 of Ji), and a fourth compound (a green emitter); thus, the intermediate layer comprises the first compound.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, and Seo does not disclose a specific apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo.
Pang discloses an apparatus (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by incorporating it into an apparatus (i.e. OLED display), as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light-emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The resultant device is an apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo, and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the organic light emitting device electrically connected to one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin film transistor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 17 of US Patent no. 12,396,362 (previously Application no. 17/502,766, hereafter ‘362 Patent) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claim 19, ‘362 Patent claims an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first region, an auxiliary layer, an emission layer (a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound), a second region, a second electrode, wherein the second region includes a first layer and a second layer that each include an organic compound (claim 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
474
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
‘362 Patent does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising Compound 1-20 as the first compound, Compound 2-15 as the second compound, Compound 3-16 as the third compound, and Compound 4-1 as the fourth compound; however, ‘362 Patent does teach Compound 1-20 can be the first compound, Compound 2-15 can be the second compound, Compound 3-16 can be the third compound, and Compound 4-1 can be the fourth compound (claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent by incorporating Compound 1-20 as the first compound, Compound 2-15 as the second compound, Compound 3-16 as the third compound, and Compound 4-1 as the fourth compound, as taught by ‘362 Patent.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified first, second, third, and fourth compounds would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Modified organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent comprising a first electrode, a first region, an auxiliary layer including a first layer and a second layer each including an organic compound, an emission layer (a first Compound 1-20, a second Compound 2-15, a third Compound 3-16, and a fourth Compound 4-1), a second region, a second electrode.
The Modified organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent does not have a mixed layer between the emission layer and the second region and includes all the materials of the emission layer and the second region.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic electronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; “2nd mixed region” in Fig. 19; [0050]).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent by incorporating a mixed layer between the emission layer and the second region including all the material of the emission layer and the second region, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic electronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode, a first region, an auxiliary layer including a first layer and a second layer each including an organic compound, an emission layer (a first Compound 1-20, a second Compound 2-15, a third Compound 3-16, and a fourth Compound 4-1), an intermediate layer (“mixed layer”) comprising at least the first, the second, and the fourth compounds, a second region, a second electrode.
The Organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent as modified by Seo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 1) the third Compound 3-16 satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV in claim 1).
It is reasonable to presume that 1) the third compound satisfies the Equation 1.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the third compound satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV ([0011]). The Compound 3-16 has identical structure as the third compound of Formula 3-2 of the instant disclosure ([0026]) and the specific embodiment 3-16 ([0318]).
Therefore, 1) the third compound 3-16 satisfies the Equation 1 (claim 1).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent as modified by Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 16/987,332 (reference application, hereafter ‘332 Application) in view of Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 19, ‘332 Application claims an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first emission layer (a first host, a second host, a first dopant), an intermediate layer (“a third auxiliary layer”) comprising a first host or a second host, a second emission layer (a first host, a second host, and a second dopant), a second electrode, wherein the first dopant and the second dopant can be each a phosphorescent organometallic compound and a TADF compound (claim 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
546
717
media_image5.png
Greyscale
‘332 Application does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising Compound 1-3 as the first host, Compound 2-16 as the second host, Compound 3-16 as the phosphorescent organometallic complex, and Compound 4-1 as the TADF compound; however, ‘332 Application does teach Compound 1-3 can be the first host, Compound 2-16 can be the second host, Compound 3-16 can be the phosphorescent organometallic complex, and Compound 4-1 can be the TADF compound (claim 10).
Stengel discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0001], [0005]).Stengel teaches that a Pt-based phosphorescent compound can be used as the sensitizer ([0039]-[0040]) and any fluorescent compound can be used in the organic light emitting device ([0055], [0068]).
Stengel teaches that the organic light emitting device can provide improved performance including good efficiency and lifetime, and low operating voltage ([0010]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application by incorporating Compound 1-3 as the first host, Compound 2-16 as the second host, Compound 3-16 as the phosphorescent organometallic complex which is used as a sensitizer, and Compound 4-1 as the TADF compound which is used as a fluorescent emitter, as taught by ‘332 Application and Stengel.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved performance including good efficiency and lifetime, and low operating voltage based on the teaching of Stengel.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of a first host, a second host, a phosphorescent organometallic compound which is used as a sensitizer, and the second dopant which is used as a fluorescent emitter would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel comprising a first electrode, a first emission layer (a first host, a second host, a first dopant), an intermediate layer (a first host or a second host), a second emission layer (a first host, a second host, and a second dopant), a second electrode, wherein the first host is Compound 1-3, the second host is Compound 2-16, the first dopant is Compound 3-16 used as a sensitizer, the second dopant is Compound 4-1 as a fluorescent emitter.
The Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel does not comprise a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer.
Stengel teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode ([0118]).
Stengel teaches ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material and LiQ as the electron injection layer material ([0177], Table 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel by incorporating a hole transport layer between an anode and a first emission layer, and an electron transport layer comprising ETM:LiQ between the second emission layer and the cathode, and an electron injection layer comprising LiQ between the electron transport layer and the cathode, as taught by Stengel.
The motivation of doing so would have been to improve the hole transport/injection ability and the electron transport/injection ability.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel (2) comprising a first electrode, a first region (hole transport layer), a first emission layer (a first host, a second host, a first dopant), an intermediate layer (a first host or a second host), a second emission layer (a first host, a second host, and a second dopant), a first layer (electron transport layer comprising ETM:LiQ), a second layer (electron injection layer comprising LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein the first host is Compound 1-3, the second host is Compound 2-16, the first dopant is Compound 3-16 used as a sensitizer, the second dopant is Compound 4-1 as a fluorescent emitter. The first emission layer, an intermediate layer, and the second emission layer is equated with the emission region of the instant claims. The compounds 1-3, 2-16, 3-16, 4-1, ETM, and LiQ are each equated with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth compound of the instant claims, respectively.
The Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel (2) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 1) the third Compound 3-16 satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV in claim 1).
It is reasonable to presume that 1) the third compound satisfies the Equation 1.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the third compound satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV ([0011]). The Compound 3-16 has identical structure as the third compound of Formula 3-2 of the instant disclosure ([0026]) and the specific embodiment 3-16 ([0318]).
Therefore, 1) the third compound 3-16 satisfies the Equation 1 (claim 1).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel (2) is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Pertinent Arts
The pertinent arts below disclose compounds which read on the limitations of the Formula 3-2 of the instant claims.
Li et al. (US 2016/0197291 A1) discloses the following compound (page 24).
PNG
media_image6.png
245
231
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Li et al. (US 2018/0331307 A1) discloses the following compound (page 197).
PNG
media_image7.png
243
312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Beers et al. (US 2013/0048963 A1) discloses the following Compound 52 (page 10).
PNG
media_image8.png
234
315
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Tsai et al. (US 2013/0168656 A1) discloses the following Compound 121 (page 24).
PNG
media_image9.png
230
321
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Jeon et al. (US 2018/0248137 A1) discloses the following Compound 115 (page 53).
PNG
media_image10.png
214
222
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Bae et al. (US 2018/0251484 A1) discloses the following Compound 115 (page 45) and Compound 103 (page 44).
PNG
media_image11.png
184
396
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
209
355
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The Compound 115 has 2,6-dimethyl phenyl groups, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 3-2; however, Bae teaches the 2,6-dimehtyl phenyl group can be modified to a methyl group as shown in the Compound 103. The modified compound would read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 3-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786