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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1, 3, 5-16, and species: Host, Dopant 56, E15, and F1, in the reply filed on 3/12/2024 is acknowledged.
Group II, claim(s) 17-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/2024.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/163824 A1 in which US 2020/0388767 A1 to Masuda et al. is used as the US English equivalent, (hereinafter Masuda), and in further view of WO 2016/152544 A1 in which US 2018/0301629 A1 to Hatakeyama et al. is used as the US English equivalent. (hereinafter Hatakeyama) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 7-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Hatakeyama, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2016/0164042 A1 to Cho et al. (hereinafter Cho) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1226 (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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of US Pat. No. 12,414,460 B2 (US 12,414,460).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, US 12,414,460 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, a first electron blocking layer between the first electrode and the first emitting layer, a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; wherein the first emitting layer includes a first host, second host and blue dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host has formula Host 3 (claim 2-3), the dopant has formula 4 (claim 9), and wherein the a first hole blocking layer includes compounds having formula E6 (claims 13-15) and F1 (claims 15-16).
Regarding claim 7, US 12,414,460 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 17), a third emitting layer (EML3) between the CGL1 and EML2 that emits yellow-green, with a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 and EML3 (claim 18).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application No. 17/260,700 (App. No. 17/260,700).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. 17/260,700 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, App. No. 17/260,700 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; wherein the first emitting layer includes a first host, second host and blue dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host has formula Host 3-30 (claim 2-3), the dopant has formula 4 (claim 10), and wherein the HBL1 includes material compounds having formula E4-E23 (claims 13-15) and F1-F6 (claims 15-16).
Regarding claim 7, App. No. 17/260,700 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) containing the first hose and the dopant between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 17), and a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the EML1 and EML2 (claim 17), a third emitting layer (EML3) between the CGL1 and EML2, with a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 and EML3 (claim 18).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of US Pat. No. 12,161,046 B2 (US 12,161,046).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 12,161,046 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, US 12,161,046 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 2-30 (claim 2-3), and a dopant with formula Dopant 2-234 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-E21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-F6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 12,161,046 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has compound formula Host 2-30 (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-18).
Claims 1-3, 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/283,791 which is now patented as US Patent No. 12,284,907 B2. (US 12,284,907).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. US 12,284,907 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, App. No. US 12,284,907 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 1-30 (claim 2), and a dopant with formula Dopant 1-234 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 12,284,907 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has the above host and dopant (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-18).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent no. 11,950,500 B2. (US 11,950,500).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,950,500 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, US 11,950,500 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 1-30 (claim 2), and a dopant with formula Dopant 2-233 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-E21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-F6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 11,950,500 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has compound formula Host and dopants above (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds above (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-19).
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,963,443 B2. (US 11,963,443).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,963,443 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, US 11,963,443 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer, wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, and HBL1 has an azine and benzimidazole (Claim 1-3). The benzimidazole has the formula F1 (claims 4-5), the host has the formula Host 1-30 (claim 6-7), the dopant has the formula Dopant 1-234 (claim 12-13), the azine has the formula E1-E23 (claim 16-17).
Regarding claim 7, and 11-13, US 11,963,443 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) include the host and dopant above and between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 18), further includes Ems lL3 (claim 19) that emits yellow-green or red light and green (claim 19-20).
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-16, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application No. 19/236,963 (App. No. 19/236,963).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. 19/236,963 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-16, App. No. 19/236,963 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting stack including a first emitting layer and a first organic material layer, a second emitting layer, a third emitting layer, and a first charge generation layer and second charge generation layer, wherein the first emitting layer includes a first host, a second host, and a first dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host has formula Host 1-30 (claim 8), the dopant has the formula 1-234, (claim 15), and wherein the organic layers contain a second compound and third compound (claim 18), wherein the second compound has the formula E1-E23 and the third compound has the formula F1-F6, (claims 18-19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, and 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/188111 A1 in which US 2019/0207112 A1 to Hatakeyama et al. is used as the US English equivalent (hereinafter Hatakeyama’112), and in further view of WO 2016/080622 A1 in which US 2018/0269402 A1 to Huh et al. is used as the US English equivalent. (hereinafter Huh).
Regarding claims 1, 3, Hatakeyama’112 teaches an organic EL element
PNG
media_image1.png
372
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1), comprising a substrate (101), a positive electrode (102), a hole injection layer (103), a hole transport layer (104), a light emitting layer (105), an electron transport layer (106), an electron injection layer (107), and a negative electrode (108) (para 160). The light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic aromatic compound (1) and an anthracene-based compound (3), wherein the polycyclic aromatic compound (1) is specifically ,
PNG
media_image2.png
188
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 20),
PNG
media_image3.png
209
241
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 37), and
PNG
media_image4.png
191
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Example 12, para 415-422), which meets dopants 61, 47, and 56, of claim 3, and the host anthracene-based compound (3) is specifically,
PNG
media_image5.png
169
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 114, para 527, See Examples in Table 2A),
PNG
media_image6.png
125
252
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 59, para 153), which meets host 30, 22, or claim 1. Hatakeyama’112, further teaches the above electron transport layer (106), i.e. hole blocking layer, contains material such as pyrimidine or triazine derivatives (para 184-188). Hatakeyama’112 further teaches the above light emitting layer with the above combination of polycyclic aromatic compound and anthracene compound obtain optimum light emitting characteristics and provide an organic EL element having a low consumption power and an excellent quantum efficiency. (para 60). Hatakeyama’112 further teaches a first electron transport layer 1 and a second electron transport layer 2. (See Table 2A and para 562 and 566).
Hatakeyama’112 does not explicitly teach the azine compound having the formula cited in claim 1 in the electron transporting layer (i.e. hole blocking layer).
However, Huh teaches an organic light emitting diode with an anode, a hole transfer layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transfer layer, a cathode and a substrate (para 143), wherein the electron transfer layer contains a compound having equation 1 (para 16 and 143), wherein the compound having equation 1 is specifically
PNG
media_image7.png
295
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(para 137) which meets E16 of claim 1. Huh further teaches the layer with the compound having equation 1 maintain a high efficiency of an organic light emitting diode by controlling the amount of electrons transferred from the cathode to a light emitting layer and also induces the formation of excitons in a light emitting layer instead of at an interface of a hole transfer layer and the light emitting layer by controlling the amount of electrons transferred to a light emitting layer, and as a result, may increase the lifespan of an organic light emitting diode. (para 46).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the compound having equation 1 of Huh in the electron transfer layer 1 of Hatakeyama’112 because Huh teaches the same field of endeavor of OLED devices, and Huh further teaches the electron transfer layer with the compound having equation 1 maintain a high efficiency of an organic light emitting diode by controlling the amount of electrons transferred from the cathode to a light emitting layer and also induces the formation of excitons in a light emitting layer instead of at an interface of a hole transfer layer and the light emitting layer by controlling the amount of electrons transferred to a light emitting layer, and as a result, may increase the lifespan of an organic light emitting diode. (para 46).
Claim(s) 5-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama’112 in view of Huh, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of WO 2019/194298 A1 in which US 2021/0028365 A1 to Tasaki et al. is used the US English equivalent. (hereinafter Tasaki-365).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Hatakeyama’112 and Huh teaches the OLED of claim 1. Hatakeyama’112 further teaches a first electron transport layer 1 and a second electron transport layer 2. (See Table 2A and para 562 and 566).
Hatakeyama’112 does not explicitly teach the hole blocking layer (i.e. electron transport layer) further containing the benzimidazole compound of claims 5-6.
However, Tasaki-365 teaches an electroluminescence device
PNG
media_image8.png
286
378
media_image8.png
Greyscale
comprising a substrate (2), an anode (3), an emitting layer (5), a cathode (10), an organic layer (4), an organic layer (6), a hole blocking layer (6a), and an electron blocking layer (4b) (para 453). Tasaki-365 further teaches a second electron-transporting layer may be formed on the hole-blocking layer (first electron-transporting layer), (para 1103), wherein the second electron-transporting layer contains the compound
PNG
media_image9.png
149
308
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(para 1098-1106), which meets the claimed F1 of claims 5-6. Tasaki-365 further teaches that the compound ET in the electron-transporting layer has a high-electron-transporting property (para 1048), and when used with a first electron transporting layer (i.e. hole blocking layer), the first electron transporting layer acts as hole blocking layer to prevent holes from leaking from the emitting layer to the electron-transporting layer, and also functions as an electron-transporting layer for transporting electrons injected from a cathode to the emitting layer. (para 464, 706, 1073, and 1103).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the compound ET of Tasaki-365 in the second electron transport layer 2 of Hatakeyama’112 because Tasaki-365 teaches the same field of endeavor of OLED devices using similar polycyclic aromatic dopant compounds, and Tasaki-365 further teaches that the compound ET in the electron-transporting layer has a high-electron-transporting property (para 1048), and when used with a first electron transporting layer (i.e. hole blocking layer), the first electron transporting layer acts as hole blocking layer to prevent holes from leaking from the emitting layer to the electron-transporting layer, and also functions as an electron-transporting layer for transporting electrons injected from a cathode to the emitting layer. (para 464, 706, 1073, and 1103).
Claim(s) 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama’112 in view of Huh, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2016/0164042 A1 to Cho et al. (hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claims 7-16, as cited above and incorporated herein, the combination of Hatakeyama’112 and Huh teaches the OLED for claim 1.
Hatakeyama’112 does not explicitly teach the diode with three emitting layers with the hole blocking layer and electron transporting layer upon each emitting layer.
However, Cho teaches an OLED device having the tandem formation of
PNG
media_image10.png
442
313
media_image10.png
Greyscale
composed of a three emission parts (110, 120, 130), (See Fig. 1, para 71-72). Cho teaches that the stacking of emission layers and optimizing the thickness of layers will improve color reproduction, change rate and efficiency (para 16), Cho further teaches there are electron transport layers (116, 126, 136) between the light emitting layers and a charge generation layers (140, 150) between the emission parts which adjust the balance of electrical charges between them. (para 80 and 82). Cho further teaches that electric transporting layers serve to supply the electrons to the light emitting layers (para 152), while a hole blocking layer may also be formed on the light emitting layer to prevent a hole from being transferred from the light emitting layer to the electron transporting layer, which enhances an emission efficiency of the light emitting layer (para 157) and can also be applied upon the second and third light emitting layers (para 166 and 181). Cho also teaches that each emitting region may emit a chosen color by choice of dopant (para 11), such as the second emission layer as yellow-green (para 30) and a red emission layer (para 170), which meets claims 11-12.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention for the light emitting layer of Hatakeyama’112, with the layers of hole blocking layer and electron transporting layer applied upon it, to be arranged as the tandem OLED structure in Cho because Cho teaches the same field of endeavor of OLED devices, and Cho teaches that the stacking of emission layers and optimizing the thickness of layers will improve color reproduction, change rate and efficiency (para 16), and Cho further teaches that electric transporting layers serve to supply the electrons to the light emitting layers (para 152), while the hole blocking layer may also be formed on the light emitting layer to prevent a hole from being transferred from the light emitting layer to the electron transporting layer, which enhances an emission efficiency of the light emitting layer (para 157) and can also be applied upon the second and third light emitting layers (para 166 and 181).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s request to address the double patenting rejections following an indication that claims are allowable, i.e. hold in abeyance a response, it is noted that the Applicant’s request is not a complete response. (See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)). MPEP 804(I)(B)(1) states a complete response to a nonstatutory patent rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer…” MPEP 804(I)(B)(1) also states, “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766