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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on10/04/2021. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 06/25/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-21 were originally filed.
Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 14-19, and 21 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Lee does not provide an apparent teaching, suggestion, or reason to modify the particular relied-upon Compound 145 to arrive at the claimed amine invention, Examiner disagrees.
It has been held that it is not whether the differences [between the claimed invention and the prior art] would have been obvious” but “whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537, 218 USPQ 871, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is examiner’s position that the modifications made to arrive at the claimed invention are taught, suggested, or obvious in view of the prior art as a whole.
Ways in which the claimed invention was taught or suggested by the prior art include the following examples. To arrive at a compound of instant claim 1, compound 145 was modified by incorporating a dibenzofuran which is substituted with a phenyl group. This modification is demonstrated in Lee through at least compounds 15, 97-98, 121-122, and 136. Similarly, in claim 5, the compound is modified to require a dibenzoheterole substituted to the amine core at the 4-position. This is demonstrated in Lee through at least compounds 10, 14-15, 17, 28, and 135-136. When a patent’s inventors choose to disclose only specific types of compounds in their specific examples, as opposed to all possibilities covered by a generic formula, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the selections taught through these specific compounds are the preferred implementations that the inventors considered important.
Ways in which the claimed invention is obvious in view of the prior art include the following examples. Instant claim 7 requires a dibenzoheterole moiety which is bonded to the amine core at the 1-position. While Lee does not have any compounds with a dibenzoheterole which is bonded to the amine core at the 1-position, it has been held that absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding pattern from the finite list of possible open valencies to arrive at a compound of the instantly claimed invention if there was a reasonable expectation of success. In the instant case, Lee teaches that the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009). Additionally, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, which comprises a variable bonding pattern, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound 145 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
In response to applicant's argument that Lee does not teach structure specific reasons to alter the compounds to be suited for use as hole transport materials or electron blocking materials, the instant claims do not appear to require a specific structural difference between compounds when they are used in a hole transporting layer as opposed to being used in an electron blocking layer. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to the amendments and the rejections over Lee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection of record.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2015/0102734 A, using the previously provided translation for references)
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a luminescence device (an OLED) comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), a hole transport region on the anode comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer, an emission layer on the hole transport region, an electron transport layer on the emission layer, and a cathode on the electron transport layer (paragraph 0132), and the one of the hole transport layer or the electron blocking layer comprises an amine compound (paragraph 0122) such as compound 145 (page 15 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Lee Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0069), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that Y is R5 (paragraph 0036), and R5 is selected as the partial formula below (paragraph 0037 and page 20 of the untranslated document).
PNG
media_image3.png
158
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3. In Formula 2-1, X is oxygen, Ra is site bonded to Formula 1 and any of Rh through Re is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 2-2, m is 1 and L1 is an arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (naphthyl). In Formula 2-3, n is 0 and L2 is not present, Y is sulfur, and p and q are 0 so that R4 and R5 are not present.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and Lee also teaches that the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer (paragraph 0132), and the hole transport layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0127), as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound in the hole transport layer, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and Lee teaches that the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer and an electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0122), as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound in the electron blocking layer, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
There is free rotation about the amine nitrogen atom in parent Formula 1. In this respect, a compound wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-3, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-2 is taught.
Formula 2-1 of R1 of Formula 1 is represented by Formula 2-1-1 when X is oxygen, Rh is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Lee is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position of the phenyl group on the dibenzofuran moiety.
In this respect, Lee also teaches a compound wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1-2, wherein Ri is a hydrogen atom, Rg is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming atoms (phenyl), and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Lee and Uno teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
There is free rotation about the nitrogen atom in parent Formula 1. In this respect, a compound wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-3, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-2 is taught.
Examiner notes that Lee is also non-limiting with respect to the bonding position of the phenyl group on the dibenzofuran moiety.
In this respect, Lee also teaches a compound wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1-2, wherein Ri is a hydrogen atom, Rg is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming atoms (phenyl), and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 7, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that the amine nitrogen atom in chemical formula 1 of Lee has a variable bond to the dibenzoheterole group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1-3, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3.
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 may be represented by instant Formula 3-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 may be represented by instant Formula 4-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that the amine nitrogen atom in chemical formula 1 of Lee has a variable bond to the dibenzoheterole group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when the compound of Formula 1 is represented by instant Formula 5-2.
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and L1 is a phenylene group and L2 is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, and the amine compound represented by Formula 1 may be instant B26
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R1 is a 2-naphthyl group (see the fourth structure in paragraph 0038 of the untranslated document).
Examiner notes that the phenyl group on the dibenzofuran moiety has a variable bond to the dibenzofuran group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces instant compound J19.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R1 is a 2-naphthyl group (see the fourth structure in paragraph 0038 of the untranslated document).
Examiner notes that the amine nitrogen atom in chemical formula 1 of Lee has a variable bond to the dibenzoheterole group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces instant compound L19.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 15, Lee discloses compound 145 (page 15 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Lee Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0069), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that Y is R5 (paragraph 0036), and R5 is selected as the partial formula below (paragraph 0037 and page 20 of the untranslated document).
PNG
media_image3.png
158
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3. In Formula 2-1, X is oxygen, Ra is site bonded to Formula 1 and any of Rh through Re is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 2-2, m is 1 and L1 is an arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (naphthyl). In Formula 2-3, n is 0 and L2 is not present, Y is sulfur, and p and q are 0 so that R4 and R5 are not present.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, and the compound of Formula 1 is represented by Formula 3-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, and the compound of Formula 1 is represented by Formula 4-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that the amine nitrogen atom in chemical formula 1 of Lee has a variable bond to the dibenzoheterole group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when the compound of Formula 1 is represented by instant Formula 5-2.
With respect to claim 19, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, and the compound is identical to instant B26
With respect to claim 20, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R1 is a 2-naphthyl group (see the fourth structure in paragraph 0038 of the untranslated document).
Examiner notes that the phenyl group on the dibenzofuran moiety has a variable bond to the dibenzofuran group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces instant compound J19.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which can be applied to an organic electroluminescence device as a hole transport material, an electron blocking material, and when applied to an organic electroluminescence device, can lower the driving voltage, and improve luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 21, Lee teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R1 is a 2-naphthyl group (see the fourth structure in paragraph 0038 of the untranslated document).
Examiner notes that the amine nitrogen atom in chemical formula 1 of Lee has a variable bond to the dibenzoheterole group.
Thus, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the arylamine compound of Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces instant compound L19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights