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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/27/2021. 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 11/12/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 and 10-25 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 the claims now only comprise compounds which comply with the written description requirement, Examiner disagrees.
The scope of the instantly claimed organometallic compounds is more broad than the instant disclosure provides support for. As outlined below, the instant disclosure only provides support for iridium organometallic complexes bearing at least one phenylpyridine ligand substituted with at least one first substituent selected from a branched alkyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms in a ring, and a trialkylsilyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms. The instant independent claim is drawn to any organometallic compound bearing any ligand substituted with at least one first substituent selected from a branched alkyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms in a ring, and a trialkylsilyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms, which is far more broad than the instant disclosure provides support for. As such, it is Examiner’s position that independent claims still contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Haruyama already provides an embodiment directed to overcoming the issue solved by King, and thus would not have combined the teachings of Haruyama and King, Examiner disagrees.
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, King demonstrates that by substituting a t-butyl group onto each ring of the ligand of Ir(ppy)3 achieves three to six times improvement in device performance (Conclusion, page 1049), making it an obvious modification to an ordinary skilled artisan.
Further, Examiner asserts that Haruyama’s teaching of using a fluorescent material having protecting groups as the second material makes this modification more obvious, rather than less, because then modification by King’s compound, comprising protecting groups, becomes a more obvious alternate solution to the problem of energy transfer by Dexter mechanism.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Haruyama teaches that use of bulky protecting groups is taught against by Haruyama, Examiner disagrees.
The passage from paragraph [0372] has been taken out of context. In context, the entire paragraph reads, “Therefore, to increase the rate of energy transfer by the Förster mechanism while inhibiting energy transfer by the Dexter mechanism, the intermolecular distance is preferably greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm. This requires the above protecting groups to be not too bulky; thus, the number of carbon atoms of the protecting groups is preferably 3 to 10.”
As the number of carbon atoms in the protecting groups of King is four (t-butyl), King’s substituted Ir(ppy)3 compound is actually an ideal choice because it meets the teachings of Haruyama and could reasonably be expected to achieve an intermolecular distance of greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm, as taught by Haruyama.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 7 require the combination of an organometallic complex and light-emitting material wherein the absorption spectrum of the light-emitting material comprises a longest-wavelength edge at a first wavelength, and the phosphorescence spectrum of the organometallic complex comprises a shortest-wavelength edge at a second wavelength, and the first wavelength of the light emitting material is longer than the second wavelength of the organometallic complex. The instant description only provides three examples of combinations that meets this requirement. These combinations are It(5tBuppy)3:TTPA (Table 1), Ir(5tBuppy)3:2Ph-mmtBuDPhA2Anth (Table 3), and Ir(4tBuppy)3:2Ph-mmtBuDPhA2Anth (Table 5). Further, while the specification provides examples of organometallic compounds (See Compounds 104-112 on pages 25-26 of the instant specification), and examples of light-emitting compounds (See the compounds on pages 28 and 35-38 of the instant specification), the first and second wavelength of these compounds is not given, so it is unclear what further combinations, if any, would satisfy the requirements of the instant claims.
Further, the disclosure contains exceedingly broad directions by which to form additional embodiments of organometallic compounds. The claims are directed to any organometallic compound comprising any ligand as long as the ligand further comprises at least one first substituent selected from a branched alkyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms in a ring, and a trialkylsilyl group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms. The instant specification only demonstrates phenylpyridine ligands coordinated to an iridium nucleus having one of the aforementioned substituents. The breadth of any organometallic complex comprising any ligand is not supported by the examples given in the instant specification.
Thus, the limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2-6 and 8, and 10-25 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (WO 2019/171197 A1, using US 2021/0043840 A1 as an official translation and for references), and further in view of King et al. (King, S.M; Al-Attar, H.A.; Evans, R.J.; Congreve, A.; Beeby, A.; Monkman, A.P., 2006, The Use of Substituted Iridium Complexes in Doped Polymer Electrophosphorescent Devices: The Influence of Triplet Transfer and Other Factors on Enhancing Device Performance, Adv. Funct. Mater., 16, 1043-1050).
With respect to claim 1, Haruyama discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and a light emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0248) comprising a phosphorescent iridium compound (paragraph 0318) that transfers energy from a triplet state to a light-emitting material that emits fluorescence (paragraph 0268).
Haruyama gives an example of the fluorescent material in Compound (102), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim because it comprises an anthracene core which has an amine skeleton and has at least five or more second substituents which are branched C4 alkyl groups (t-butyl).
However, while Haruyama teaches that the phosphorescent material is preferably an iridium based ortho-metalated ligand (paragraph 0425, lines 4-7), Haruyama does not teach the iridium compound has at least one first substituent which is a branched alkyl group.
In analogous art, King teaches iridium complexes which are used to transfer triplet energy to another material in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (abstract).
King teaches that triplet transfer from the phosphor is energetically favorable with bulky side groups and that introduction of bulky side groups was found to reduce the energy transfer by reducing the orbital overlap necessary for Dexter transfer to take place and a halving in the energy transfer was achieved by substituting a t-butyl group on to each ring in the ligands of Ir(ppy)3. The substitutions effectively form a shell, preventing energy transfer from the 3MLCT state, achieving three to six times improvement in device performance when two t-butyl groups are made on the ligand of the iridium complex (Conclusion, page 1049). An example of such a compound is given in Compound 2 (Figure 3), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
380
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 use the doubly-substituted compound (2) of King as the ortho-metalated iridium phosphorescent triplet energy source in the device of Haruyama in order to achieve three to six times improvement in device performance by reducing the orbital overlap necessary for Dexter transfer to take place, as taught by King.
Examiner notes that King teaches that phosphorescence of the compound takes place at room temperature (Figure 6).
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 109) and 35 (compound 2tBu-mmtBuDPhA2Anth) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Haruyama and King read on the claims.
Haruyama and King are silent to the longest-wavelength edge at a first wavelength in nm of the compound of Haruyama being longer than the shortest-wavelength edge at a second wavelength in nm of the compound King. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the light-emitting material of Haruyama and the organometallic of King are used as a composition of the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Haruyama and King, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Haruyama and King was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 2, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and the organometallic compound comprises an iridium core, as pictured above, and the ligand comprises a six-membered ring comprising an atom covalently bonded to the iridium (carbon in the benzene portion), and the second ring that is six-membered that has an atom coordinated to the iridium core (nitrogen in the pyridine portion), and at least one of the first substituents is bonded to at least one of the first ring and the second ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and the ligand is a phenylpyridine derivative and one first substituent is bonded to the carbon of the phenylpyridine skeleton, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 4, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and the organometallic does not comprise any n-alkyl group.
With respect to claim 5, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compounds pictured and discussed above in claim 1 to meet the requirements of instant formula (1) through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 109) and 35 (compound 2tBu-mmtBuDPhA2Anth) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Haruyama and King read on the claims.
Haruyama and King are silent to the relationship between the first wavelength and the second wavelength meeting the requirements of instant formula (1). However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the light-emitting material of Haruyama and the organometallic of King are used as a composition of the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Haruyama and King, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Haruyama and King was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 6, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compounds pictured and discussed above in claim 1 to meet the requirements of instant formula (2) through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 109) and 35 (compound 2tBu-mmtBuDPhA2Anth) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Haruyama and King read on the claims.
Haruyama and King are silent to the fluorescence spectrum of the light-emitting material comprising a shortest wavelength edge at a third wavelength in nm satisfying instant formula (2). However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the light-emitting material of Haruyama and the organometallic of King are used as a composition of the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Haruyama and King, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Haruyama and King was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 7, Haruyama discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and a light emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0248) comprising a phosphorescent iridium compound (paragraph 0318) that transfers energy from a triplet state to a light-emitting material that emits fluorescence (paragraph 0268).
Haruyama gives an example of the fluorescent material in Compound (102), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim because it comprises an anthracene core which has an amine skeleton and has at least five or more second substituents which are branched C4 alkyl groups (t-butyl).
However, while Haruyama teaches that the phosphorescent material is preferably an iridium based ortho-metalated ligand (paragraph 0425, lines 4-7), Haruyama does not teach the iridium compound has at least one first substituent which is a branched alkyl group.
In analogous art, King teaches iridium complexes which are used to transfer triplet energy to another material in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (abstract).
King teaches that triplet transfer from the phosphor is energetically favorable with bulky side groups and that introduction of bulky side groups was found to reduce the energy transfer by reducing the orbital overlap necessary for Dexter transfer to take place and a halving in the energy transfer was achieved by substituting a t-butyl group on to each ring in the ligands of Ir(ppy)3. The substitutions effectively form a shell, preventing energy transfer from the 3MLCT state, achieving three to six times improvement in device performance when two t-butyl groups are made on the ligand of the dopant (Conclusion, page 1049). An example of such a compound is given in Compound 2 (Figure 3), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
380
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 use the doubly-substituted compound (2) of King as the ortho-metalated iridium phosphorescent triplet energy source in the device of Haruyama in order to achieve three to six times improvement in device performance by reducing the orbital overlap necessary for Dexter transfer to take place, as taught by King.
Examiner notes that King teaches that phosphorescence of the compound takes place at room temperature (Figure 6).
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 109) and 35 (compound 2tBu-mmtBuDPhA2Anth) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Haruyama and King read on the claims.
Haruyama and King are silent to the phosphorsescent spectrum of the organometallic complex overlapping with the absorption spectrum of the light-emitting material. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the light-emitting material of Haruyama and the organometallic of King are used as a composition of the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Haruyama and King, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Haruyama and King was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 8, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and the organometallic complex comprises a transition metal, which is iridium, and the ligand comprises a first ring that is six-membered which comprises an atom covalently bonded to the transition metal (the carbon of the benzene portion), and a second six-membered ring which has an atom coordinated to the transition metal (the nitrogen of the pyridine), and at least one first substituent which is bonded to the first ring and the second ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and at least three second substituents of the five or more second substituents are not directly bonded to the condensed aromatic ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 11, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and the light-emitting material comprises a diarylamino group and the anthracene skeleton is bonded to the nitrogen atom of the diarylamino and at least five or more of the second substituents are bonded to the aryl group or the diarylamino, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 12, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and the branched alkyl group is a tertiary alkyl group (t-butyl).
With respect to claim 13, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and the branched alkyl group comprise 4 carbon atoms in total (t-butyl).
With respect to claims 14-15, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, as discussed above, and each of the second substituents is a t-butyl group.
However, for the sake of discussion, Haruyama teaches a cycloalkyl group through compounds such as compounds (204) and (205) (page 27), and a trialkyl silyl group through compounds (206) and (207) (page 27).
With respect to claim 17, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and the branched alkyl of the first substituent is a tertiary alky group (t-butyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 19, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and Haruyama teaches that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a host material (paragraph 0015).
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 use a host material in the light-emitting layer of Haruyama and King as taught by Haruyama.
With respect to claim 20, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and the organometallic complex of King meets the requirements of instant General Formula (G0) when n is 3, L is not present, and R104 and R108 are a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) substituent, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 21, Haruyama and King teach the light-emitting device of claim 1, and Haruyama teaches the device may be an apparatus (paragraph 0530) and comprise a substrate such as glass, plastic, or the like (paragraph 0470).
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 form the apparatus on a substrate, as taught by Haruyama.
With respect to claim 22, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 1, and Haruyama teaches the device may be a display device (paragraph 0557), and may comprise a substrate such as glass, plastic, or the like (paragraph 0470).
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 use the device of Haruyama and King in a display device comprising a substrate, as taught by Haruyama.
With respect to claim 23, Haruyama and King teach the apparatus of claim 21, and Haruyama also teaches a portable information terminal (an apparatus) which comprises a housing (paragraph 0560).
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 give the apparatus a housing, as taught by Haruyama.
With respect to claim 24, Haruyama and King teach the display device of claim 22, and Haruyama also teaches an electronic device comprising a least one of a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone (paragraph 0570).
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 give the electronic device at least a power button (an operation button), as taught by Haruyama.
With respect to claim 25, Haruyama and King teach the device of claim 7, and the organometallic complex of King is represented by instant General Formula (G0) when n is 3 and L is not present, and R104 and R108 are a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) substituent, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (WO 2019/171197 A1, using US 2021/0043840 A1 as an official translation and for references), and further in view of King et al. (King, S.M; Al-Attar, H.A.; Evans, R.J.; Congreve, A.; Beeby, A.; Monkman, A.P., 2006, The Use of Substituted Iridium Complexes in Doped Polymer Electrophosphorescent Devices: The Influence of Triplet Transfer and Other Factors on Enhancing Device Performance, Adv. Funct. Mater., 16, 1043-1050) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-25 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1).
With respect to claims 16 and 18, Haruyama and King teach the light-emitting device of claim 1 and claim 7, as discussed above.
However, neither Haruyama nor King teach the presence of a deuterium atom.
Li teaches organic semiconductors consisting of a chromophore in which one or more hydrogen atoms is replaced with a deuterium atom. Li teaches that deuterated organic semiconductors have improved performance, for instance, high fluorescence yield and more stability than its non-deuterated analogue (paragraph 0023).
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 incorporate a deuterium atom into the compound of Haruyama or King in order to improve the compounds performance, and obtain higher fluorescence and more stability than its non-deuterated analogue, as taught by Li.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786