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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-9, 12-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 32-36 of the reply filed 03/26/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2013/0135178 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Lee ‘178) in view of Noda et al. (“5,5’-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’-bithiophene and 5,5”-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’:5’,2”- terthiophene as a Novel Family of Electron-Transporting Amorphous Molecular Materials”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, vol. 120, page 9714-9715), and the rejections of claims 7-8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le’178 in view of Noda as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 12-14, and 16-19 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 03/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Lee ‘178 and Noda fails to establish a prima facie case for obviousness for amended claims 1 and 9.
The cited rejections refer to Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (see section 48 of the last Office Action).
The compound does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims 1 and 9; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Lee ‘178 in view of Noda is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection. Lee ‘178 in view of Noda is used to make two sets of rejections.
Rejection set no. 1
Lee ‘178 discloses a compound (Formula 1 in [0014]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0012]) and exemplifies Compound 1-1 ([0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The condensed cyclic ring of the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-3 of the instant claims. The only difference is that in the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 the substituents at the positions corresponding to R7 and R8 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 are joined to form a fused benzene ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed ring in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula 1-3 requires the substituents at R6 and R7 are joined to form a fused benzene ring. However, Lee ‘178 does teach that R6 and R7 can be joined to form a fused aromatic ring ([0017]) and exemplifies Formula 6 ([0042]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 by substituting the fusion positions of the fused benzene ring at R7 and R8 with the positions R6 and R7 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1).
PNG
media_image2.png
251
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1) has a phenyl group at the position corresponding to the moiety Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1 of the instant claims; however, Lee ‘178 does teach that Y can be a substituted boron group ([0021]).
Noda discloses an dimesitylboryl compound (BMB-2T and BMB-3T on page 9714, col. 1) used as an electron transporting material of an organic light emitting device (page 9715, col. 2).
Noda teaches incorporation of the dimesitylboryl moiety provides electron accepting properties, prevents crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg (page 9714, col. 2, line 5-11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1) by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 with a dimesitylboryl group as taught by Lee ‘178 and Noda.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
Rejection set no. 2
Lee ‘178 discloses a compound (Formula 1 in [0014]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0012]) and exemplifies Compound 1-174 ([0080]).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The N-containing condensed cyclic ring of the Compound 1-174 of Lee ‘178 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-1 of the instant claims. The only difference is that in the Compound 1-174 of Lee ‘178 the substituents at the positions corresponding to R7 and R8 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 are joined to form a fused benzene ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed ring in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula 1-1 requires the substituents at R5 and R6 are joined to form a fused benzene ring. However, Lee ‘178 does teach that R5 and R6 can be joined to form a fused aromatic ring ([0017]) and exemplifies Formula 5 ([0039]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 174 of Lee ‘178 by substituting the fusion positions of the fused benzene ring at R7 and R8 with the positions R5 and R6 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2).
PNG
media_image5.png
342
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2) has a pyrenyl group at the position corresponding to the moiety Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1 of the instant claims; however, Lee ‘178 does teach that Y can be a substituted boron group ([0021]).
Noda discloses an dimesitylboryl compound (BMB-2T and BMB-3T on page 9714, col. 1) used as an electron transporting material of an organic light emitting device (page 9715, col. 2).
Noda teaches incorporation of the dimesitylboryl moiety provides electron accepting properties, prevents crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg (page 9714, col. 2, line 5-11)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2) by substituting the pyrenyl group at the position corresponding to Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 with a dimesitylboryl group as taught by Lee ‘178 and Noda.
PNG
media_image6.png
317
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
Applicant argues that there would have been no motivation to modify the compounds of Lee ‘178 because the core structures of Lee ‘178 and Noda are different.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
As outlined above, Lee ‘178 teaches the Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1).
PNG
media_image2.png
251
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1) has a phenyl group at the position corresponding to the moiety Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1 of the instant claims.
However, Lee ‘178 does teach that Y can be a substituted boron group ([0021]).
The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art relies upon from Noda is the detailed structure of a substituted boron group and the advantage of the substituted boron group.
Noda discloses an dimesitylboryl compound (BMB-2T and BMB-3T on page 9714, col. 1) used as an electron transporting material of an organic light emitting device (page 9715, col. 2).
Lee ‘178 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘178 can be used as the carrier transporting material including the electron transporting material and the light emitting host material of organic light emitting devices ([0097]-[0099]). Lee ‘178 and Noda in the same art area.
Noda teaches incorporation of the dimesitylboryl moiety provides electron accepting properties, prevents crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg (page 9714, col. 2, line 5-11). The advantages of dimesitylboryl moiety exist regardless of the core structure because the properties stem from the electronic property of the boron atom and the structural property of the dimesitylboryl group. Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the dimesitylboryl group into the compound of Lee ‘178 to achieve the advantages taught by Noda.
For at least the reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2013/0135178 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Lee ‘178) in view of Noda et al. (“5,5’-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’-bithiophene and 5,5”-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’:5’,2”- terthiophene as a Novel Family of Electron-Transporting Amorphous Molecular Materials”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, vol. 120, page 9714-9715).
Regarding claims 9, 12-14, and 16-19, Lee ‘178 discloses a compound (Formula 1 in [0014]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0012]) and exemplifies Compound 1-1 ([0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The condensed cyclic ring of the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-3 of the instant claims. The only difference is that in the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 the substituents at the positions corresponding to R7 and R8 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 are joined to form a fused benzene ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed ring in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula 1-3 requires the substituents at R6 and R7 are joined to form a fused benzene ring. However, Lee ‘178 does teach that R6 and R7 can be joined to form a fused aromatic ring ([0017]) and exemplifies Formula 6 ([0042]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1 of Lee ‘178 by substituting the fusion positions of the fused benzene ring at R7 and R8 with the positions R6 and R7 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Lee ‘178 exemplified the positions R6 and R7 as the fusion position of the fused benzene ring in Formula 6 of Lee ‘178. The substitution of the exemplified fusion positions from R7 and R8 (i.e. Formula 7 in [0045]) to R6 and R7 (i.e. Formula 6 in [0042]) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1).
PNG
media_image2.png
251
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1) has a phenyl group at the position corresponding to the moiety Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1 of the instant claims; however, Lee ‘178 does teach that Y can be a substituted boron group ([0021]).
Noda discloses an dimesitylboryl compound (BMB-2T and BMB-3T on page 9714, col. 1) used as an electron transporting material of an organic light emitting device (page 9715, col. 2).
Noda teaches incorporation of the dimesitylboryl moiety provides electron accepting properties, prevents crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg (page 9714, col. 2, line 5-11).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (1) by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 with a dimesitylboryl group as taught by Lee ‘178 and Noda.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide electron accepting properties, prevent crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg, based on the teaching of Noda.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the phenyl group with a dimesitylboryl group at the position corresponding to the Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
290
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
Regarding claims 9, 12-14, and 18-20, Lee ‘178 discloses a compound (Formula 1 in [0014]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0012]) and exemplifies Compound 1-174 ([0080]).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The N-containing condensed cyclic ring of the Compound 1-174 of Lee ‘178 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-1 of the instant claims. The only difference is that in the Compound 1-174 of Lee ‘178 the substituents at the positions corresponding to R7 and R8 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 are joined to form a fused benzene ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed ring in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula 1-1 requires the substituents at R5 and R6 are joined to form a fused benzene ring. However, Lee ‘178 does teach that R5 and R6 can be joined to form a fused aromatic ring ([0017]) and exemplifies Formula 5 ([0039]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 174 of Lee ‘178 by substituting the fusion positions of the fused benzene ring at R7 and R8 with the positions R5 and R6 of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Lee ‘178 exemplified the positions R5 and R6 as the fusion position of the fused benzene ring in Formula 5 of Lee ‘178. The substitution of the exemplified fusion positions from R7 and R8 (i.e. Formula 7 in [0045]) to R5 and R6 (i.e. Formula 5 in [0039]) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2).
PNG
media_image5.png
342
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2) has a pyrenyl group at the position corresponding to the moiety Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1 of the instant claims; however, Lee ‘178 does teach that Y can be a substituted boron group ([0021]).
Noda discloses an dimesitylboryl compound (BMB-2T and BMB-3T on page 9714, col. 1) used as an electron transporting material of an organic light emitting device (page 9715, col. 2).
Noda teaches incorporation of the dimesitylboryl moiety provides electron accepting properties, prevents crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg (page 9714, col. 2, line 5-11).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee ‘178 (2) by substituting the pyrenyl group at the position corresponding to Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 with a dimesitylboryl group as taught by Lee ‘178 and Noda.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide electron accepting properties, prevent crystallization due to its nonplanar molecular structure, and forms amorphous glass with high Tg, based on the teaching of Noda.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the pyrenyl group with a dimesitylboryl group at the position corresponding to the Y of Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
317
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, and Applicant’s specific embodiment of Compound 3.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) and (2) each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Lee ‘178 in view of Noda does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)); however, Lee ‘178 does teach that the compound of Lee ‘178 can be used for an electron transport layer material ([0097]).
Lee ‘178 exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (BH as a host, BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (compound of Lee ‘178 and LiQ), and a second electrode (cathode) , wherein the compound BD emits blue light (Example 1-1 in [0233]-[0243] and Table 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)) by incorporating it as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the electron transport layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (BH as a host, BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)) and LiQ), and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer and the electron transport layer are an interlayer; and the compound BD emits blue light.
Regarding claim 3, the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) and (2) each reads on all the features of Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Lee ‘178 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising a hole transport region containing the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)); however, Lee ‘178 does teach that the compound of Lee ‘178 can be included in a hole transport region ([0099]).
Lee ‘178 teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0096]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)) by incorporating it into the hole transport region of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the hole transport region materials represented by Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 in the organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic Light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport region (Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2))), an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode (cathode).
Regarding claim 4, the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) and (2) each reads on all the features of Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Lee ‘178 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)); however, Lee ‘178 does teach that the compound of Lee ‘178 can be included in an emission layer ([0098]).
Lee ‘178 teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0096]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)) by incorporating it into the emission layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee ‘178.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emission layer materials represented by Formula 1 of Lee ‘178 in the organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport region, an emission layer (Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2))), an electron transport region, and a second electrode (cathode).
Claims 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2013/0135178 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) in view of Noda et al. (“5,5’-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’-bithiophene and 5,5”-Bis(dimesitylboryl)-2,2’:5’,2”- terthiophene as a Novel Family of Electron-Transporting Amorphous Molecular Materials”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, vol. 120, page 9714-9715) as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 21, the Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (BH as a host, BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda (1) (or (2)) and LiQ), and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer and the electron transport layer are an interlayer.
Lee ‘178 in view of Noda does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda and a thin film transistor.
Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (personal computer in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor, as taught by Lee ‘178 and Inoue.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electronic apparatus (i.e. personal computer) of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda and Inoue containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Organic light emitting device of Lee ‘178 as modified by Noda and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights