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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 13, 17, and 19 are amended, claim 16 is cancelled, and claims 22-23 are new due to Applicant's amendment dated 06/17/2026. Claims 1-9, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 16 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 16 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 06/17/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/17/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5-9, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/17/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 19-24 of the reply dated 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 19-22, Applicant argues there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Han and Nakano to arrive at the claimed invention with any reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, Applicant argues there is no motivation to apply Nakano’s BH-1 into one emission layer of Han and Nakano’s BH-7 into another emission layer of Han. Applicant further argues that as the first host and second host in Han have different chemical skeletons, there is no motivation to choose two anthracene compounds for the first and second hosts, as they have the same chemical skeleton.
Examiner's response –Han teaches each of the first host and the second host may be any suitable hosts (¶ [0061]). As Nakano teaches a compound represented by formula (1) is a host material (¶ [0009]-[0010]), compounds of Nakano’s formula (1) would necessarily be suitable for use as the first and second hosts in Han’s device.
Nakano teaches a device having a low CIEy value and a long lifetime may be obtained by including a compound represented by formula (1) as a host material and a compound represented by formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in an emitting layer (¶ [0009]-[0010]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include a compound represented by Nakano’s formula (1) as a host material and a compound represented by Nakano’s formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in each of Han’s first and third emission layers to obtain the benefits of a low CIEy value and a long lifetime, as taught by Nakano.
Given that Han teaches the first host and second host are different from each other (¶ [0061]), it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the same compound of Nakano’s formula (1) for the first host and second host. Rather, one of ordinary skill would have been motivation to select different compounds of Nakano’s formula (1) for the first host and second host. As Nakano teaches examples wherein BH-1 is a host and BH-7 is a host (see Nakano, Examples 1 and 7 in Table 1 on pg. 524), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select BH-7 as the host for the first emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 7) and BH-1 as the host for the third emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 1), because it would have been choosing particular host compounds taught by Nakano and particular layers in which to include the compounds, and this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Han and Nakano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Han’s formula (1) having the benefits taught by Nakano in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
It should also be noted that Han does not require the first host and second host to have different chemical skeletons. Rather, Han merely requires the first host and second host to be different from each other (¶ [0061]). Given that Nakano’s BH-7 and BH-1 are different from each other, they may suitably be selected as Han’s first host and second host, respectively. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would expect Nakano’s BH-7 and BH-1 to successfully function as hosts in the device of Han.
Applicant's argument –On pages 22-24, Applicant argues Hatakeyama merely discloses a weight range of a dopant in a light emitting layer but does not provide motivation to apply a weight range of a dopant into only one of the first emission layer and the third emission layer of Han.
Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama teach a device wherein each of the first emission layer comprises a dopant concentration of 5% and the third emission layer comprises a dopant concentration of 2%. Hatakeyama teaches an amount of dopant in a light emitting layer is preferably from 0.1 to 10% as this prevents a concentration quenching phenomenon (¶ [0147]). Accordingly, both the first emission layer and third emission layer comprise a dopant concentration within the range taught by Hatakeyama having the benefits of preventing concentration quenching phenomenon.
As to specifically selecting a dopant concentration of 5% for the first emitting layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the dopant concentration in the first emission layer from 2% to 5%, as shown in Hatakeyama’s Example 1, because Hatakeyama teaches the dopant concentration may suitably be selected as 0.1 to 10%. The substitution would have been one known dopant concentration for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified first emission layer would be useful in the device of Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama and possess the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Claim Objections
Claims 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22-23 each recite “each of R61 and R62 is independently selected from the consisting of…” rather than “each of R61 and R62 is independently selected from the group consisting of…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 22 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is dependent upon cancelled claim 16. Thus, it is unclear which claim(s) claim 19 is dependent upon. For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1, as the amended claim 1 incorporates the limitations of cancelled claim 16.
Claims 22-23 recite “the fifth compound includes at least one a compound represented by Formula 9 or 11 and a compound represented by Formula 15 or 17.” It is unclear if the claims are requiring at least one of a compound represented by Formula 9 or 11 and a compound represented by Formula 15 or 17 (and thus only one compound is required to be present) or if the claims are requiring at least one compound represented by Formula 9 or 11 and at least one compound represented by Formula 15 or 17 (and thus requiring two compounds to be present). For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the fifth compound is at least one of a compound represented by Formula 9 or 11 and a compound represented by Formula 15 or 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Han teaches an organic electroluminescence device including a base substrate, a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light-emitting unit between the first and second electrodes, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises sequentially a first sub-light-emitting unit on the first electrode and including a first emission layer (first emitting material layer), a first charge generation layer (first charge generation layer) on the first sub-light-emitting unit, a second sub-light-emitting unit on the first charge generation layer and including a second emission layer, a second charge generation layer on the second sub-light-emitting unit, and a third sub-light-emitting unit on the second charge generation layer and including a third emission layer (second emitting material layer), wherein each of the first and second emission layers include a first host and the third emission layer includes a second host different from the first host (abstract). Such a device has excellent efficiency while reducing material costs (¶ [0002] and [0045]; Fig. 3).
In Han’s device, the first sub-light-emitting unit reads on the claimed first emitting part, and the combination of the second sub-light-emitting unit, the second charge generation unit, and the third sub-light-emitting unit read on the claimed second emitting part. Accordingly, the first emitting part both physically and electrically contacts one surface of the first charge generation layer and the second emitting part both physically and electrically contacts the other surface of the first charge generation layer.
Han is silent as to the first and second hosts being deuterated anthracene derivatives. However, Han does teach each of the first host and the second host may be any suitable hosts as long as they are different from each other (¶ [0061]). Additionally, Han teaches the blue dopant of the first and third emission layers may include any suitable blue dopant (¶ [0103] and [0109]).
Nakano teaches an organic electroluminescence device having a low CIEy value and a long lifetime by including a compound represented by formula (1) as a host material and a compound represented by formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in an emitting layer (¶ [0009]-[0010]). Nakano teaches examples of emitting layers comprising a compound represented by formula (1) including Example 1, which comprises the host BH-1 and 2% of a dopant material, and Example 7, which comprises the host BH-7 and 2% of a dopant material (see ¶ [0656] and [0665]; Table 1 on pg. 524; and structures on pgs. 515 and 519).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a compound represented by Nakano’s formula (1) as a host material and a 2% of a blue emitting compound represented by Nakano’s formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in each of the first and third emission layers, based on the teaching of Nakano. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having a low CIEy value and a long lifetime, as taught by Nakano.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select BH-7 as the host for the first emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 7) and BH-1 as the host for the third emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 1), because it would have been choosing particular host compounds taught by Nakano and particular layers in which to include the compounds, and this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Han and Nakano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Han’s formula (1) having the benefits taught by Nakano in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
BH-7 (first compound) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 2.
BH-7:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
204
241
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BH-7 reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 3 (claims 1-2) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 aryl group;
L is a C6 arylene group;
a1 is 8; and
b2 and c2 are each 7, and d2 is 4.
Additionally, BH-7 is a compound of Formula 5 (claim 3).
BH-1 (second compound) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
BH-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
185
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
203
241
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BH-1 reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 4 (claims 1-2) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 aryl group;
L is a C6 arylene group;
a2 is 8; and
b2, c2, and d2 are each 0.
Accordingly, the sum of a1, b1, c1, and d1 is greater than the sum of a2, b2, c2, and d2.
Additionally, BH-1 reads on the claimed compound Host 1-2 (claim 4).
Claims 5-9, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1).
Supporting evidence provided by Wang (Wang, Yaxiong, et al. "A periphery cladding strategy to improve the performance of narrowband emitters, achieving deep-blue OLEDs with CIEy< 0.08 and external quantum efficiency approaching 20%." Organic electronics 97 (2021): 106275.)
Regarding claims 5-8 and 17-18, Han in view of Nakano teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and 2% of a blue dopant material and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1 and 2% of a blue dopant material, wherein the blue dopant materials are each a compound represented by one of Nakano’s formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81), as described above with respect to claim 1.
Han in view of Nakano fail to specifically teach wherein the dopants of the first and third emitting layers are boron derivatives. However, as discussed above, the dopant may be represented by Nakano’s formula (41), which has the structure below (¶ [0436]).
(41):
PNG
media_image5.png
101
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having optimal light emission characteristics by comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) as a dopant material in an emitting layer (abstract; ¶ [0064]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound including compound (1-2688) (pg. 4).
(1-2688):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Wang, compound (1-2688) is a blue emitter (see compound 2tPAB on pg. 3; and Conclusion on pg. 8). Additionally, compound (1-2688) reads on Nakano’s formula (41) wherein: ring a, b, and c are each a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring carbon atoms; and R401 and R402 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (see Nakano, ¶ [0436]-[0440]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound represented by Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) as the dopant in the first and third emission layers, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having optimal light emission characteristics, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Additionally, as compound (1-2688) is a blue dopant that reads on Nakano’s formula (41), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound (1-2688) as the dopant for both of the first and third emission layers, because it would have been choosing a specific compound taught by Hatakeyama, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the first and third emitting layers of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) having the benefits taught by Hatakeyama in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The dopant compound (1-2688) of the first and third emitting layers is a boron derivative, and thus reads on both of the claimed third and fourth compounds (claim 5), and is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 7.
(1-2688):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula 7:
PNG
media_image7.png
217
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-2688) reads on the claimed Formula 7 (claims 6 and 17) wherein:
R11, R12, R14, R21, R23, R24, R31, R32, R34, R35, R41, R42, R44, and R45 are each hydrogen;
R13, R22, R33, and R43 are each a C4 alkyl group; and
R51 is a C12 arylamino group.
Additionally, compound (1-2688) reads on the claimed Dopant 2 (claims 7 and 18).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1, wherein each of the first and third emission layers comprise 2% of the dopant compound (1-2688), as described above with respect to claims 5 and 16.
Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama are silent as to the thickness of the first and third emission layers. However, Han does teach the thicknesses of the first and third emission layers may be the same or different (¶ [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the same thickness for each of the first and third emission layers, because it would have been one of two choices, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a device possessing the benefits taught by Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices having the benefits taught by Han, Nakano, and Hatakeyama in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 21, Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and 2% of compound (1-2688) and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1 and 2% of compound (1-2688), as described above with respect to claim 5.
Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama fail to teach a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the first emission layer is greater than a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the third emission layer.
However, Hatakeyama teaches the amount of dopant is preferably from 0.1 to 10% as this prevents a concentration quenching phenomenon (¶ [0147]). Hatakeyama specifically teaches in Example 1 the light emitting layer may include 5% of the dopant (¶ [0360]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the dopant concentration in the first emission layer from 2% to 5%, as shown in Hatakeyama’s Example 1, because Hatakeyama teaches the dopant concentration may suitably be selected as 0.1 to 10%. The substitution would have been one known dopant concentration for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified first emission layer would be useful in the device of Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama and possess the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Accordingly, in the resulting device, the weight % of compound (1-2688) in the first emission layer (5%) is greater than a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the third emission layer (2%).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 2017/0117488 A1).
Regarding claims 22-23, Han in view of Nakano teach an organic electroluminescence device including a light-emitting unit that comprises sequentially a first sub-light-emitting unit on the first electrode and including a first emission layer (first emitting material layer), a first charge generation layer (first charge generation layer) on the first sub-light-emitting unit, a second sub-light-emitting unit on the first charge generation layer and including a second emission layer (third emitting material layer), a second charge generation layer on the second sub-light-emitting unit, and a third sub-light-emitting unit on the second charge generation layer and including a third emission layer (second emitting material layer) (¶ [0002] and [0045]; Figs. 3-4), as described above with respect to claim 1.
Han teaches the second emission layer may include any suitable host (¶ [0060]-[0061]). However, Han fails to teach a host comprising a compound of the claimed Formula 9 or 11 and a compound of the claimed Formula 15 or 17.
Ahn teaches an organic electroluminescent device having high efficiency and long lifespan by using multi-component host compounds in a light-emitting layer rather than one component host compound, wherein in the multi-component host compounds, the first host compound is represented by formula 1 and the second host compound is represented by formula 2 (¶ [0007]-[0009]). Examples of the first host include H1-1 and examples of the second host include H2-16 (see structure of H1-1 on pg. 6 and structure of H2-16 on pg. 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include in the second emission layer a first host represented by Ahn’s formula 1 and a second host represented by Ahn’s formula 2 to arrive at a device comprising multi-component host compounds in a light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Ahn.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select H1-1 as the first host and H2-16 as the second host, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Ahn’s formula 1 and formula 2, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful as hosts in the second emission layer of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Ahn’s formulas 1 and 2 having the benefits taught by Ahn in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound H1-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 15 (see structure on pg. 6 of Ahn).
H1-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
273
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
15:
PNG
media_image9.png
278
435
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Compound H1-1 reads on the claimed Formula 15 wherein each of R141 and R142 is a C6 aryl group.
Compound H2-16 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 11 (see structure on pg. 73 of Ahn).
H2-16:
PNG
media_image10.png
310
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
11:
PNG
media_image11.png
322
341
media_image11.png
Greyscale
H2-16 reads on the claimed Formula 11 wherein R121 and R123 are not required to be present, R122 is a C6 aryl group, and R124 is a C12 heteroaryl group; and o and p are each 0 and q is 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights