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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-14, and 21 are amended and claims 22-23 are new due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/26/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 5-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 01/26/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-21 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 paragraphs 22-25 of the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/26/2026. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-21 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 paragraph 26 of the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for failing to comply with the enablement requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn. However, as outlined below, a new scope of enablement rejection has been made.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-21 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 as set forth in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the reply dated 01/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-21 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –With respect to the written description rejection, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that claim 1 is amended such that the first and second organic compound are capable of being deposited by vacuum deposition and the single bond of the first and second organic compound is more specifically an aryl-aryl single bond. Applicant further argues polymers and other substances are excluded from the scope of the claims. Accordingly, Applicant argues the written description requirement is satisfied.
Applicant further notes new claims 22 and 23 are limited to specific structures.
Examiner's response –The amendments to claim 1 are not sufficient to overcome the written description rejection.
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, claim 1 does not further define the first organic compound, the second organic compound, and the third organic compound by a specific structure or general formula. Additionally, in contrast to what Applicant asserts, the claims do not exclude polymers and other substances from the scope of the claims. For example, as evidenced by US 2008/0191617 A1, a vacuum deposition process may be used for polymers in an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0008]). As claim 1 does not further define the first organic compound, the second organic compound, and the third organic compound by any structure or general formulae, the limited examples described in the written description do(es) not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
While claim 22 provides further structure to the second organic compound, no further structure is provided for the first organic compound and thus there is no further guidance on selecting the first organic compound in relation to the second organic compound to arrive at the claimed singlet energy relationship and the claimed exposed surface area. While claim 23 provides further structure to both the second organic compound and first organic compound, claim 23 is rejected at least for its dependency upon claim 1.
Applicant's argument –With respect to the lack of enablement rejection, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that as claim 1 is amended to include units of Å2 and how to calculate the exposed surface area, the amended claim 1 sufficiently enables a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make and use the invention as claimed.
Examiner's response – While claim 1 is amended to include units and how to calculate the exposed surface area, this is not sufficient to overcome the scope of enablement rejection.
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, there is no sufficient number of examples or guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill would choose the combination of a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound to arrive at: 1) a third organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the second compound, and a second organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound; and 2) both of an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the second organic compound being 91 Å2 or more. Without undue experimentation to determine the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of a bond, one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound, or the second organic compound relative to the third organic compound to arrive at the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For consistency and ease of reading, it is recommended in claim 1 to include “aryl-aryl” before “single bond” in line 16 such that it reads “aryl-aryl single bond”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 5-23 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 claim 1 and its dependent claims 3 and 5-23 require an organic light-emitting element comprising a light-emitting layer, which contains a first organic compound, a second organic compound that has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound, and a third organic compound with a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the second organic compound; wherein the first organic compound and the second organic compound comprise an aryl-aryl single bond, and wherein both of an exposed surface area of the aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of the single bond in a structure of the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more. Claim 1 does not further define the first organic compound, the second organic compound, and the third organic compound by any structure or general formulae. Claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-15 further require a second light-emitting layer comprising a fourth organic compound having a lowest excited singlet energy equal to or lower than the lowest excited singlet energy of the first organic compound, a fifth organic compound that has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the fourth organic compound, and a sixth organic compound that has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the fifth organic compound and a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the third organic compound; wherein at least one of an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the fourth organic compound and an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the fifth organic compound is 91 Å2 or more. Claim 10 does not further define the fourth organic compound, the fifth organic compound, and the sixth organic compound by any structure or general formulae.
The instant description includes exemplary embodiments 1-24 in Table 7 and exemplary embodiments 25-46 in Table 8, and recites minimum exposed surface area of specific compounds in Table 5. Out of all exemplary embodiments 1-46, only exemplary embodiments 2, 5, 8, 10-11, 19, 20-22, 34, 36, and 40 meet the following limitation of claim 1 wherein both of an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more (see Table 5 on pg. 65; ¶ [0025]). Claim 3 further require wherein the exposed surface area of the single bond in the structure of the first organic compound is 100 Å2 or more. The limitations of claim 3 are met by exemplary embodiments 5, 10-11, 19, 20-21, 36, and 40. Claim 21 further requires wherein the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of the single bond than the first organic compound, and only exemplary embodiments 6 and 7 meet this limitation. Additionally, the limitations of claims 10-15 pertaining to the exposed surface area of a single bond of the fourth and fifth organic compounds are not met by any of the exemplary embodiments.
As discussed above, claim 1 requires a second organic compound that has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound, and a third organic compound with a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the second organic compound. The instant description recites singlet energy levels of specific compounds in Table 4. However, Table 4 is silent as to the singlet energy levels of the third organic compounds (RD1 and GD9) used in the exemplary embodiments, and thus it cannot be determined whether any of the exemplary embodiments meet the required singlet energy relationships of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth organic compounds. Accordingly, no examples of devices are provided that meet every limitation of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3 and 5-23.
The instant description recites an organic compound may be selected from compounds K-1 to K-3 and L-1 to L-12 (instant ¶ [0088]), but is silent as to whether these compounds may be specifically selected for the first, second, or third organic compound. The instant description further recites the first organic compound, second organic compound, and third organic compound may be referred to as a host material, an assist material, and a light-emitting material, respectively (instant ¶ [0031]). In particular, the instant description recites the light-emitting layer host (i.e., the first organic compound) or the light-emitting assist material (i.e., the second organic compound) may be selected from compounds EM1 to EM40 (instant ¶ [0103]), the second organic compound may be selected from exemplary compounds 1-12 (instant ¶ [0041] and [0187]), and the light-emitting material (i.e., the third compound) may be selected from compounds BD1 to BD10, GD1 to GD15, and RD1 to RD10 (instant ¶ [0098]). However, the instant specification provides no further description or guidance of which combination of first, second, or third organic compounds might meet the claimed singlet energy relationships, the claimed exposed surface area, and the claimed exposed surface area relationship. As exemplified by the examples provided in Tables 7-8, not every combination of compounds EM1 to EM40, exemplary compounds 1-12, and compounds BD1 to BD10, GD1 to GD15, and RD1 to RD10 satisfy the claimed singlet energy relationships, the claimed exposed surface area, and the claimed exposed surface area relationship. The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Claim 1 recites the newly added amendment that each of the first organic compound and the second organic compound is capable of being deposited by vacuum deposition. The instant specification recites an organic compound layer may be formed by a dry process, such as a vacuum evaporation method, or a wet process, and further recites an example of an organic EL device in which an organic EL layer is formed by vacuum vapor deposition (instant ¶ [00126] and [00220]). That is, while the instant specification discusses methods of formation, the description pertains only to the layers themselves and not to any specific compounds. As discussed above, the instant specification further describes the first and second organic compounds in ¶ [0041], [0103], and [0187].
Accordingly, there does not appear to be sufficient support for the limitation of the first and second organic compounds capable of being deposited by vacuum deposition. For this reason, claim 1 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 3 and 5-23 depend upon claim 1 and thus are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for some organic light-emitting elements comprising a light-emitting layer containing a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound, wherein the second organic compound has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound and the third organic compound has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the second organic compound, wherein an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of single bond in the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more, does not reasonably provide enablement for all organic light-emitting elements comprising a light-emitting layer containing a first organic compound and a second organic compound, wherein the second organic compound has a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound, wherein an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of the single bond in the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. There is no sufficient number of examples or guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill would choose the combination of a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound to arrive at: 1) a third organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the second compound, and a second organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the first organic compound; and 2) both of an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the second organic compound being 91 Å2 or more (see claim 1). Similarly, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, there is no sufficient number of examples or guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill would choose the combination of a fourth organic compound, a fifth organic compound, and a sixth organic compound to arrive at: 1) a sixth organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the fifth organic compound and the third organic compound, a fifth organic compound having a lower lowest excited singlet energy than the fourth organic compound, and a fourth organic compound having a lowest excited singlet energy equal to or lower than the lowest excited singlet energy of the first organic compound; and 2) at least one of an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the fourth organic compound and an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the fifth organic compound is 91 Å2 or more (see claim 10). There is likewise no sufficient number of examples or guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill would choose the combination of a fifth organic compound and a fourth organic compound such that the fifth organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the fourth organic compound (see claim 15). Finally, there is no sufficient number of examples or guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill would choose the combination of a first organic compound and second organic compound such that the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the first organic compound (see claim 21).
As the second organic compound is defined by formula [1] (see claim 6), but the first or third organic compounds are not defined by any structure and no guidance is provided for selecting the combination of the first, second, and third organic compounds other than by their lowest excited singlet energy relationships and exposed surface area of a single bond in claim 1, this results in the claim being directed to very broadly defined combination of compounds which would conceivably satisfy these characteristics. Similarly, as the fourth, fifth, and sixth organic compounds are not defined by any structure and thus no guidance is provided for selecting the combination of the fourth, fifth, and sixth organic compounds other than by their lowest excited singlet energy relationships and exposed surface area of a single bond in claim 10, this results in the claim being directed to very broadly defined combination of compounds which would conceivably satisfy these characteristics.
As discussed above, while the instant description includes exemplary embodiments 1-24 in Table 7 and exemplary embodiments 25-46 in Table 8, these embodiments do not meet every limitation set forth in claims 1, 3, and 5-23.
In re Wands (B): the nature of the invention
The instant claims are drawn to a light-emitting layer containing a first organic compound and a second organic compound; wherein both of an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more. Additionally, the instant claims are drawn to a combination of the first organic compound and second organic compound such that the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the first organic compound (see claim 21).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the lowest excited singlet energy between a first organic compound and a second organic compound, or between a second organic compound and a third organic compound without undue experimentation. Accordingly, without undue experimentation to determine the singlet energy levels of the first, second, and third organic compound and the exposed surface area of a single bond of the first and second organic compound, one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound, or the second organic compound relative to the third organic compound to arrive at the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of a single bond.
The singlet energy affects how energy is transferred between compounds, and thus affects light emission (instant ¶ [0022], [0031]-[0033]). The instant specification recites an organic compound with a large exposed surface area has high durability and less degradation and thus can be used to improve the durability and drive lifetime of an organic light-emitting element (instant ¶ [0022]-[0023]). Particularly, when at least one of the first organic compound and the second organic compound has an exposed surface area of a bond of 91 or more, the device can achieve high luminescence efficiency and long lifetime (instant ¶ [0028]). Accordingly, the nature of the present invention is highly dependent upon the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of a bond. Without undue experimentation to determine the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of a bond, one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound, or the second organic compound relative to the third organic compound to arrive at the claimed singlet energy relationships and the claimed exposed surface area of a bond.
In re Wands (C): the state of the prior art
Only two references have been found that discuss the exposed surface area of a bond in an organic compound.
Okajima (US 2013/0001542 A1) teaches in an organic light-emitting device, the minimum exposed surface area of a single bond between aromatic hydrocarbon moieties of each of a host material contained in a light-emitting layer, a material contained in a hole-blocking layer, and a material contained in an electron-blocking layer is higher than 87, as this may inhibit the deterioration via an excited state (¶ [0082]-[0085]). Okajima teaches the approximate calculation of an exposed surface area may be determined by generating grid points on a surface of a molecule having a radius determined by adding the van der Waals radius and the probe radius, removing grid points located in another atom, and counting the number of the remaining grid points (¶ [0146]). Okajima teaches an example wherein at least 252 grid points are generated (¶ [0147]).
Iwasaki (English translation of JP 2013157552 A obtained from Global Dossier) teaches the minimum value of the exposed surface area of a second host material is greater than the minimum value of the exposed surface area of a first host material (¶ [0010]). Iwasaki teaches a larger exposed surface area indicates a smaller steric hindrance (¶ [0032]). Like Okajima, Iwasaki teaches the approximate exposed surface area may be calculated by generating grid points on a surface of a molecule having a radius determined by adding the van der Waals radius and the probe radius, removing grid points located in another atom, and counting the number of the remaining grid points (¶ [0103]).
Like Okajima and Iwasaki, the claims require the exposed surface area to be calculated by using a probe radius of 1.7 Å and a grid approximation of at least 252 grid points.
Thus, based on the disclosures of Okajima and Iwasaki, to determine the exposed surface area of a single bond of the first and second organic compound, one of ordinary skill would need to generate at least 252 grid points around an atom for each of the first organic compound and the second organic compound, wherein the grid points are calculated by using a probe radius of 1.7 Å, remove grid points located in another atom, and count the number of remaining grid points. Accordingly, without undue experimentation to determine the claimed exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond, one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first organic compound and the second organic compound to arrive at an exposed surface area of 91 Å2 or more, and one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound to arrive at a device wherein the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond than the first organic compound.
In re Wands (D): the level of one of ordinary skill
While one having ordinary skill in the art could measure the lowest excited singlet energies for a number of first, second, and third organic compounds, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict which combinations of first, second, and third organic compounds would be expected to meet the claimed lowest excited singlet energy relationships and such an analysis for all possible combinations would take an immense amount of time.
Additionally, while one having ordinary skill in the art could conceivably measure the exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond for a number of first and second organic compounds, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict which combinations of first and second organic compounds would be expected to meet the claimed exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond. Such an analysis for all possible combinations would take an immense amount of time.
In re Wands (E): the level of predictability in the art
As discussed above, only two references have been found that discuss the exposed surface area of a bond in an organic compound. Okajima provides only 12 examples of compounds with a calculated exposed surface area of a single bond (see Table 2 on pg. 37) and Iwasaki provides only two examples of compounds with a calculated exposed surface area of a single bond (see Table 3 on pg. 15). While Okajima and Iwasaki teach how the exposed surface area of a single bond may be calculated, as discussed above, no further guidance is provided as to which compounds would be expected to obtain a specified exposed surface area of a bond. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict which combinations of first and second organic compounds would be expected to meet the claimed exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond. Such an analysis for all possible combinations would take an immense amount of time.
In re Wands (F): the amount of direction provided by the inventor
The instant specification recites the approximate calculation of an exposed surface area of a single bond may be determined by generating grid points on a surface of a molecule having a radius determined by adding the van der Waals radius and the probe radius, removing grid points located in another atom, and counting the number of the remaining grid points (instant ¶ [0026]). The instant specification recites an example wherein at least 252 grid points are generated (instant ¶ [0027]).
Although the instant description recites an organic compound may be selected from K-1 to K-3 and L-1 to L-12, the light-emitting layer host (i.e., the first organic compound) or the light-emitting assist material (i.e., the second organic compound) may be selected from EM1 to EM40, the second organic compound may be selected from exemplary compounds 1-12, and the light-emitting material (i.e., the third compound) may be selected from BD1 to BD10, GD1 to GD15, and RD1 to RD10 (instant ¶ [0041], [0088], [0098], [0103], and [0187]), the instant specification does not provide sufficient direction on selecting the first organic compound and the second organic compound such that they each have an exposed surface area of 91 Å2 or more, nor does the instant specification provide sufficient direction on selecting the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound such that the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the first organic compound.
As the instant specification is silent as to the singlet energy levels of the third organic compounds (RD1 and GD9) used in the exemplary embodiments, no working examples are given in the instant specification which satisfy: 1) the claimed lowest excited singlet energy relationships; 2) both of an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond in a structure of the first organic compound and an exposed surface area of a single bond in a structure of the second organic compound is 91 Å2 or more; and 3) the second organic compound having a larger exposed surface area of the single bond than the first organic compound. The specification does not provide sufficient direction or guidance on how the claimed limitations 1-3 above are to be achieved, and no general principles, guidance, or amount of direction is provided by the inventor for one of ordinary skill to select the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound such that both of the first and second organic compound has an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond of 91 Å2 or more and such that the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the first organic compound.
In re Wands (G): the existence of working examples
Although the instant description includes exemplary embodiments 1-24 in Table 7 and exemplary embodiments 25-46 in Table 8, no singlet energy levels of the third organic compounds (RD1 and GD9) used in the exemplary embodiments are provided and thus it cannot be determined whether the exemplary embodiments meet the required singlet energy relationships of the first, second and third organic compounds. Accordingly, no examples of devices are provided that meet every limitation of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, and 5-23. Additionally, the instant description provides no further direction or guidance on the selection the first organic compound relative to the second organic compound such that both of the first or second organic compound has an exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond of 91 Å2 or more and such that the second organic compound has a larger exposed surface area of a single bond than the first organic compound.
In re Wands (H): the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure
While one having ordinary skill in the art could conceivably measure the exposed surface area of a single bond for a number of first and second organic compounds, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict which combinations of first and second organic compounds would be expected to meet the claimed exposed surface area of an aryl-aryl single bond. Such an analysis would take an immense amount of time for all possible combinations of a first and second organic compound.
Claims 3 and 5-23 are dependent on claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights