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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/2025 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 12-13, and 23-25 are amended and claims 3-11 and 14-22 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 05/28/2025. Claims 1-2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 3-11 and 14-22 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claims 3-11 and 14-22 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/28/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani (US 2017/0163010 A1) in view of Cho (English translation of KR20110132721 A obtained by Google Patents) and Murase (US 2003/0082406 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/28/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani (US 2017/0163010 A1) in view of Park (US 2012/0080670 A1) and Murase (US 2003/0082406 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/28/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of the reply dated 05/28/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 13, 23-25 and 37 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues on pgs. 9-11 that the cited prior art fail to teach the claims as amended which require a compound M3 represented by formula (3) wherein X31 to X36 are each oxygen, R310 to R369 are each hydrogen, and R31 to R38 are each hydrogen.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, the newly cited reference Kim (US 2017/0069853 A1) and the previously cited reference Park teach compounds of the amended formula (3). Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
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 1-2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 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 1 recites R310 to R369 are each a hydrogen atom, and formula (3e) recites variables of R351 to R358 and R339. However, formula (3e) does not include variable R359. Likewise, formulas (3), (3a), (3b), (3c), (3d), or (3f) do not include the variable R359. As claim 1 recites R359 must be hydrogen but R359 does not appear in any of the formulas (3) or (3a) to (3f), it is unclear what must be hydrogen. For purposes of examination, R359 will be interpreted as not present.
Claims 2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
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 1-2, 13, 23-25 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani (US 2017/0163010 A1) in view of Kim (US 2017/0069853 A1) and Murase (US 2003/0082406 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 13, 23-25 and 37, Nakanotani teaches an organic light-emitting device having a high light emission efficiency including an anode, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the light-emitting layer contains a host material (M3), a delayed fluorescent material (M2), and a light-emitting material satisfying ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D) in the light-emitting layer, wherein ES1(H) is the lowest excited singlet energy level of the host material and ES1(F) is the lowest excited singlet energy level of the delayed fluorescent material, and ES1(D) is the lowest excited singlet energy level of the light-emitting material (abstract; ¶ [0009], [0101], and [0127]).
While Nakanotani does not limit the structure of the host material (¶ [0091]), Nakanotani does not teach a compound of the claimed formula (3).
Kim teaches a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 for use as a host of an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the condensed cyclic compound provides the device with low driving voltage, high power efficiency, high luminous efficiency, high quantum luminance efficiency, and long lifespan (abstract; ¶ [0159], [0165] and [0168]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compounds 33 and 36 (pg. 17-28).
33:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
36:
PNG
media_image2.png
144
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 host material of Kim’s Formula 1 for the device of Nakanotani, wherein the delayed fluorescent material and light-emitting material of Nakanotani in combination with the host material of Kim’s Formula 1 satisfy Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the device with low driving voltage, high power efficiency, high luminous efficiency, high quantum luminance efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
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 compound 33 or alternatively compound 36 as the host material, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Kim’s Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material of the device of Nakanotani and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Kim’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Kim’s compound 33 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formulas (3) and (3a).
compound 33:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (3):
PNG
media_image3.png
300
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
formula (3a):
PNG
media_image4.png
388
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 33 reads on the claimed formula (3) and (3a) wherein:
A30 is represented by formula (3a) (claim 24);
X31 is O, and X32 to X36 are not required to be present;
R310 to R319 are each a hydrogen atom, and R320 to R369 are not required to be present;
L30 is an unsubstituted biphenylene group (claim 13); and
R31 to R38 are each hydrogen.
Compound 36 reads on the claimed formulas in the same way as compound 33 above except wherein A30 is represented by formula (3d) (claim 23) wherein R341 to R349 are each hydrogen.
Nakanotani teaches the light-emitting material (M1) is preferably capable of emitting fluorescence, and does not limit the structure of the light-emitting material (¶ [0093]). However, Nakanotani does not specifically teach the light-emitting material is selected from a derivative of the claimed groups.
Murase teaches a pyrromethene metal complex represented by chemical formula (1) for use as a fluorescent dye in a light emitting deice, wherein the pyrromethene metal complex has highly fluorescent properties and provides a device with high energy efficiency, high luminance, and high chromatic purity (abstract and ¶ [0015]-[0016]). Murase teaches the complexes represented by chemical formula (1) include complex 5 (pg. 4).
chemical formula (1):
PNG
media_image5.png
138
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
complex 5:
PNG
media_image6.png
338
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 complex represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1) as the light-emitting material of the device of Nakanotani in view of Kim, based on the teaching of Murase, and it would have been obvious to select the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani as necessary such that Kim’s host compound 33 (or alternatively, Kim’s host compound 36) in combination with the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani and light-emitting material of Murase still satisfies Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a light-emitting material with highly fluorescent properties and to provide a device with high energy efficiency, high luminance, and high chromatic purity, as taught by Murase.
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 Murase’s complex 5, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1), which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the light-emitting material of the device of Nakanotani in view of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Murase. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1) having the benefits taught by Murase in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Murase’s complex 5 is a metal complex having a pyrromethene skeleton and thus satisfy the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to claim 37, Murase’s complex 5 satisfy the claimed formula 10 wherein:
X is a carbon atom bonded to Y;
Y is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms;
R10, R12, R13, and R15 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms, and R11 and R14 are each hydrogen;
and Z11 and Z12 are each a substituent of a halogen atom.
While neither Kim nor Murase specifically teach the singlet energy levels of Kim’s compounds 33 and 36 are greater than the singlet energy level of Murase’s complex 5, the instant specification recites that the instant compounds M3a, M3b, and RD have singlet energy levels of 3.42 eV, 3.39 eV, and 2.02 eV, respectively (instant ¶ [0561], [0569]; and Tables 1 and 2). Since Kim teaches compounds 33 and 36, structures nearly identical to the instant M3a and M3b, and Murase teaches complex 5, a structure substantially identical to the instant RD, Kim’s compounds 33 and 36 having singlet energy levels greater than Murase’s complex 5 is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Accordingly, as Kim’s compounds 33 and 36 (M3) have singlet energy levels greater than Murase’s complex 5 (M1), and the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani (M2) is selected as necessary, Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D) is satisfied. Thus, the device of Nakanotani in view of Kim and Murase is expected to obtain the benefits of Nakanotani. Additionally, given that Nakanotani’s formula is satisfied, the claimed relationships of S1(M3) > S1 (M2) (claim 1) and S1 (M2) > S1 (M1) are met (claim 2).
Claims 1-2, 12-13, 23-25, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani (US 2017/0163010 A1) in view of Park (US 2012/0080670 A1) and Murase (US 2003/0082406 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 12, 25, and 37, Nakanotani teaches an organic light-emitting device having a high light emission efficiency including an anode, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the light-emitting layer contains a host material (M3), a delayed fluorescent material (M2), and a light-emitting material satisfying ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D) in the light-emitting layer, wherein ES1(H) is the lowest excited singlet energy level of the host material and ES1(F) is the lowest excited singlet energy level of the delayed fluorescent material (abstract; ¶ [0009], [0101], and [0127]).
While Nakanotani does not limit the structure of the host material (¶ [0091]), Nakanotani does not teach a compound of the claimed formula (3).
Park teaches a novel-structural compound including a 5-membered heterocycle represented by Formula 1 for use as a host material in an organic electronic device including, and provides the device with high efficiency, color purity improvement, and long lifetime (¶ [0008]-[0012] and [0017]). Park teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 including compound 5-19 (pg. 17).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
5-19:
PNG
media_image8.png
197
273
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 host material of Park’s Formula 1 for the device of Nakanotani, wherein the delayed fluorescent material and light-emitting material of Nakanotani in combination with the host material of Park’s Formula 1 satisfy Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the device with high efficiency, color purity improvement, and long lifetime, as taught by Park.
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 compound 5-19, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Park’s Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material of the device of Nakanotani and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Park’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Park 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 5-19 fails to include an oxygen atom in the location of Park’s X. However, Park does teach X may be S (as shown in compound 5-19), oxygen, or silicon (¶ [0020]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute S with O, because Park teaches X may suitably be selected as O, and it would have been obvious to select the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani as necessary such that the modified compound of Park in combination with the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani still satisfies Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound of Park would be useful as the host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 O, because it would have been choosing either S, O, or Si for X, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Park’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Park’s modified compound 5-19 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formula (3) and (3c).
Modified 5-19:
PNG
media_image9.png
303
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
formula (3):
PNG
media_image3.png
300
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
formula (3c):
PNG
media_image10.png
350
203
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 5-19 reads on the claimed formula (3) and (3c) wherein:
A30 is represented by formula (3c);
X33 is O, and X31, X32, and X34 to X36 are not required to be present;
R330 to R339 are each a hydrogen atom, and R310 to R329 and R340 to R369 are not required to be present;
L30 is an unsubstituted phenylene group (claim 12); and
R31 to R38 are each hydrogen.
Nakanotani does not limit the structure of the light-emitting material (M1), but does teach the light-emitting material is preferably capable of emitting fluorescence (¶ [0093]). However, Nakanotani does not teach the light-emitting material is selected from a derivative of the claimed groups.
Murase teaches a pyrromethene metal complex represented by chemical formula (1) for use as a fluorescent dye in a light emitting deice, wherein the pyrromethene metal complex has highly fluorescent properties and provides a device with high energy efficiency, high luminance, and high chromatic purity (abstract and ¶ [0015]-[0016]). Murase teaches the complexes represented by chemical formula (1) include complex 5 (pg. 4).
chemical formula (1):
PNG
media_image5.png
138
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
complex 5:
PNG
media_image6.png
338
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 complex represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1) as the light-emitting material of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park, based on the teaching of Murase, and it would have been obvious to select the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani as necessary such that the host of modified compound 5-19 in combination with the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani and light-emitting material of Murase still satisfies Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a light-emitting material with highly fluorescent properties and to provide a device with high energy efficiency, high luminance, and high chromatic purity, as taught by Murase.
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 Murase’s complex 5, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1), which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the light-emitting material of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Murase. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Murase’s chemical formula (1) having the benefits taught by Murase in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Murase’s complex 5 is a metal complex having a pyrromethene skeleton and thus satisfy the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to claim 37, Murase’s complex 5 satisfy the claimed formula 10 wherein:
X is a carbon atom bonded to Y;
Y is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms;
R10, R12, R13, and R15 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms, and R11 and R14 are each hydrogen;
and Z11 and Z12 are each a substituent of a halogen atom.
While neither Park nor Murase specifically teach the singlet energy level of Park’s compound 4-20 is greater than the singlet energy level of Murase’s complex 5, the instant specification recites that the instant compounds M3a, M3b, and RD have singlet energy levels of 3.42 eV, 3.39 eV, and 2.02 eV, respectively (instant ¶ [0561], [0569]; and Tables 1 and 2). Since Park teaches the modified compound 5-19, which is nearly identical to the instant M3a and M3b, and Murase teaches complex 5, a structure substantially identical to the instant RD, the modified compound 5-19 having a singlet energy level greater than Murase’s complex 5 is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Accordingly, as Park’s modified compound 5-19 (M3) have a singlet energy level greater than Murase’s complex 5 (M1), and the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani (M2) is selected as necessary, Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D) is satisfied. Thus, the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and Murase is expected to obtain the benefits of Nakanotani. Additionally, given that Nakanotani’s formula is satisfied, the claimed relationships of S1(M3) > S1 (M2) (claim 1) and S1 (M2) > S1 (M1) are met (claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, Nakanotani in view of Park and Murase teach the device of claim 1 including the modified compound 5-19 as the host material, as described above.
modified 5-19:
PNG
media_image9.png
303
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 5-19 fails to include a biphenylene in the location of Park’s Y. However, Park does teach in Formula 1 Y may be an arylene group having 5 to 60 carbon, wherein examples thereof include phenylene (as shown in compounds 3-19 and 5-19) and biphenylene (as shown in compound 3-20) (¶ [0021]; pgs. 11-12 and 17).
3-19:
PNG
media_image11.png
200
237
media_image11.png
Greyscale
3-20:
PNG
media_image12.png
234
298
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenylene with biphenylene (as shown in compound 3-20), because Park teaches Y may suitably be selected as biphenylene, and it would have been obvious to select the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani as necessary such that the modified compound of Park in combination with the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani and light-emitting material of Murase still satisfies Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound of Park would be useful as the host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified compound 5-19 reads on the claimed formulas in the same way as described above with respect to claim 1, except wherein L30 is an unsubstituted biphenylene.
Regarding claims 23-24, Nakanotani in view of Park and Murase teach the device of claim 1 including the modified compound 5-19 as the host material, as described above.
modified 5-19:
PNG
media_image9.png
303
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 5-19 fails to read on the claimed formulas (3a) or (3d). However, Park does teach the compound represented by Formula 1 may be further represented by Formula 6 (as shown in compound 5-19) or by Formulas 5 and 3 (¶ [0024]). Park teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 5 including 4-19 (pg. 14). Additionally, Park teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 3 including compound 2-19 (pg. 8).
Formula 5:
PNG
media_image13.png
264
243
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Formula 3:
PNG
media_image14.png
207
299
media_image14.png
Greyscale
4-19:
PNG
media_image15.png
193
231
media_image15.png
Greyscale
2-19:
PNG
media_image16.png
180
332
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute
PNG
media_image9.png
303
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image17.png
271
214
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(like the compound 4-19) or alternatively with
PNG
media_image18.png
191
285
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(like the compound 2-19), because Park teaches the compound represented by Formula 1 may suitably be further represented by Formulas 5 or 3, and it would have been obvious to select the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani as necessary such that the modified compound of Park in combination with the delayed fluorescent material of Nakanotani and light-emitting material of Murase still satisfies Nakanotani’s formula ES1(H)>ES1(F)>ES1(D). The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound of Park would be useful as the host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nakanotani in view of Park and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified compounds 5-19 read on the claimed formulas (3a) and (3d).
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786