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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent no. 12,137,613 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-4, 8, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-16, and 18-24 are pending.
Claims 16 and 24 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 16 and 24 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 16 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (KR 2018/0120619 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Jeong),
the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 2018/0120619 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent),
the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 2018/0120619 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, Pang) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 22-23 of the reply filed 05/27/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xia et al. (US 2019/0211038 A1, hereafter Xia) set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the compound 10 has been deleted such that Xia fails to disclose or suggest every claim features.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections referred to the Compound 10 of Xia which was deleted. However, Xia is still applicable to make a new ground of rejection.
Xia discloses Compounds 438, 442, and 599 ([0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 438, 442, and 599 of Xia have identical structures of Applicant’s Compounds 1, 11, and 22, respectively. A new ground of rejection has been made.
Applicant’s arguments see page 22-23 of the reply filed 05/27/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 16 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Jeong fails to disclose or suggest every feature of the amended claims.
The rejections refer to Compound BD-4 of Jeong (see section 35 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitation of Formula A-2 of the amended claims. For that reason the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xia et al. (US 2019/0211038 A1, hereafter Xia).
Regarding claim 24, Xia discloses a compound (Formula 1) used as the emitter of an organic electroluminescent device ([0010]-[0011]). Xia exemplifies Compounds 438, 442, and 599 ([0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 438, 442, and 599 of Xia have identical structures of Applicant’s Compounds 1, 11, and 22, respectively.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CA 106188141 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-19, Wang discloses a compound (Formula 1) used as the host of an organic electroluminescent device (page 1, last paragraph through page 2) and exemplifies compound C01 (page 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound C01 of Wang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula A-2, meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
Wang exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device (Example 1 in page 10 and Table 1) comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), a light emitting layer (Compound C01 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (Al), meeting all the limitations of claims 18-19.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hikime et al. (JP 2012/153753 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Hikime).
Regarding claim 16, Hikime discloses a compound (Formula 1) used as the host of an organic electroluminescent device ([0013]) and exemplifies compound 1-19 ([0045]).
PNG
media_image3.png
318
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-19 of Hikime has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula A-2, meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CA 106188141 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 1245-1293, hereafter Reineke) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 21-22, Wang discloses an organic electroluminescent device (Example 1 in page 10 and Table 1) which reads on all the features of claim 16 and 18-19, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), a light emitting layer (Compound C01 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (Al).
The device does not emit white light; instead, it emits green light because of the Ir(ppy)3 dopant.
Reineke discloses white light organic electroluminescent device (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Reineke teaches a white light device can be formed by stacking red, green, and blue emitting layers (Fig. 1f, and page 1247, col. 2, par. 1).
Hatakeyama discloses an organic electroluminescent device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound and an anthracene compound ([0001], [0014]).
Hatakeyama exemplifies a light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-2619 and Compound 3-134-O which emits blue light having maximum emission wavelength of 461 nm (Example 4 in Table 2A and 2B) with high EQE.
PNG
media_image4.png
219
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 3-134-O has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulae H1 and H2.
Hatakeyama teaches that the combination of the light emitting layer materials provides low power consumption and excellent quantum efficiency ([0060]).
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 electroluminescent device of Wang by incorporating blue and red stacks of light emitting layers wherein the blue stack comprising Compounds 1-2619 and 3-134-O of Hatakeyama to form a white light emitting device, as taught by Reineke and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with lower power consumption and excellent quantum efficiency based on the teaching of Reineke and Hatakeyama.
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 modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Wang as modified by Reineke and Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), a blue light emitting layer containing Compound 3-134-O of Hatakeyama, a green light emitting layer (Compound C01 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a red light emitting layer, an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (Al).
The claims claim a light emitting layer comprising Formula H1 (claim 21) and Formula H2 (claim 22). None of claims require the materials of the claimed light emitting layer to be a homogenous mixture; that is, a composite light emitting layer comprising multiple sub light emitting layers reads on the limitation of the light emitting layer as long as all the required materials are in the composite light emitting layer.
The resultant device is equated with Organic electroluminescent device of Wang as modified by Reineke and Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), a light emitting layer containing Compound 3-134-O of Hatakeyama and Compound C01 of Wang, an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (Al).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CA 106188141 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, Pang).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses an organic electroluminescent device (Example 1 in page 10 and Table 1) which reads on all the features of claim 16 and 18-19, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), a light emitting layer (Compound C01 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (Al).
Wang does not disclose a specific display system comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Wang.
Pang discloses a flexible display (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic electroluminescent device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the organic electric element of Pang provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 electroluminescent device of Wang by incorporating it into a flexible display, as taught by Wang and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic electroluminescent devices in a flexible display device 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 Flexible display of Wang as modified by Pang comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Wang.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikime et al. (JP 2012/153753 A, machine translated English version is referred to).
Regarding claims 18-20, Hikime discloses a compound (Formula 1) for an organic electroluminescent device ([0013]) and exemplifies Compound 1-19 ([0045]). The Compound 1-19 of Hikime reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
Hikime does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound 1-19 of Hikime; however, Hikime does teach that the compound of Hikime represented by Formula 1 can be used as a phosphorescent dopant of an organic electroluminescent device ([0087]). Hikime teaches a host compound can be used with a dopant material in the light emitting layer of the device of Hikime ([0078]-[0079]).
Hikime teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0066]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Compound 1-19 of Hikime by incorporating it with a host material into the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Hikime.
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 dopant materials in an organic electroluminescent device 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 organic electroluminescent device of Hikime comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound 1-19 as a phosphorescent dopant and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikime et al. (JP 2012/153753 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 18-20 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 23, the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Hikime reads on all the features of claim 18 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound 1-19 as a phosphorescent dopant and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Hikime does not disclose a specific display system comprising the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Hikime; however, Hikime does teach the organic electroluminescent device can be used for a display device ([0167]).
Pang discloses a flexible display (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic electroluminescent device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the organic electric element of Pang provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 organic electroluminescent device of Hikime by incorporating it into a flexible display, as taught by Hikime and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic electroluminescent devices in a flexible display device 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 Flexible display of Hikime as modified by Pang comprising the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Hikime.
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikime et al. (JP 2012/153753 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21-22, Hikime discloses a compound (Formula 1) for an organic electroluminescent device ([0013]) and exemplifies Compound 1-19 ([0045]). The Compound 1-19 of Hikime reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
Hikime does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound 1-19 of Hikime; however, Hikime does teach that the compound of Hikime represented by Formula 1 can be preferably used as an electron transport material of an organic electroluminescent device ([0066]).
Hikime teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0066]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Compound 1-19 of Hikime by incorporating it into the electron transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Hikime.
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 electron transport materials in an organic electroluminescent device 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 organic electroluminescent device of Hikime (2) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer (Compound 1-19), and a second electrode (cathode).
The light emitting layer does not comprise a host compound comprising furan structure; however, Hikime does teach that the light emitting host of the device of Hikime is not particularly limited in structure, but examples can include oligo arylene and furan derivatives ([0079]). Hikime further teaches that a fluorescent dopant can be the light emitting dopant of the device of Hikime ([0087]).
Hatakeyama discloses an organic electroluminescent device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound and an anthracene compound ([0001], [0014]).
Hatakeyama exemplifies a light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-2619 as a fluorescent dopant and Compound 3-134-O as a host (Example 4 in Table 2A and 2B).
PNG
media_image4.png
219
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 3-134-O has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulae H1 and H2.
Hatakeyama teaches that the combination of the two materials provides low power consumption and excellent quantum efficiency ([0060]).
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 organic electroluminescent device of Hikime (2) by incorporating Compound 1-2619 as a fluorescent dopant and Compound 3-134-O as a host in the light emitting layer, as taught by Hikime and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower power consumption and excellent quantum efficiency based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
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 modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Hikime as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound 1-2619 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant and Compound 3-134-O of Hatakeyama as a host), an electron transport layer (Compound 1-19 of Hikime), and a second electrode (cathode).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 07/08/2025, Xie ‘761 (CN 108409761 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Xie ‘761 teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Xie ‘761 does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 07/08/2025, Xia (US 2019/0211038 A1) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Xia teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Xia does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 07/08/2025, Noboru (JP 2012/142479 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Noboru teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Noboru does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 07/08/2025, Wang ‘505 (CN 110698505 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Wang ‘505 teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Wang ‘505 does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 11/05/2025, Xie ‘762 (CN 108409762 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Xie ‘762 teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Xie ‘762 does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined in the Office Action of 04/15/2026, Jeong (KR 2018/0120619 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Jeong teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Jeong does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined above, Wang ‘141 (CN 106188141 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Wang ‘141 teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Wang ‘141 does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15, as outlined above, Hikime (JP 2012/153753 A) is a representative of the closest prior art.
Hikime teaches an organic electroluminescent compound used for an organic electroluminescent device.
However, Hikime does not teach modifying the organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an organic electroluminescent compound such that the compound has identical structure as Formula B-1 of the instant claim 1 to meet the limitations of the current claims.
In sum, claims 1, 5-7, and 9-15 are allowed over the cited prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
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