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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
After reconsideration of the requirement for restriction set forth in the Office action dated 06/04/2025, and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement for restriction was previously withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 01/30/2026 in entered.
The abstract and claims 24-26 and 43 are amended, and claims 32-33 and 37 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 24-31, 34-36, and 38-46 are pending.
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new objections have been made.
The objection to the claims 24 and 25 are not fully overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objection to claim 43 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 24 and 26 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 the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 24-39, 44, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1, the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 with additional evidence provided by Buesing et al. US-20090261717-A1, the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 as applied to claim 24, the rejection of claims 41-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2, and the rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Jatsch et al. US-20150337197-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 41-42 of the reply dated 01/30/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 41-42 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the material between the emitting layer and the cathode is a compound of one of Formulae (E-1-1), (E-1-3), (E-1-4), (E-2-1), (E-2-3), (E-2-4), (E-3-1), (E-3-3), (E-3-4), (E-4-1), (E-4-3), or (E-4-4) and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of newly cited Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1.
Applicant's argument -- The applicant argues bridging pages 41-42 of the reply that Table 2 of the specification demonstrates that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues OLED I5, which contains ETM-5, shows improved efficiency compared to OLED I1, which contains ETM-1.
Examiner's response -- The applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
ETM-1 and ETM-5 have the following structures (see specification page 188):
PNG
media_image1.png
369
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Table 2 (see specification page 184) is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
247
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
First, it is noted that Table 2 does not appear to show data, rather it appears to show details regarding the example device structures. The only performance data provided for these devices I1 and I5 appears to be recited in the specification as follows (page 184):
PNG
media_image3.png
201
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The efficiency (CE1000) of I1 and I5 appears to be the only objective evidence presented for I1 and I5. There does not appear to be lifetime data reported for I1 or I5, or performance data of devices comprising HTM-3 to HTM-5. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP § 2145.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the CE1000 efficiency data provided in the paragraph following Table 2 is not commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support and what is taught by the prior art. The claims currently encompass a compound in a layer between the emitting layer and the cathode having a structure of one of Formulae (E-1-1), (E-1-3), (E-1-4), (E-2-1), (E-2-3), (E-2-4), (E-3-1), (E-3-3), (E-3-4), (E-4-1), (E-4-3), (E-4-4) which includes substitution of the triazinyl group at the 1-, 3-, or 4-position and wherein the groups at the positions corresponding to claimed Ar2 are aromatic ring systems which have 6 to 40 aromatic ring atoms or heteroaromatic ring systems which have 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms. As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited prior art teaches compounds that meet the claimed formulae wherein the triazinyl group is substituted at the 1- or 4-positions, and wherein the groups at the positions corresponding to claimed Ar2 are a variety of aromatic and heteroaromatic groups other than those shown in ETM-2. Thus, it is unclear what differences in device performance would be observed between devices that differ by only the electron transport material wherein the triazinyl group is substituted at the 4-position and wherein the groups at the positions corresponding to claimed Ar2 are aromatic and heteroaromatic groups falling within the claim scope that differ from ETM-2. Additionally, the applicant had not provided an explanation regarding these differences.
For at least the reasons above, the applicant's argument is found not persuasive.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the examiner's position that there are issues with grammar in the abstract, for example, it appears that "Formula (H)" falls in the middle of a sentence and anode, cathode, and emitting layer lack articles. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
It is noted that there are several chemical structure formulae in the specification that comprise text with subscripts that are of poor resolution and subscripts are not fully legible. See for example, page 186, HTM-3 and HTM-4.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 24 and 25, it is suggested that the subsequent references to the anode, the cathode, or the emitting layer should be preceded by the article "the". For example, on lines 3-4 it is suggested that "between anode and emitting layer…" be changed to "between the anode and the emitting layer…"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 24-31, 34-36, 38-40, 44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 (hereinafter "Kaiser") in view of Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1 (hereinafter "Montenegro").
Regarding claims 24-31, 34-36, 38-39, 44, and 46, Kaiser teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising anode, cathode and at least one emitting layer, characterized in that at least one layer, preferably a hole transport layer, comprises the material of Formula (A) (¶ [0070] and ¶ [0015]). Kaiser teaches specific examples of the organic electroluminescent device including example I4 having the layer structure: anode / first hole transport layer (HTL1) / second hole transport layer (HTL2) comprising MA3 / emission layer (EML) / electron transport layer (ETL) comprising ST1 / electron injection layer (EIL) / cathode (Table 1 and ¶ [0134]-[0136]). Kaiser teaches that all the materials are applied by thermal vapour deposition in a vacuum chamber (¶ [0136]), which is a sublimation method.
The compound MA3 has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
208
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Table 2, page 24) and is a compound of the claimed compound (H), formula (H-1), and formula (H-1-1-d) wherein:
ArH1 is in one case an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (a phenyl group) substituted by one RH1 radical, in one case an aromatic ring system having 12 aromatic ring atoms (a fluorenyl group) substituted by two RH1 radicals, and in the third case an aromatic ring system having 24 aromatic ring atoms (a spirobifluorenyl group) substituted by two RH1 radicals;
RH1 on the phenyl group ArH1 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (a phenyl group), RH1 on the fluorenyl group ArH1 is in each case a straight-chain alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (a methyl group), and RH1 on the spirobifluorenyl group ArH1 is in each case a branched alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (a tert-butyl group);
RH2 is not required to be present; and
RH3 is not required to be present.
Kaiser does not exemplify a device as above wherein one of the layer between the emission layer and the cathode comprises a compound of one of the claimed Formulae (E-1-1), (E-1-3), (E-1-4), (E-2-1), (E-2-3), (E-2-4), (E-3-1), (E-3-3), (E-3-4), (E-4-1), (E-4-3), (E-4-4). However, Kaiser teaches generally that materials used for the electron transport layer may be any materials as used according to the prior art as electron transport materials in the electron transport layer and especially suitable materials include triazine derivatives, among others (¶ [0115]).
Montenegro teaches a compound of a formula (1) or formula (2) employed as electron-transport material in an electron-transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0051]-[0052] and ¶ [0057]). Montenegro teaches the compounds, employed in organic electroluminescent devices, result in high efficiencies and in steep current/voltage curves with low use and operating voltages (¶ [0080]). Montenegro teaches exemplary compounds comprising triazine in paragraph [0042], including, for example,
PNG
media_image5.png
435
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 6),
PNG
media_image6.png
385
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 12).
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 have modified the device of Kaiser by forming the electron transport layer comprising the compound of formula (1) or formula (2) comprising triazine, as taught by Montenegro. One would have been motivated to do so because Kaiser teaches that materials used for the electron transport layer may be any materials as used according to the prior art as electron transport materials in the electron transport layer and especially suitable materials include triazine derivatives, among others and Montenegro teaches compounds comprising triazine suitable for use as an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Montenegro teaches the device comprising the compound of formula (1) or formula (2) results in high efficiencies and steep current/voltage curves with low use and operating voltages and therefore forming electron transport layer in the device of Kaiser out of the compound of formula (1) or formula (2) comprising triazine of Montenegro would yield the benefit of high efficiencies and steep current/voltage curves with low use and operating voltages, as described above.
The modified device of Kaiser in view of Montenegro has the layer structure: anode / first hole transport layer (HTL1) / second hole transport layer (HTL2) comprising MA3 / emission layer (EML) / electron transport layer (ETL) comprising the compound of formula (1) or (2) comprising triazine of Montenegro / electron injection layer (EIL) / cathode.
Kaiser and Montenegro appear silent with respect to the property of where the compound MA3, the compound of the claimed formula (H), has a HOMO of not lower than -4.72 eV.
The instant specification recites that the HOMO (eV) of compound HTM-1 is -4.71. Since Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the device comprising the compound MA3, which the same structure as HTM-1 disclosed by the applicant, the property of where the compound has a HOMO of not lower than -4.72 eV 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.
Kaiser and Montenegro appear silent with respect to the property of wherein the compound MA3, the compound of the claimed formula (H), has a hole mobility of 2*10-4 to 8*10-4 cm2/Vs, where the hole mobility.
The instant specification recites that the hole mobility in cm2/Vs of compound HTM-1 is 2.7*10-4. Since Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the device comprising the compound MA3, which the same structure as HTM-1 disclosed by the applicant, the property of a hole mobility of 2*10-4 to 8*10-4 cm2/Vs 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.
Regarding claim 40, Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the modified device as described above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser does not specifically exemplify a device as described above wherein there is a hole injection layer which directly adjoins the anode and is disposed alongside the layer comprising the compound of formula (H), and wherein there is an electron blocker layer that directly adjoins the emitting layer on the anode side.
However, Kaiser teaches the device comprising further functional layers including a hole injection layer (¶ [0071], ¶ [0083]), which is present between the anode and the hole transport layer (¶ [0074], ¶ [0084]).
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 hole injection layer with directly adjoins the anode and is disposed alongside the layer comprising the compound of formula (H), because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Additionally, Kaiser teaches the device comprising further functional layers including an electron blocker layer (¶ [0071]), which is present between the hole transport layer(s) and the emitting layer (¶ [0072]) and that by the presence of this layer it is possible to avoid a hole barrier and hence a voltage drop between the hole transport layer and the emitting layer (¶ [0097]).
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 an electron blocking layer, based on the teaching of Kaiser. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid a hole barrier and hence a voltage drop between the hole transport layer and the emitting layer, as taught by Kaiser.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 (hereinafter "Kaiser") in view of Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1 (hereinafter "Montenegro") with additional evidence provided by Buesing et al. US-20090261717-A1 (hereinafter "Buesing").
Regarding claim 45, Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser and Montenegro appear silent with respect to the property of wherein the emitting layer of the device is a blue-fluorescent emitting layer. In the device of example I4, the dopant compound is D1 (¶ [0136])
PNG
media_image7.png
176
288
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Table 2, page 24).
The compound D1 is a blue fluorescent emitting compound, as evidence by Buesing (see Table 2 where Ex. 16 is identical to D1 and Table 3 and ¶ [0142] describe the emission as dark-blue; and ¶ [0073] and ¶ [0013]). Since Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the device comprising the compound D1, the same structure as Ex. 16 of Buesing which is taught to be a blue fluorescent emitting compound, the property of a blue-fluorescent emitting layer 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.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 (hereinafter "Kaiser") in view of Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1 (hereinafter "Montenegro") as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2 (hereinafter "Mujica-Fernaud-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Mujica-Fernaud-MT").
Regarding claims 41-42, Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the modified device as described above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser in view of Montenegro does not specifically disclose a device as described above wherein there is an electron blocker layer that directly adjoins the emitting layer on the anode side, wherein the electron blocker layer comprises a compound selected from triarylamines containing one or more fluorenyl or spirofluorenyl groups and a compound of the claimed formula (EBM).
However, Kaiser teaches the device comprising further functional layers including an electron blocker layer (¶ [0071]), which is present between the hole transport layer(s) and the emitting layer (¶ [0072]) and that by the presence of this layer it is possible to avoid a hole barrier and hence a voltage drop between the hole transport layer and the emitting layer (¶ [0097]).
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 an electron blocking layer, based on the teaching of Kaiser. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid a hole barrier and hence a voltage drop between the hole transport layer and the emitting layer, as taught by Kaiser.
Further, Mujica-Fernaud teaches a compound of a formula (1) for use as an electron blocking material (Mujica-Fernaud-MT, page 20 of 47, lines 25-30). Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of formula (1) has a relatively low sublimation temperature, a high temperature stability and a high oxidation stability and a high glass transition temperature, which is advantageous both for processability (Mujica-Fernaud -MT, page 26 of 27, lines 33-34) and when used in the hole transport region lead to high efficiencies, low operating voltages, and long lifetimes (Mujica-Fernaud -MT, page 26 of 27, lines 36-27). Mujica-Fernaud teaches specific examples of the compound of formula (1) that are selected from triarylamines containing one or more fluorenyl or spirofluorenyl groups and meet the claimed formula (EBM) on pages 42-54 (Mujica-Fernaud-WO) .
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 have modified the device of Kaiser in view of Montenegro by forming the electron blocking layer comprising the compound of formula (1) that are selected from triarylamines containing one or more fluorenyl or spirofluorenyl groups and meet the claimed formula (EBM), as taught by Mujica-Fernaud. One would have been motivated to do so because Kaiser teaches the presence of an electron-blocker layer and Mujica-Fernaud teaches a compound suitable for use as in an electron blocking layer of an organic light emitting device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of formula (1) is advantageous both for processability and leads to high efficiencies, low operating voltages, and long lifetimes (Mujica-Fernaud -MT, page 26 of 27, lines 36-27) and therefore forming the electron blocker layer in the device of Kaiser in view of Montenegro out of the compound of Mujica-Fernaud would yield the benefit of processability, high efficiencies, low operating voltages, and long lifetime, as described above.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 (hereinafter "Kaiser") in view of Montenegro et al. US-20150243897-A1 (hereinafter "Montenegro") as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Jatsch et al. US-20150337197-A1 (hereinafter "Jatsch").
Regarding claim 43, Kaiser in view of Montenegro teaches the device as described above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser in view of Montenegro does not specifically disclose a device as described above wherein it contains a hole blocker layer directly adjoining the emitting layer between the emitting layer and the cathode, wherein the hole blocker layer comprises a compound of a formula (HBM).
However, Kaiser teaches the device comprising further functional layers including a hole blocking layer (¶ [0071]), which is present between the cathode and the electron transport layer (¶ [0079]).
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 hole blocker layer directly adjoining the emitting layer between the emitting layer and the cathode, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Further, Jatsch teaches a compound of a formula (1) for use in a hole-blocking layer of an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0069]). Jatsch teaches the compound of formula (1) results in very low operating voltages (¶ [0087]). Jatsch teaches examples of the compound of formula (1) that read on the claimed Formula (HBM) on pages 8 to 33.
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 have modified the device of Kaiser in view of Montenegro by forming the hole blocking layer comprising the compound of formula (1), as taught by Jatsch. One would have been motivated to do so because Kaiser teaches the presence of a hole blocking layer and Jatsch teaches a compound suitable for use as in a hole blocking layer of an organic light emitting device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Jatsch teaches the compound of formula (1) results in very low operating voltages and therefore forming hole blocking layer in the device of Kaiser in view of Montenegro out of the compound of Jatsch's formula (1) would yield the benefit of very low operating voltage, as described above.
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 Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights