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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/30/2026 has been entered.
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Office action dated 06/04/2025, and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement for restriction was previously withdrawn.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 07/30/2026 in entered.
The abstract, specification, and claims 24-25 are amended, and claims 41-42 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 24-31, 34-36, 38-40, and 43-46 are pending.
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained.
The objection to the specification as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained.
The objection to the claim 24 is overcome in part due to the applicant's amendment.
The objection to the claim 25 is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 41-42 as set forth in the previous Office action are moot because the claims are cancelled.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 teaches of previously cited Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 and Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 1 of the reply dated 07/30/2026 with respect to the objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 1 that a Replacement Abstract has been included.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive because there remain issues with the abstract. Namely, the abstract of the disclosure has the following grammatical issues: (i) an article is missing before "anode and "emitting layer" on line 2 and (ii) "Formula (H)" on line 3 appears to be extraneous. It is suggested that lines 2-3 of the abstract be amended to read "of a particular formula (H) are present between an anode and an emitting layer
The applicant’s arguments on page 1 of the reply dated 07/30/2026 with respect to the objection to claim 24 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 1 that the identified issues have been addressed.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive. In the objection of record, it was suggested that in claim 24, all later references to the anode, the cathode, or the emitting layer should be preceded by the article "the" for ease of reading. However, "the" has not been added directly before "anode" and "emitting layer" on line 4 of claim 24, as suggested by the examiner. The overcome this objection, the examiner suggested amending line 4 of claim 24 to read as follows: "the anode and the emitting layer".
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 1-3 of the reply dated 07/30/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 2 that the previously cited references Kiser, Mujica-Fernaud, Jatsch, and Montenegro do not teach the feature of wherein the electronic device contains an electron blocker layer directly adjoining the emitting layer on the anode side, where the electron blocker comprise a compound of a formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups, which is incorporated in to the independent claims 24 and 25 due to the applicant's amendment.
Specifically, Kaiser does not teach an electron blocker layer comprising a compound of a formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups and the example devices of Kaiser do not teach a blocker layer comprising the compound as claimed and Mujica-Fernaud does not teach compounds that meet a compound of a formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups, and Jatsch and Montenegro are not cited in relation to the feature of an electron blocker layer directly adjoining the emitting layer on the anode side, where the electron blocker comprise a compound of a formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection below, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the compound comprised in the electron blocking layer must (a) be represented by formula (EBM), (b) be selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups, or (c) both be represented by formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that a device comprising an electron blocker layer comprising a single compound that meets any of (a) to (c) meets the claim. Thus, the claim is met by the modified device of Kaiser in view of Mujica-Fernaud as discussed in the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant's argument -- The applicant argues bridging pages 41-42 of the reply that Tables 1 to 4 of the specification demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues OLED I6 and I7, which contain EMD-2, shows improved lifetime compared to OLED I1 to I5, which contain EMB-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.
EBM-1 and EBM-2 have the following structures (see specification page 187):
PNG
media_image1.png
315
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
First, it is noted that Tables 1-4 do not appear to show data, rather they appear to show details regarding the example device structures. The only performance data provided for these devices I1 to I7 appears to be recited in the specification on pages 184-185. The lifetime of I1 is 60 h, I2 is 50 h, I3 is 40 h, I4 is 45 h, I5 "falls slightly compared to that of I1", I6 is 80 h, and I7 Is 96 h.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the lifetime data provided on page 184-185 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-1-2), (E-1-3), (E-1-4), (E-2-1), (E-2-2), (E-2-3), (E-2-4), (E-3-1), (E-3-2), (E-3-3), (E-3-4), (E-4-1), (E-4-2), (E-4-3), (E-4-4) which includes substitution of the triazinyl group at the 1-, 2-, 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. It is unclear what differences in device performance would be observed between devices that differ by only the electron blocker layer where the triazinyl group of the electron transport material is substituted at the various positions 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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following grammatical issues: (i) an article is missing before "anode and "emitting layer" on line 2 and (ii) "Formula (H)" on line 3 appears to be extraneous. It is suggested that lines 2-3 of the abstract be amended to read "of a particular formula (H) are present between an anode and an emitting layer
There remain several chemical structure formulae in the specification that comprise text with subscripts of poor resolution and subscripts that are not fully legible. See for example, page 186, HTM-3 and HTM-4.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 24, it is suggested that all subsequent references to the anode, the cathode, or the emitting layer should be preceded by the article "the". For example, on line 4 it is suggested that "anode and emitting layer... " be changed to "the anode and the emitting layer".
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 24-31,34-36,38-40 and 43-46 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.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the claims each recite "wherein the electronic device comprises an electron blocker layer directly adjoining the emitting layer on the anode side, where the electron blocker layer comprises a compound of a formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the compound comprised in the electron blocking layer must (a) be represented by formula (EBM), (b) be selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups, or (c) both be represented by formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups. Alternatively, are two compounds required wherein one is a compound of a formula (EBM) and one is selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that a device comprising an electron blocker layer comprising a single compound that meets any of (a) to (c) meets the claim.
Claims 26-31, 34-36, 38-40, and 43-46 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 24.
Regarding claims 24, 25, and 36, the claims each recite R4; however, it appears that R4 is not present in the claimed formulae listed in claims 24-25. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the claim may be met with respect to R4.
Claims 26-31, 34-36, 38-40, and 43-46 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 24.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 depends from now cancelled claim 37. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the parent claim is and therefore the scope of the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 24.
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 Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2 (hereinafter "Mujica-Fernaud-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Mujica-Fernaud-MT").
It is noted that Kaiser et al. US-20180019397-A1 is cited on the IDS of 10/15/2024.
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_image2.png
208
426
media_image2.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.
The compound ST1 has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
392
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Table 2, page 24) and meets the claimed Formula (E-1-2) wherein:
Ar1 is not required to be present;
Ar2 is in each case an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (a benzene group) that is substituted by two R5 radicals;
R1 is not required to be present;
R2 is in each case H;
R3 is not required to be present;
R5 is in each case an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (a phenyl group);
R6 is not required to be present; and
R7 is not required to be present.
Kaiser appears silent with respect to the property of where the compound of the 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 teaches 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 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 of the claimed formula (EBM) and selected from triarylamines containing one or more spirobifluorenyl groups.
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 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 out of the compound of Mujica-Fernaud would yield the benefit of processability, high efficiencies, low operating voltages, and long lifetime, as described above.
Kaiser appears 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 Mujica-Fernaud 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 appears 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 Mujica-Fernaud 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 Mujica-Fernaud 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).
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).
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 Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2 (hereinafter "Mujica-Fernaud-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Mujica-Fernaud-MT") with additional evidence provided by Buesing et al. US-20090261717-A1 (hereinafter "Buesing").
Regarding claim 45, Kaiser in view of Mujica-Fernaud teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser and Mujica-Fernaud 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_image4.png
176
288
media_image4.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 Mujica-Fernaud 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.
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 Mujica-Fernaud et al. WO-2014015935-A2 (hereinafter "Mujica-Fernaud-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Mujica-Fernaud-MT") as applied to claim 24 above and further in view of Jatsch et al. US-20150337197-A1 (hereinafter "Jatsch").
Regarding claim 43, Kaiser in view of Mujica-Fernaud teaches the device as described above with respect to claim 24.
Kaiser in view of Mujica-Fernaud 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 Mujica-Fernaud 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 Mujica-Fernaud out of the compound of Jatsch's formula (1) would yield the benefit of very low operating voltage, as described above.
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