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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection based upon the same references have been made, as outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the teachings of Yang and that the current claims are nonobvious over Yang. In particular, Applicant argues that the instant R1 as currently claimed is not taught by Yang.
As outlined below, Yang teaches compounds meeting the amended limitations of the instant R1.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed compounds possess properties that are unexpected and nonobvious in view of the teachings of Yang and the cited prior art. Applicant recites the properties of the claimed compounds listed in paragraphs [0011]-[0015] of the instant specification.
Applicant has not compared to the closest prior art. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
Furthermore, many of the structural characteristics described in the cited sections of the specification—an unconjugated group, a triarylamine structure, and a group that can be equated with the instant R1 as described in the instant specification—are also present in the compounds of Yang. Thus, the cited compounds of Yang would be expected to also possess these properties.
Applicant also cites the beneficial properties possessed by the organic light emitting devices of the instant Examples 48-49. However, again in this case, comparison has not been made to the closest prior art. Therefore, it cannot be determined that the proffered results are unexpected with respect to Yang, and it cannot be determined that the current claims are nonobvious over Yang in view of the proffered results.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8: Yang discloses an organic electroluminescent device having the structure comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {p. 12, 1st and 2nd paragraphs}.
The organic layer can comprise between the anode and the cathode, a hole injection layer, a light-emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer {p. 12, 1st and 2nd paragraphs}.
The host material of the light-emitting layer is Compound 1 of Yang, having the structure shown below {(p. 12, 1st and 2nd paragraphs: The host of the light-emitting layer is Compound 1 of Yang.), (p. 4 and p. 8: Structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
998
1318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the explicit teaching the adjacent R2 can join to form a ring in the current claim and the lack of any general teaching in the specification or claims that substituents of the claimed compounds can generally join to form a ring, the Examiner is interpreted the claim such that the instant Ar1 and Ar2 cannot join to form a ring. Thus, the compound shown above does not read on the current claims.
However, Yang teaches that the compounds of Yang have the structure shown below {p. 3, lines 4-6}.
PNG
media_image2.png
166
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where R3 of Yang is hydrogen or an aromatic amine {p. 3, lines 11-12}.
Yang exemplifies that the R3 of Yang can be
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{p. 6, Compounds 97-108}.
Yang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Yang inhibit stacking and have good thermal stability {p. 3, 4th paragraph}.
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 compound of Yang shown above by substituting the amine group
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in place of the carbazolyl group as R3 of Yang, based on the teaching of Yang. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent groups of Yang), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, which in this case means producing additional compounds having inhibited stacking and good thermal stability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”).
Regarding claim 9: Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Yang does not teach an organic electroluminescent device in which the compound of Yang shown above is comprised in a hole transport layer.
However, as outlined above, the taught device of Yang comprises an electron blocking layer between the anode and the light-emitting layer as well as a hole blocking layer between the cathode and the light-emitting layer.
Seo teaches an organic light-emitting device having the structure of a light-emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the electron transport materials, a hole transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the anode, and a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the hole transport material {Fig. 22 as described in paragraph [0069]}.
Seo teaches that introducing mixed layers between the light-emitting layer and the hole-transport layer as well as between the light-emitting layer and the electron-transport layer lowers energy barriers between organic layers, lowering driving voltage and increase device lifetime {paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], [0054] describing Figs. 1A to 1D}.
The electron blocking layer of Yang can be equated with a hole transport layer, because it must necessarily transport hole. The hole blocking layer of Yang can be equated with an electron transport layer, because it must necessarily transport electrons.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device taught by Yang by including a mixed layer comprising the host material of the light emitting layer (the compound of Yang shown above) and the hole blocking material between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer as well as a mixed layer comprising the host material of the light emitting layer (the compound of Yang shown above) and the material of the electron blocking layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer, based on the teachings of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to lower energy barriers between sub-layers of each organic layer, lowering driving voltage, and increasing device lifetime, as taught by Seo.
The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer can be equated with a hole transport layer, because it must necessarily transport holes. The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole blocking layer can be equated with an electron transport layer, because it must necessarily transport holes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”).
Regarding claim 10: Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Yang does not teach that the compound shown above is comprised in a capping layer provided on the outside of the anode or the cathode.
Forrest teaches a stacked device structure (shown below) in order to provide a multicolor organic light emitting device {abstract; Fig. 2A; and paragraphs [0013]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], and [0045]-[0048]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
772
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Forrest teaches that the stacked device structure consists of three individual light emitting device structures emitting blue, green, and red light, respectively (elements 20, 21, and 22) {Fig. 2A; paragraphs [0038]-[0042] and [0045]-[0048]}. Each individual light emitting structure is sandwiched between an ITO layer and a metal layer (elements 26I and 26M, respectively—collectively element 26) {paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2A}. Each individual light emitting structure comprises a hole transport layer on the ITO layer, an emission layer on the hole transport layer, an electron transport layer on the emission layer, and a metal layer on the electron transport layer {paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2A}. The ITO layers and metal layers are described as electrodes, because each individual light emitting structure can be separately biased {paragraphs [0047]-[0048]: Additionally, described as electrodes in paragraph [0047]}. Thus, each individual light emitting structure comprises an anode and a cathode.
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 device taught by Yang by stacking three organic layer stacks of the disclosure of Yang to have the stacked device structure taught by Forrest, based on the teaching of Forrest. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a multicolor light emitting device, based on the teaching of Forrest.
The resultant structure would comprise the organic layer structure of Yang as each of the organic layer stacks of the stacked device structure of Forrest. Each of the organic layer stacks (taken as a whole) of the stacked device structure of Forrest can be equated with a capping layer provided on outside of a first electrode or second electrode of an adjacent layer stack, which is opposite to a surface facing the organic material layers of the said adjacent layer stack. This is because each of the layer stacks of the stacked device structure of Forrest can be described as “capping” one of the anode or cathode of the adjacent layer stack. Thus, in two of the individual light emitting structures, the compound of Yang shown above is comprised in a “capping” layer on the cathode of the adjacent individual light emitting structure.
It is noted that requiring the capping layer to be the outermost layer of the organic electroluminescent device would overcome the rejection outlined above.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”).
Regarding claims 1-6: Yang discloses the compound shown below {(p. 2, 2nd paragraph through p. 2, 4th paragraph as well as p. 2, final paragraph through p. 3, 2nd paragraph: The compounds of the disclosure of Yang are useful and organic host materials for an organic electroluminescent device.), (p. 3, final paragraph: The compounds of the disclosure of Yang are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 4-7.), (p. 5, Compound (61))}.
PNG
media_image5.png
814
1218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given the explicit teaching the adjacent R2 can join to form a ring in the current claim and the lack of any general teaching in the specification or claims that substituents of the claimed compounds can generally join to form a ring, the Examiner is interpreted the claim such that the instant Ar1 and Ar2 cannot join to form a ring. Thus, the compound shown above does not read on the current claims.
However, Yang teaches that the compounds of Yang have the structure shown below {p. 3, lines 4-6}.
PNG
media_image2.png
166
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where R3 of Yang is hydrogen or an aromatic amine {p. 3, lines 11-12}.
Yang exemplifies that the R3 of Yang can be
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{p. 6, Compounds 97-108}.
Yang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Yang inhibit stacking and have good thermal stability {p. 3, 4th paragraph}.
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 compound of Yang shown above by substituting the amine group
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in place of the carbazolyl group as R3 of Yang, based on the teaching of Yang. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of
PNG
media_image3.png
996
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent groups of Yang), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, which in this case means producing additional compounds having inhibited stacking and good thermal stability.
Regarding claim 8: Yang discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Yang does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Yang shown above.
However, Yang teaches that the compounds of Yang are useful as host materials for a light-emitting dopant in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 2, 2nd paragraph through p. 2, 4th paragraph as well as p. 2, final paragraph through p. 3, 2nd paragraph: The compounds of the disclosure of Yang are useful and organic host materials for an organic electroluminescent device.}.
Yang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Yang inhibit stacking hand host good thermal stability {p. 3, 4th paragraph}.
Additionally, Yang teaches organic electroluminescent devices having the structure comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {p. 7, 1st and 2nd paragraphs}.
The organic layer can comprise between the anode and the cathode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer {p. 7, 1st and 2nd paragraphs}.
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 compound of Yang described above by using the compound as the host material of the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Yang described above, based on the teaching of Yang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means selecting a material known to inhibit stacking and have good thermal stability, as taught by Yang.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”).
Regarding claim 9: Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Yang does not teach an organic electroluminescent device in which the compound of Yang shown above is comprised in a hole transport layer.
However, as outlined above, the taught device of Yang comprises an electron blocking layer between the anode and the light-emitting layer as well as a hole blocking layer between the cathode and the light-emitting layer.
Seo teaches an organic light-emitting device having the structure of a light-emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the electron transport materials, a hole transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the anode, and a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the hole transport material {Fig. 22 as described in paragraph [0069]}.
Seo teaches that introducing mixed layers between the light-emitting layer and the hole-transport layer as well as between the light-emitting layer and the electron-transport layer lowers energy barriers between organic layers, lowering driving voltage and increase device lifetime {paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], [0054] describing Figs. 1A to 1D}.
The electron blocking layer of Yang can be equated with a hole transport layer, because it must necessarily transport hole. The hole blocking layer of Yang can be equated with an electron transport layer, because it must necessarily transport electrons.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device taught by Yang by including a mixed layer comprising the host material of the light emitting layer (the compound of Yang shown above) and the hole blocking material between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer as well as a mixed layer comprising the host material of the light emitting layer (the compound of Yang shown above) and the material of the electron blocking layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer, based on the teachings of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to lower energy barriers between sub-layers of each organic layer, lowering driving voltage, and increasing device lifetime, as taught by Seo.
The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron blocking layer can be equated with a hole transport layer, because it must necessarily transport holes. The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole blocking layer can be equated with an electron transport layer, because it must necessarily transport holes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”).
Regarding claim 10: Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Yang does not teach that the compound shown above is comprised in a capping layer provided on the outside of the anode or the cathode.
Forrest teaches a stacked device structure (shown below) in order to provide a multicolor organic light emitting device {abstract; Fig. 2A; and paragraphs [0013]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], and [0045]-[0048]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
772
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Forrest teaches that the stacked device structure consists of three individual light emitting device structures emitting blue, green, and red light, respectively (elements 20, 21, and 22) {Fig. 2A; paragraphs [0038]-[0042] and [0045]-[0048]}. Each individual light emitting structure is sandwiched between an ITO layer and a metal layer (elements 26I and 26M, respectively—collectively element 26) {paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2A}. Each individual light emitting structure comprises a hole transport layer on the ITO layer, an emission layer on the hole transport layer, an electron transport layer on the emission layer, and a metal layer on the electron transport layer {paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2A}. The ITO layers and metal layers are described as electrodes, because each individual light emitting structure can be separately biased {paragraphs [0047]-[0048]: Additionally, described as electrodes in paragraph [0047]}. Thus, each individual light emitting structure comprises an anode and a cathode.
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 device taught by Yang by stacking three organic layer stacks of the disclosure of Yang to have the stacked device structure taught by Forrest, based on the teaching of Forrest. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a multicolor light emitting device, based on the teaching of Forrest.
The resultant structure would comprise the organic layer structure of Yang as each of the organic layer stacks of the stacked device structure of Forrest. Each of the organic layer stacks (taken as a whole) of the stacked device structure of Forrest can be equated with a capping layer provided on outside of a first electrode or second electrode of an adjacent layer stack, which is opposite to a surface facing the organic material layers of the said adjacent layer stack. This is because each of the layer stacks of the stacked device structure of Forrest can be described as “capping” one of the anode or cathode of the adjacent layer stack. Thus, in two of the individual light emitting structures, the compound of Yang shown above is comprised in a “capping” layer on the cathode of the adjacent individual light emitting structure.
It is noted that requiring the capping layer to be the outermost layer of the organic electroluminescent device would overcome the rejection outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Yang et al. (CN 111499557 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) is the closest prior art. However, Yang does not teach the substituent patterns of the compounds of the current claim 7. For example, the exemplified compounds of Yang comprise tertiary butyl substituents that are not present on the compounds of the current claim 7. While any individual difference between a compound of Yang and the current claim 7 may be obvious, the total number of differences would require a number of specific modifications that would not represent a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and are therefore non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights