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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered. An action on the RCE follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s reply filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered and considered. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1,3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE) in view of KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. LEE discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
an anode (Fig 4, anode 10, Para [ 0054, 0075]);
a first hole transport layer (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0115]) positioned over the anode (Fig 4, anode 10, Para [ 0054, 0075]);
a second hole transport layer (Fig 4, another hole transport layer 20B, Para [0061, 0115]) positioned over the first hole transport layer (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0115]);
a barrier transport layer (Fig 4, upper hole blocking layer 20A, Para [0061, 0115]) positioned over the second hole transport layer (Fig 4, another hole transport layer 20B, Para [0061, 0115]);
at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]) positioned over the barrier transport layer (Fig 4, upper hole blocking layer 20A, Para [0061, 0115]); and
a cathode (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]) positioned over the at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]), wherein the barrier transport layer (Fig 4, hole blocking layer 20A, Para [0061, 0115]) comprises a hole blocking material (Fig 4, hole blocking layer 20A, Para [0061, 0115]) with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy that is lower than the that of a material included in the first (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0104]) and second hole transport layers (Fig 3, Para [ 0103-0107]).
LEE further discloses “In one or more exemplary embodiments, the hole auxiliary layer 20 may include a multi-layered structure having three or more of the hole blocking layers 20A and the hole transport layers 20B which are alternately positioned. In one or more exemplary embodiments, the hole auxiliary layer 20 may include single hole blocking layer and single hole transport layer”, (Para [ 0061]).
But LEE does not disclose explicitly wherein the second hole transport layer is positioned in direct contact with the first hole transport layer and the barrier transport layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
315
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In a similar field of endeavor, KAKIZEO discloses wherein the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, 5 Second Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) is positioned in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, 4 First Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, 6 Electron Blocking Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE in light of KAKIZEO teaching “wherein the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, 5 Second Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) is positioned in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, 4 First Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, 6 Electron Blocking Layer, Para [ 0198-0207])” for further advantage such as facilitates efficient hole transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 3. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, LEE further discloses wherein the first (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0115]) and second hole transport layers (Fig 4, another hole transport layer 20B, Para [0061, 0115]) have the same composition (Para [0061, 0074]).
Regarding claim 4. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But, LEE do not disclose explicitly wherein the first hole transport layer comprises a material not present in the second hole transport layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, KAKIZEO discloses wherein the first hole transport layer comprises a material not present in the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE in light of KAKIZEO teaching “wherein the first hole transport layer comprises a material not present in the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184])” for further advantage such as increased carrier mobility and improving the display performance of the organic light-emitting display panel.
Regarding claim 6. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, LEE further discloses wherein the hole blocking material possesses high carrier mobilities (Para [ 0119]).
Regarding claim 10. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, KAKIZEO further discloses wherein the at least one emissive layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 100 nm (Para [ 0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE in light of KAKIZEO teaching “wherein the emissive layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 100 nm (Para [ 0184])” for further advantage such to increase the lifespan of the light-emitting device (Kim, Para [ 0035]).
Regarding claim 11. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, LEE further discloses further comprising an electron transport layer (Fig 4, electron transport layer 40, Para [ 0080]) positioned between the cathode (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]) and the at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]).
Regarding claim 13. LEE discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
an anode (Fig 4, electrode 10, Para [ 0075]) and a cathode (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]);
at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]) having an anode-facing surface (Fig 4, electrode 10, Para [ 0075]) and a cathode-facing surface (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]), positioned between the anode (Fig 4, electrode 10, Para [ 0075]) and the cathode (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]);
a first hole transport layer (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0115]) positioned between the anode (Fig 4, electrode 10, Para [ 0075]) and the at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]); and
a barrier transport layer (Fig 4, hole blocking layer 20A, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0061, 0115]) positioned between the anode (Fig 4, electrode 10, Para [ 0075]) and the at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]), and
a second hole transport layer (Fig 4, another hole transport layer 20B, Para [0061, 0115]) positioned between the first hole transport layer (Fig 4, lower hole transport layer 20B, Para [ 0115]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 4, hole blocking layer 20A, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0061, 0115]).
LEE further discloses “In one or more exemplary embodiments, the hole auxiliary layer 20 may include a multi-layered structure having three or more of the hole blocking layers 20A and the hole transport layers 20B which are alternately positioned. In one or more exemplary embodiments, the hole auxiliary layer 20 may include single hole blocking layer and single hole transport layer”, (Para [ 0061]).
But LEE does not disclose explicitly a second hole transport layer positioned between and in direct contact with the first hole transport layer and the barrier transport layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, KAKIZEO discloses a second hole transport layer (Fig 3, 5 Second Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) positioned between and in direct contact with in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, 4 First Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, 6 Electron Blocking Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE in light of KAKIZEO teaching “a second hole transport layer (Fig 3, 5 Second Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) positioned between and in direct contact with in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, 4 First Hole Transport Layer, Para [ 0198-0207]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, 6 Electron Blocking Layer, Para [ 0198-0207])” for further advantage such as facilitates efficient hole transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 16. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, LEE further discloses wherein the barrier transport layer is positioned between the anode and at least one emissive layer at a distance from the anode-facing surface of the emissive layer of between 1 nm and 50 nm (distance between anode facing emission layer 30 to hole blocking layer 20A is the thickness of second hole transport layer 20B, which is 30 angstroms to 120 angstroms, as described in Fig 4, Para [ 0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive to modify LEE claim limitation “wherein the barrier transport layer is positioned between the anode and the emissive layer at a distance from the anode-facing surface of at least one emissive layer of between 1 nm and 50 nm” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the organic light-emitting display device.
Regarding claim 17. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, LEE further discloses further comprising an electron transport layer (Fig 4, electron transport layer 40, Para [ 0080]) positioned between the at least one emissive layer (Fig 4, emission layer 30, Para [ 0057]) and the cathode (Fig 4, electrode 50, Para [ 0053]).
Claims 9, 20 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE) in view of KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) as applied claims above and further in view of Xu (US 10069096 B1; hereafter Xu).
Regarding claim 9. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But, LEE and KAKIZEO do not disclose explicitly the device configured to emit white light.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu discloses the device configured to emit white light (Fig 1, col 4, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of Xu teaching “the device configured to emit white light (Fig 1, col 4, lines 20-45)” for further advantage such as increase in the luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Regarding claim 20. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, X But, LEE and KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly wherein at least one emissive comprise red, green, and blue sublayers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein at least one emissive comprise red, green, and blue sublayers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of Xu teaching “wherein at least one emissive comprise red, green, and blue sublayers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45)” for further advantage such as increase in the luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Regarding claim 24. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But, LEE and KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of Xu teaching “wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45)” for further advantage such as increase in the luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Regarding claim 25. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, But, LEE and KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of Xu teaching “wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45)” for further advantage such as increase in the luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE) in view of KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) as applied claims above and further in view of WANG et al (US 2019/0363270 A1; hereafter WANG).
Regarding claim 12. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 11, But, LEE and KAKIZEO do not disclose explicitly wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least first and second electron transport sublayers, wherein the first electron transport sublayer comprises a material different from the second electron transport sublayer.
In a similar field of endeavor, WANG discloses wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least first and second electron transport sublayers (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]), wherein the first electron transport sublayer comprises a material different from the second electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of WANG teaching “wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least first and second electron transport sublayers (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]), wherein the first electron transport sublayer comprises a material different from the second electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032])” for further advantage such as increased carrier mobility and improving the display performance of the organic light-emitting display panel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE) in view of KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) as applied claims above and further in view of GAUDIN et al (US 2016/0285003 A1; hereafter GAUDIN).
Regarding claim 7. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 6, But, LEE and KAKIZEO do not disclose explicitly wherein the barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current.
In a similar field of endeavor, GAUDIN discloses wherein the barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current (Para [0094] discloses “a 5 nm layer of mCBP (Comparative Example) or Compound A was deposited by vacuum-thermal evaporation as the hole blocking layer (HBL)”, which is same materials discloses instant application for barrier transport layer. Therefore, barrier transport layer made with same materials can have same effects such as “barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current”). In addition, “wherein the barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure of LEE and KAKIZEO in light of GAUDIN of performing this use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of GAUDIN discloses teaching “wherein the barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current (Para [0094] discloses “a 5 nm layer of mCBP (Comparative Example) or Compound A was deposited by vacuum-thermal evaporation as the hole blocking layer (HBL)”, which is same materials discloses instant application for barrier transport layer. Therefore, barrier transport layer made with same materials can have same effects such as “barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current”)” for further advantage such as enhance efficiency of OLED devices.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE) in view of KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) as applied claims above and further in view of WANG et al (US 2019/0363270 A1; hereafter WANG).
Regarding claim 18. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 17, But, LEE and KAKIZEO do not disclose explicitly wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least a first electron transport sublayer and a second electron transport sublayer having a material different from the first electron transport sublayer.
In a similar field of endeavor, WANG discloses wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least a first electron transport sublayer and a second electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]) having a material different from the first electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine LEE and KAKIZEO in light of WANG teaching “wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least a first electron transport sublayer and a second electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032]) having a material different from the first electron transport sublayer (Fig 2, layers 211/212, Para [ 0032])” for further advantage such as increased carrier mobility and improving the display performance of the organic light-emitting display panel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of LI et al (US 2020/0287154 A1; hereafter LI).
PNG
media_image2.png
315
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21. KAKIZEO discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
an anode (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], an anode 2); a first hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], first hole transport layer 4) positioned over the anode (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], an anode 2);
a second hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], second hole transport layer 5) positioned over and in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], first hole transport layer 4);
a barrier transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer) positioned over and in direct contact with the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], second hole transport layer 5);
at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], light emitting layer 7) positioned over the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], electron blocking layer 6); and
a cathode (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], cathode 11) positioned over the at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], light emitting layer 7), and, and wherein the first hole transport layer comprises a material (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], α-NPD was deposited in a thickness of 35 nm to form a first hole transport layer 4) not present in the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], TrisPCz was deposited in a thickness of 10 nm to form a second hole transport layer 5).
But LEE does not disclose explicitly wherein the barrier transport layer comprises a hole blocking material.
In a similar field of endeavor, LI discloses wherein the barrier transport layer comprises a hole blocking material (Para [ 0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KAKIZEO in light of LI teaching “wherein the barrier transport layer comprises a hole blocking material (Para [ 0086])” for further advantage such as light emitting layer with excellent performance in the OLED is a material trending to hole blocking material.
Claims 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of LI et al (US 2020/0287154 A1; hereafter LI) as applied claims above and further in view of Xu (US 10069096 B1; hereafter Xu).
Regarding claim 22. KAKIZEO and LI disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 21, But KAKIZEO and LI does not disclose explicitly wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KAKIZEO and LI in light of Xu teaching “wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive layers (Fig 1, col 4, element 14, lines 20-45)” for further advantage such as increase luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Regarding claim 23. KAKIZEO, LI and Xu disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 22, Xu further discloses wherein the plurality of emissive layers comprise red, green, and blue layers (Fig 1, col 4, lines 20-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KAKIZEO and LI in light of Xu teaching “wherein the plurality of emissive sublayers comprise red, green, and blue sublayers (Fig 1, col 4, lines 20-35)” for further advantage such as increase in the luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of LI et al (US 2020/0287154 A1; hereafter LI) as applied claims above and further in view of LEE et al (US 2017/0141342 A1; hereafter LEE).
Regarding claim 26. KAKIZEO and LI disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 21, But KAKIZEO and LI does not disclose explicitly wherein the hole blocking material has a highest occupied molecular orbital energy that is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of a material included in the first and second hole transport layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, LEE discloses wherein the hole blocking material has a highest occupied molecular orbital energy that is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of a material included in the first and second hole transport layers (Fig 3, Para [ 0103-0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KAKIZEO and LI in light of LEE teaching “wherein the hole blocking material has a highest occupied molecular orbital energy that is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of a material included in the first and second hole transport layers (Fig 3, Para [ 0103-0107])” for further advantage such as increase luminous efficiency of OLED devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898