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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ reply filed on 07/202026 has been entered and considered. Applicants’ 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, 4, 6-7, 10, 13, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of ADAMOVICH et al (US 2020/0127212 A1; hereafter ADAMOVICH).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. KAKIZEO discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
an anode (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]);
a first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [ 0115,0184]) positioned over the anode (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0054, 0075]);
a second hole transport layer (Fig 3, second hole transport layer 5, Para [0184]) positioned over the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [0184]);
a barrier transport layer (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, same material as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) positioned over the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, second hole transport layer 5, Para [0184]);
at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [ 0184]) positioned over the barrier transport layer (electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]), the at least one emissive layer comprising a dopant (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [ 0184]); and
a cathode (Fig 3, cathode 11 (not shown), Para [ 0184]) positioned over the at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [ 0184]), wherein the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) comprises a hole blocking material (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) with 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 ( materials for the first hole transport layer 4 and second hole transport layer 5 and the electron blocking layer 6, are same materials as instant application. Therefore, same materials can have same property) and wherein the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, second hole transport layer 5, Para [0184]) is positioned in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [ 0115]) and the barrier transport layer (electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]).
But KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the hole blocking material is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the dopant of the at least one emissive layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, ADAMOVICH discloses wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the hole blocking material is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the dopant of the at least one emissive layer (Para [ 0014-0017, 0045-0047]).
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 ADAMOVICH teaching “wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the hole blocking material is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the dopant of the at least one emissive layer (Para [ 0014-0017, 0045-0047])” for further advantage such as facilitates efficient hole transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 4. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, KAKIZEO further discloses wherein the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [0115,0184]) comprises a material not present in the second hole transport layer (Fig 3, second hole transport layer 5, Para [0184]).
Regarding claim 6. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, KAKIZEO further discloses wherein the hole blocking material possesses high carrier mobilities (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, is same materials as instant application. Therefore, same materials can have same property Para [0184]).
Regarding claim 7. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 6, KAKIZEO further discloses wherein the barrier transport layer is configured to reduce a shift of a location of exciton formation with changes in current (Fig 3, Para [ 0184] discloses mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, which is same material discloses instant application for barrier transport layer. Therefore, 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).
Regarding claim 10. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH 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]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding claim 13. KAKIZEO discloses an organic light emitting device, comprising:
an anode (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]) and a cathode (Fig 3, cathode 11 (not shown), Para [ 0184]);
at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [ 0184]) having an anode-facing surface (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]) and a cathode-facing surface (Fig 3, cathode 11 (not shown), Para [ 0184], positioned between the anode (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]) and the cathode (Fig 3, cathode 11 (not shown), Para [ 0184]);
a first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [ 0115]) positioned between the anode (Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]) and the at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [0184]); and
a barrier transport layer (Fig 3, electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) positioned between the anode(Fig 3, anode 2, Para [0184]) and the at least one emissive layer (Fig 3, light emitting layer 7, Para [ 0184]), the barrier transport layer comprising a hole blocking material (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the second hole transport layer ( materials for the second hole transport layer 5 and the electron blocking layer 6, are same materials as instant application. Therefore, same materials can have same property); and a second hole transport layer (Fig 3, second hole transport layer 5, Para [0184]) positioned between and in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, first hole transport layer 4, Para [ 0115]) and the barrier transport layer (Fig 3, electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]).
But KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, ADAMOVICH discloses the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer (Para [0014-0017, 0045-0047]).
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 ADAMOVICH teaching “the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer (Para [ 0014-0017, 0045-0047])” for further advantage such as facilitates efficient hole transfer and improve device performance.
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), wherein the barrier transport layer comprises a hole blocking material (Fig 3, mCBP was deposited in a thickness of 5 nm to form an electron blocking layer 6, construed as barrier transport layer, Para [0184]) with a highest occupied molecular orbital enemy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital enemy of the second hole transport layer ( materials for the second hole transport layer 5 and the electron blocking layer 6, are material same as instant application, Para [ 0180-0184]. Therefore, same materials can have same property), and wherein the first hole transport layer (Fig 3, Para [ 0184], α-NPD was deposited in a thickness of 35 nm to form a first hole transport layer 4) comprises a material 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 KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, ADAMOVICH discloses the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer (Para [0014-0017, 0045-0047]).
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 ADAMOVICH teaching “the barrier transport layer with a highest occupied molecular orbital energy lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the at least one emissive layer (Para [ 0014-0017, 0045-0047])” for further advantage such as facilitates efficient hole transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 26. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 21, KAKIZEO further disclose wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital energy of the hole blocking material is lower than a highest occupied molecular orbital energy of a material included in the first hole transport layer ( materials for the first hole transport layer 4 and the electron blocking layer 6 are material same as instant application, Para [ 0180-0184]. Therefore, same materials can have same property).
Claims 3, 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of ADAMOVICH et al (US 2020/0127212 A1; hereafter ADAMOVICH) as applied claims above and further in view of LEE et al (US 2017/0141342; hereafter LEE).
Regarding claim 3. LEE and KAKIZEO disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But KAKIZEO does not disclose explicitly wherein the first and second hole transport layers have the same composition.
In a similar field of endeavor, LEE 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH in light of LEE teaching “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])” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the organic light-emitting display device.
Regarding claim 11. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do not disclose explicitly further comprising an electron transport layer positioned between the cathode and the at least one emissive layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, LEE discloses 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH in light of LEE teaching “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])” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the organic light-emitting display device.
Regarding claim 16. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do not disclose explicitly wherein the barrier transport layer is positioned between the anode and the at least one emissive layer at a distance from the anode-facing surface of the emissive layer of between 1 nm and 50 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor, LEE 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 modify KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH in light of LEE teaching “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])” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the organic light-emitting display device.
Regarding claim 17. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do not disclose explicitly further comprising an electron transport layer positioned between the at least one emissive layer and the cathode.
In a similar field of endeavor, LEE discloses 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH in light of LEE teaching “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])” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the organic light-emitting display device.
Claims 9, 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of ADAMOVICH et al (US 2020/0127212 A1; hereafter ADAMOVICH) as applied claims above and further in view of Xu (US 10069096 B1; hereafter Xu).
Regarding claim 9. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH 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 KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH 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. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do 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 KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH 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 22. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 21, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH 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 ADAMOVICH 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, ADAMOVICH 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 ADAMOVICH 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.
Regarding claim 24. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 1, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do 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 ADAMOVICH 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. KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 13, But KAKIZEO and ADAMOVICH do 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 ADAMOVICH 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.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIZEO (US 2024/0188436 A1; hereafter KAKIZEO) in view of ADAMOVICH et al (US 2020/0127212 A1; hereafter ADAMOVICH) and LEE et al (US 2017/0141342; hereafter LEE) as applied claims above and further in view of WANG et al (US 2019/0363270 A1; hereafter WANG).
Regarding claim 12. KAKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 11, But AKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE 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 AKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE 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.
Regarding claim 18. KAKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE disclose the organic light emitting device of claim 17, But KAKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE 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 KAKIZEO, ADAMOVICH and LEE 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights