DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (Xu, Shen; Li, Huanhuan; Chen, Runfeng; Chen, Zhicai; Xu, Lijia; Tang, Yuting; Huang, Wei “High-Performance All-Aryl Phenazasilines via Metal-Free Radical-Mediated C-H Silylation for Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Advanced Optical Materials, 2018, 6, 1701105).
5. Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (ITO, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, pg. 4 of 6), a second electrode (Al, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, pg. 4 of 6), and a functional layer comprising the polycyclic compound rDPhPz as the host material (1st column, 2nd paragraph, pg. 4 of 6; see also Device 2, 2nd column, pg 4 of 6). The structure of rDPhPz is reproduced below along with Formula 1 for comparison.
PNG
media_image1.png
135
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
245
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6. The compound rDPhPz reads on Formula 1 wherein:
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are all hydrogen atoms; and
a and b are 5, c is 3, and d is 4.
7. Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches a light emitting element comprising the following functional layers:
an emission layer comprising the polycyclic compound rDPhPz and 10 wt% FIrpic (1st column, 2nd paragraph, pg. 4 of 6; see also Device 2, 2nd column, pg 4 of 6)
a hole transport region (1,1-bis(di-4-tolylaminophenyl) cyclohexane (TAPC)) between the first electrode and the emission layer (1st column, 2nd paragraph to 2nd column, pg. 4 of 6); and
an electron transport region (1,3,5-tri(m-pyrid-3-yl-phenyl)benzene (TmPyPB)) between the emission layer and the second electrode (1st column, 2nd paragraph to 2nd column, pg. 4 of 6).
8. Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches light emitting elements wherein the emission layers, comprising the polycyclic compound rDPhPz, emit delayed fluorescence or phosphorescence in the following devices ( 2nd column, , pg. 4 of 6):
devices 2 and 3 are phosphorescent OLEDs; and
device 4 is a delayed fluorescent OLED.
9. Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches a light emitting element wherein the emission layer comprises a dopant (devices 2, 3, and 4) and a host material, and the host material is the polycyclic compound rDPhPz (1st column, 2nd paragraph, pg. 4 of 6).
10. Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches a light emitting element wherein the emission layer emits light having a center wavelength of about 430 nm to 480 nm when the polycyclic compound rDPhPz is used as the host material. Figure 3c (pg. 4 of 6) is reproduced below, wherein the host material of the emission layers for devices 2, 3, and 4 is the polycyclic compound rDPhPz.
PNG
media_image3.png
385
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
11. Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches a polycyclic compound rDPhPz that reads on the limitation wherein R1 and R2 are all hydrogen atoms.
12. Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches a polycyclic compound rDPhPz (Scheme 1, pg. 2 of 6). The structure of rDPhPz is reproduced below along with Formula 1 for comparison.
PNG
media_image1.png
135
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
245
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
13. The compound rDPhPz reads on Formula 1 (claim 14) wherein:
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are all hydrogen atoms; and
a and b are 5, c is 3, and d is 4.
14. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayuka et al. (JP 5659819 B2; English translation obtained from Global Dossier).
15. Regarding claims 1 and 14, Mayuka teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one layer between those electrodes comprising a polycyclic organic electroluminescent material (¶ [0020]) represented by Formula 2 and exemplified by Compound 1-35 (¶ [0047]), both of which are reproduced below.
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
328
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-35:
PNG
media_image5.png
202
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
16. Exemplified compound 1-35 reads on Formula 1 of claims 1 and 14 wherein:
R1 and R2 are unsubstituted heteroaryl groups having 2 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms; and
R3 and R4 are all hydrogen atoms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayuka et al. (JP 5659819 B2; English translation obtained from Global Dossier).
21. Regarding claims 7-8 and 15-16, Mayuka teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one layer between those electrodes comprising a polycyclic organic electroluminescent material (¶ [0020]) represented by Formula 2 and exemplified by Compound 1-35 (¶ [0047]), both of which are reproduced below.
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
328
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-35:
PNG
media_image5.png
202
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
22. Regarding Formula 2, Mayuka teaches that:
X2 can be N (¶ [0041]); and
A12 to A22 can be C or N, wherein A12 to A22 being C is the most preferred embodiment (¶ [0041]); and
R12 to R22 can be an aromatic hydrocarbon substituent and, most preferably, a carbazolyl substituent (¶ [0042]); and
R12 to R18 are the preferable sites of substitution (¶ [0042]).
23. Compound 1-35 meets all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fails to include a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl or carbazolyl substituent at positions R16 to R18 or R19 to R22,thereby not meeting the limitations wherein R3 and/or R4 are represented by Formulae 2 or 3 as per claims 7-8 and 15-16.However, as shown by Formula 2, Mayuka teaches that these positions may be most preferably substituted with a carbazolyl substituent.
24. Therefore, given Formula 2 and teachings of Mayuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the H atom of position R17 on Compound 1-35, because Mayuka teaches the variable may most preferably be selected as carbazolyl. This substitution is depicted below with Modified Compound 1-35.
PNG
media_image6.png
538
611
media_image6.png
Greyscale
25. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the light emitting device of Mayuka and possess the benefits taught by Mayuka (high luminous efficiency, a low driving voltage, and a long emission lifetime (¶ [0027])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
26. Regarding claims 9 and 17, Modified Compound 1-35 meets all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fails to teach unsubstituted phenyl groups connected to the Si atom as per claims 9 and 17. However, as shown by Compound 1-2 (reproduced below), Mayuka teaches the aryl groups connected to the Si atom may be unsubstituted.
PNG
media_image7.png
274
265
media_image7.png
Greyscale
27. Therefore, given Formula 2 and teachings of Mayuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbazole substituents with hydrogen atoms on the phenyl groups connected to the Si atom in Modified Compound 1-35, as shown in Compound 1-2, because Mayuka teaches the variable may suitably be selected as hydrogen. This substitution is depicted below with Modified Compound 1-35’.
PNG
media_image8.png
563
888
media_image8.png
Greyscale
28. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the light emitting device of Mayuka and possess the benefits taught by Mayuka (high luminous efficiency, a low driving voltage, and a long emission lifetime (¶ [0027])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
29. Regarding claims 9-10 and 17-18, Modified Compound 1-35’ reads on Formula 1-1 as per claims 9 and 17 and on Formula 1-1-1 as per claims 10 and 18, meeting all limitations therein..
30. Regarding claims 11 and 19, Modified Compound 1-35’ meets all of the limitations of claims 9 and 17 but fails to include a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl substituent at positions R16 to R18 or R19 to R22. However, as shown by Compound 1-3 (reproduced below), Mayuka teaches that positions R17 and R20 may be substituted with phenyl.
PNG
media_image9.png
387
316
media_image9.png
Greyscale
31. Therefore, given Formula 2 and teachings of Mayuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbazole substituent of position R17 on Modified Compound 1-35’ for phenyl, because Mayuka teaches the variable may be selected as an aromatic hydrocarbon. This substitution is depicted below with Modified Compound 1-35’’.
PNG
media_image10.png
475
748
media_image10.png
Greyscale
32. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the light emitting device of Mayuka and possess the benefits taught by Mayuka (high luminous efficiency, a low driving voltage, and a long emission lifetime (¶ [0027])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B).33. Regarding claims 11 and 19, Modified Compound 1-35’’ reads on Formula 1-2 as per claims 9 and 17 and on Formula 1-2-1 as per claims 11 and 19, meeting all limitations therein.
34. Regarding claims 12-13 and 20, Modified Compound 1-35’ meets all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fails to read on the particular exemplified compounds claimed. However, as shown by Compound 1-3 (vide supra), Mayuka teaches that position R20 may be substituted with phenyl.
35. Therefore, given Formula 2 and teachings of Mayuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen atom substituent of position R20 on Modified Compound 1-35’ for phenyl, because Mayuka teaches the variable may be selected as an aromatic hydrocarbon. This substitution is depicted below with Modified Compound 1-35’’’.
PNG
media_image11.png
536
756
media_image11.png
Greyscale
36. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the light emitting device of Mayuka and possess the benefits taught by Mayuka (high luminous efficiency, a low driving voltage, and a long emission lifetime (¶ [0027])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
37. Regarding claims 13 and 20, Modified Compound 1-35’’’ reads on Compound 55, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image12.png
413
324
media_image12.png
Greyscale
38. Regarding claim 12, Modified Compound 1-35’’’ meets all of the limitations of claim 1 and reads on claim 12 wherein R5 to R7 are represented by hydrogen atoms.
Double Patenting
39. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
40. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
41. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
42. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
43. Claims 1, 7-10, 12 and 14-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-20 of copending Application No. 19/192,909 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘909). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of Application ‘909 recites a compound that meets the limitations of claims 1, 7-10, 12, and 14-18. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
44. Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 12, and 14-18 of the instant application, Application ‘909 discloses Formula 1-3 in claim 19 and exemplifies Compound 60 in claim 20, both of which are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image13.png
544
547
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
247
166
media_image14.png
Greyscale
45. Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, Application ‘909 discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first and second electrodes including an emission layer, and a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1, which is reproduced below (claim 1, Application ‘909).
PNG
media_image15.png
564
632
media_image15.png
Greyscale
46. Formula 1 of Application ‘909 reads on Formulae 1 and 2 of claim 1 of the instant application wherein:
CY11, CY12, CY13, CY21, CY22, CY31, and CY32 are all C6 carbocycles; and
n1 is equal to one and L1 is a single bond; and
n2 is equal to zero and L2 is not present.
47. Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein R3 is represented by Formula 2 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image16.png
155
232
media_image16.png
Greyscale
48. Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 7 wherein:
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
g is equal to 1 and X is thus a direct linkage (ex. a carbazole moiety).
49. Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image17.png
142
250
media_image17.png
Greyscale
50. Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 8 wherein:
R5i is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6i is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
51. Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 1-1 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image18.png
268
299
media_image18.png
Greyscale
52. Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 9 wherein:
R1i is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
53. Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 1-1 is represented by Formula 1-1-1 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image19.png
293
263
media_image19.png
Greyscale
54. Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 10 wherein:
R1i is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
55. Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein R5 comprises three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom, R6 comprises all hydrogen atoms, and R7 is not required to be present.
56. Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, Application ‘909 discloses a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1, which is reproduced below (claim 11, ‘909).
PNG
media_image15.png
564
632
media_image15.png
Greyscale
57. Formula 1 of Application ‘909 reads on Formulae 1 and 2 of claim 14 of the instant application wherein:
CY11, CY12, CY13, CY21, CY22, CY31, and CY32 are all C6 carbocycles; and
L1 is a single bond; and
L2 is not present.
58. Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein R3 is represented by Formula 2 (vide supra). Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 15 wherein:
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
g is equal to 1 and X is thus a direct linkage (ex. a carbazole moiety).
59. Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1 (vide supra). Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 16 wherein:
R5i is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6i is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
60. Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 1-1 (vide supra). Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 17 wherein:
R1i is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
61. Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on the limitation wherein Formula 1-1 is represented by Formula 1-1-1 (vide supra). Specifically, compound 60 of Application ‘909 reads on claim 10 wherein:
R1i is represented by all hydrogen atoms; and
R5 is represented by three deuterium atoms and one hydrogen atom; and
R6 is represented by all hydrogen atoms.
62. Although the claims of the instant application and Application ‘909 are not identical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the claims of the instant application and Application ‘909 are obvious variants of each other as they overlap in scope.
63. Claims 1 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/814,245 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘245). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 10 and 18 of Application ‘245 recite a compound that meets the limitations of claims 1 and 14. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
64. Regarding claims 1 and 14 of the instant application, Application ‘245 discloses Formulae 1 and 2 in claim 1 and exemplifies Compound 3 in claim 10, which are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image20.png
255
244
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
178
259
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
220
206
media_image22.png
Greyscale
65. Regarding claims 1 and 14 of the instant application, Application ‘245 discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode on the first electrode, a functional layer between the first and second electrodes comprising a first compound represented by Formulae 1 and 2 (claim 1, Application ‘245).
66. Formulae 1 and 2 of Application ‘245 read on Formulae 1 and 2 of claim 1 of the instant application wherein:
R1 or R2 are represented by Formula 2 and thus are either a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms (X1 to X3 are C), or a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 2 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms (at least one of X1 to X3 is N); and
R3 to R5 are represented by hydrogen atoms
67. Exemplified Compound 3 of Application ‘245 meets all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 of the instant application.
68.Although the claims of the instant application and Application ‘245 are not identical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the claims of the instant application and Application ‘245 are obvious variants of each other as they overlap in scope.
Conclusion
69. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786