DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites that ring CY1 is a C1-30 heterocyclic group containing two or more nitrogen atoms which fails to limit the scope of the parent claim for the following reasons. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and claim 10 recites that CY1 is represented by one of Formulas CY1(2) to CY1(18):
PNG
media_image1.png
362
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 is C or N. Thus, claim 10 recites specific heterocyclic rings for CY1 which contain two (2) to four (4) nitrogen atoms. Claim 11 recites a generic heterocyclic ring which can contain two (2) or more nitrogen atoms, i.e. claim 11 encompasses other heterocyclic rings than the specific heterocyclic rings recited in claim 10. Accordingly, claim 11 fails to limit the scope of claim 10, and therefore, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) have not been met.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0071] - Figure 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
238
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (104) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode (120) corresponds to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode; layers 106 to 110 correspond to the recited interlayer; and layer 108 is the recited emission layer. The interlayer (layers 106 to 110) is located between the first (104) and second (120) electrodes ([0071] - n.b. the cathode is misidentified as layer 112 instead of 120 in [0071]).
The light emitting layer (108) comprises the following compound ([0073] and Page 60):
PNG
media_image4.png
434
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R4 are hydrogen ([0007]).
This compound corresponds to organometallic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
372
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt;
ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
ring CY33 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N;
X2 is C;
X4 is N;
X31 and X32 are C;
X33 and X34 are C(Z3) and X(Z4), respectively;
L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds;
n1, n2, and n3 are each one (1);
Z3 and Z4 are hydrogen; and
a1, a2, a4 and a32 are each zero (0).
The compound disclosed by the reference does not possess ring CY32 as recited in Formula 1. However, the compound is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0037]):
PNG
media_image6.png
348
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
92
98
media_image7.png
Greyscale
corresponds to ([0045] and Page 25):
PNG
media_image8.png
78
138
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
and the formula ([0045]):
PNG
media_image9.png
88
302
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to ([0045]):
PNG
media_image10.png
190
262
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where ring CY33 in Formula 1 of the claims is present and the ring is a C6 carbocyclic ring where a32 is zero (0).
Furthermore, in the compound disclosed by the reference, CY1 does not correspond to one of Formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image11.png
286
286
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where L1 can be a heteroaryl ([0007]). The heteroaryl is exemplified as a benzotriazole ring in the following compound (Page 52):
PNG
media_image12.png
254
288
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The benzotriazole corresponds to Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image13.png
128
182
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is N.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image3.png
238
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where the first electrode is an anode; the second electrode is a cathode. The interlayer layer comprises a hole transport layer (106), i.e. hole transport region, located between the anode (104) and the light emitting layer (108); and an electron transport layer (110), i.e. an electron transport region, located between the cathode (120) and the light emitting layer (108).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed organometallic compound.
Regarding claim 4, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organometallic compound emits light in the layer of about 400 nm to about 700 nm ([0032]). Given that the reference discloses that the organometallic compound is present in the light emitting layer, it is clear that the light emitting layer emits light in the range of about 400 to about 700 nm, overlapping the recited range of about 430 to about 480 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host compound and the disclosed organometallic compound ([0073]). Accordingly, it is clear that the organometallic compound is necessarily a dopant as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, it is clear that the reference discloses an electronic apparatus as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, Li et al discloses the following organometallic compound (Page 60):
PNG
media_image4.png
434
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R4 are hydrogen ([0007]).
This compound corresponds to organometallic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
372
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt;
ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
ring CY33 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N;
X2 is C;
X4 is N;
X31 and X32 are C;
X33 and X34 are C(Z3) and X(Z4), respectively;
L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds;
n1, n2, and n3 are each one (1);
Z3 and Z4 are hydrogen; and
a1, a2, a4 and a32 are each zero (0).
The compound disclosed by the reference does not possess ring CY32 as recited in Formula 1. However, the compound is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0037]):
PNG
media_image6.png
348
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
92
98
media_image7.png
Greyscale
corresponds to ([0045] and Page 25):
PNG
media_image8.png
78
138
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
and the formula ([0045]):
PNG
media_image9.png
88
302
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to ([0045]):
PNG
media_image10.png
190
262
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where ring CY33 in Formula 1 of the claims is present and the ring is a C6 carbocyclic ring where a32 is zero (0).
Furthermore, in the compound disclosed by the reference, CY1 does not correspond to one of Formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image11.png
286
286
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where L1 can be a heteroaryl ([0007]). The heteroaryl is exemplified as a benzotriazole ring in the following compound (Page 52):
PNG
media_image12.png
254
288
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The benzotriazole corresponds to Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image13.png
128
182
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is N.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses that ring CY1 is a benzotriazole ring, i.e. a ring containing three (3) nitrogen atoms.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, ring CY4 is a pyridine group.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference CY2 is:
PNG
media_image14.png
108
140
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Formula CY2(1):
PNG
media_image15.png
126
120
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where X2 is C.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference CY4 is:
PNG
media_image16.png
70
102
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Formula CY4(1):
PNG
media_image17.png
96
92
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference rings CY32 and CY33 are both benzene rings.
Regarding claim 17, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference L1 and L3 are single bonds. L2 is not -O- or -S- as recited in the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image11.png
286
286
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 corresponding to L2, can be O or S ([0034]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L2 is O or S.
Regarding claim 18, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in Formula (1) of the claims a1, a2, a4, a32, a33 are zero (0). Given that the claims do not require R1, R2, R4, R32, and R3 to be present, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 19, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, in recited Formula (1-1):
PNG
media_image18.png
392
544
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Y31 to Y38 are C(Z31) to C(Z38), where Z31 to Z38 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 20, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y31 to Y38 are C(Z31) to C(Z38), meeting provision (i) of the claims.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 14-20 above, and in view of Ahn et al (US 2020/0168819).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer, i.e. interlayer, comprises the disclosed organometallic compound, i.e. the recited first compound, and a host compound, i.e. the recited second compound, the reference does not disclose that the second compound is a p-deficient nitrogen containing C1-60 cyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Anh et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer, where the light emitting layer comprises a dopant and a host compound (Abstract, [0071], and [0127]). The host compound disclosed as ([0110] – Compound 1):
PNG
media_image19.png
244
234
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
This compound includes one (1) p-deficiency nitrogen C3 cyclic group encompassed by the present claims. The reference discloses that because intermolecular attraction is reduced through steric hindrance caused by substituents having a large size and because the heterocyclic compound has a relatively high triplet energy, the heterocyclic compound is suitable as a phosphorescent host ([0111]). An electronic device, such as an organic light emitting device comprising the compound, possesses a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan ([0113]).
Given that both Li et al and Anh et al are drawn to organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Anh et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the light emitting layer of the deice disclosed by Li et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 14-20 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims ([0066]).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provide uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics
Given that both Li et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Li et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Li et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 , and 14-20 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 9, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a color filter as recited in present claims.
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Double Patenting
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 (published as US PGPub 2024/0023425). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 recites an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes and an interlayer, identical to that recited in instant claim 1. Furthermore, claim 1 of the copending application recites that the interlayer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 1. The difference between the compound recited in claim 1 of the copending application and claim 1 of the instant application is that claim 1 of the instant application requires that
PNG
media_image20.png
100
116
media_image20.png
Greyscale
corresponds to one of formulas CY1(2) to CY1(18). However, claim 13 of the co-pending application recites that CY1 corresponds to one of CY1(2), CY1(3), etc., identical to CY1(2), CY1(3), etc. recited in instant claim 1.Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one CY1(2), CY1(3), etc. recited in claim 13 of the copending application as ring CY1 in claim 1 of the co-pending application, and thereby obtain the compound recited in claim 1 of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 2 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 2.
Claim 3 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 3.
Claim 4 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 4.
Claim 5 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 5.
Claim 6 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 7.
Claim 7 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 8.
Claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 recites a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 10. The difference between the compound recited in claim 10 of the copending application and claim 10 of the instant application is that claim 10 of the instant application requires that
PNG
media_image20.png
100
116
media_image20.png
Greyscale
corresponds to one of formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, claim 13 of the co-pending application recites that CY1 corresponds to one of CY1(1), CY1(2), etc., identical to CY1(1), CY1(2), etc. recited in instant claim 10. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one CY1(1), CY1(2), etc. recited in claim 13 of the copending application as ring CY1 in claim 10 of the co-pending application, and thereby obtain the compound recited in claim 10 of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 11 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 11.
Claim 12 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 12.
Claim 14 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 14.
Claim 15 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 15.
Claim 16 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 16.
Claim 17 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 17.
Claim 19 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 18.
Claim 20 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 19.
Claim 20 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 20.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Li et al does not disclose the compound as recited in as amended claims 1 and 10, i.e. the reference does not disclose that ring CY2 is a C5-30 carbocyclic group and X2 is C. However, as set forth in the previous Office Action and maintained in the rejections above, the reference discloses a compound where ring CY2 is a benzene ring, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group and X2 is therefore, necessarily C.
Applicants argue that the compound of L1 cited in the previous Office Action contains a carbazole group corresponding to CY2 which is excluded from the present claims. However, it should be noted that in the previous Office Action, the compound:
PNG
media_image21.png
302
362
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
was cited for its disclosure of an imidazole group corresponding to ring CY1. To that end, it in the rejections above, the compound:
PNG
media_image12.png
254
288
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
is cited for the presence of the benzotriazole which corresponds to recited Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image13.png
128
182
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is N.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights