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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 19-20 have been amended.
The amendment of specification has overcome the objection of specification set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The cancelation of claim 2 obviates the rejection of claim 2 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1, 3-12, and 19-20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizoe et al. (US 2023/0225203 A1, hereafter Kakizoe) in view of Ossila (the material properties of TBPE by Ossila, https://www.ossila.com/products/tbpe?_pos=1&_sid=885fcfe40&_ss=r, hereafter Ossila) and Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0319209 A1, hereafter Tanaka), and
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizoe et al. (US 2023/0225203 A1) in view of Ossila (the material properties of TBPE by Ossila, https://www.ossila.com/products/tbpe?_pos=1&_sid=885fcfe40&_ss=r) and Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0319209 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-20 above, further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1, hereafter Yoo) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 12-13 of the reply filed 04/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizoe/Ossila/Tanaka, and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizoe/Ossila/Tanaka/Yoo set forth in the Office Action of 01/06/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn.
The rejections are withdrawn as outlined above. The arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US 2018/0375058 A1, hereafter Kawamura).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 16, and 18-20, Kawamura discloses an organic electroluminescent device (the region “20” in Fig. 1, [0007])).
Kawamura exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a first hole injection layer (HI1), a first hole transport layer (HT1), a first electron blocking layer (HT2), a first light emitting layer (“second emitting layer”, thickness 25 nm, GH2 as a first host, GH1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence sensitizer, GD1 as a first fluorescent dye), a second light emitting layer (“common layer”, thickness 20 nm, BH1 as a second host, BD1 as a second fluorescent dye), a second hole blocking layer (EE1), a second electron transport layer (ET1), a second electron injection layer (LiF), and a second electrode (cathode, Al) (Example 1 in [0421]-[0435]), wherein the first hole injection layer, the first hole transport layer, the first electron blocking layer, and the first light emitting layer are a first electroluminescent unit, and the second light emitting layer, the second hole blocking layer, the second electron transport layer, and the second electron injection layer are a second electroluminescent unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The an organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the second host (BH1) is a triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) material.
It is reasonable to presume that the second host (BH1) is a TTA material.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses specific embodiments H12 as the TTA material. The compound H12 has identical structure as Compound BH1 of Kawamura.
Therefore, the second host (BH1) is a TTA material.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kawamura discloses the T1 energies of GH2, GD1, BH1, and BD1 being 2.9 eV, 1.9 eV, 1.8 eV, and 2.0 eV (Table 2)
The Organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura reads on all the features of claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 16, and 18-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2018/0375058 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura discloses an organic electroluminescent device ((Example 1 in [0421]-[0435]). The device reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode, ITO), a first hole injection layer (HI1), a first hole transport layer (HT1), a first electron blocking layer (HT2), a first light emitting layer (“second emitting layer”, thickness 25 nm, GH2 as a first host, GH1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence sensitizer, GD1 as a first fluorescent dye), a second light emitting layer (“common layer”, thickness 20 nm, BH1 as a second host, BD1 as a second fluorescent dye), a second hole blocking layer (EE1), a second electron transport layer (ET1), a second electron injection layer (LiF), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), wherein the first hole injection layer, the first hole transport layer, the first electron blocking layer, and the first light emitting layer are a first electroluminescent unit, and the second light emitting layer, the second hole blocking layer, the second electron transport layer, and the second electron injection layer are a second electroluminescent unit.
Kawamura does not disclose a specific display apparatus comprising the device; however, Kawamura does teach the organic electroluminescent device can be used for a display apparatus (“TV, mobile phone, etc.” in [0353]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura by incorporating it into a display apparatus, as taught by Kawamura.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic electroluminescent devices in a display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified display apparatus comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2018/0375058 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1, hereafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura discloses an organic electroluminescent device ((Example 1 in [0421]-[0435]). The device reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode, ITO), a first hole injection layer (HI1), a first hole transport layer (HT1), a first electron blocking layer (HT2), a first light emitting layer (“second emitting layer”, thickness 25 nm, GH2 as a first host, GH1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence sensitizer, GD1 as a first fluorescent dye), a second light emitting layer (“common layer”, thickness 20 nm, BH1 as a second host, BD1 as a second fluorescent dye), a second hole blocking layer (EE1), a second electron transport layer (ET1), a second electron injection layer (LiF), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), wherein the first hole injection layer, the first hole transport layer, the first electron blocking layer, and the first light emitting layer are a first electroluminescent unit, and the second light emitting layer, the second hole blocking layer, the second electron transport layer, and the second electron injection layer are a second electroluminescent unit.
The device does not comprises a capping layer on the second electrode.
Yoo discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a capping layer (layer 130 in Fig. 1) which is on the second electrode (112 in Fig. 1) of the organic light emitting device.
Yoo teaches the capping layer provides constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction ([0044]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura by incorporating a capping layer on the second electrode as taught by Yoo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction based on the teaching of Yoo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic electroluminescent device of Kawamura as modified by Yoo comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a first hole injection layer (HI1), a first hole transport layer (HT1), a first electron blocking layer (HT2), a first light emitting layer (“second emitting layer”, thickness 25 nm, GH2 as a first host, GH1 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence sensitizer, GD1 as a first fluorescent dye), a second light emitting layer (“common layer”, thickness 20 nm, BH1 as a second host, BD1 as a second fluorescent dye), a second hole blocking layer (EE1), a second electron transport layer (ET1), a second electron injection layer (LiF), a second electrode (cathode, Al), and a capping layer.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluegge et al. (US 2020/0303656 A1, hereafter Fluegge) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0078637 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for remainder body of the patent, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 19-20, Fluegge discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer containing a triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) material, a TADF material, and a near-range charge transfer (NRCT) emitting material ([0001]).
Fluegge exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer (20 nm thick) containing TTA1 as a host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a fluorescent dye, wherein the device emits blue light having peak wavelength of 460 nm (Table 4, [0459]).
PNG
media_image2.png
491
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge is a blue light emitting device, not a white light emitting device.
Kim discloses a white light emitting device (page 5, Technical Field) having structure of an anode, a 1st HTL, a 1st EML (blue), a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML (blue and TADF), a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML (yellow-green, green, red), a 3rd ETL, and a cathode (Fig. 2), wherein the 2nd EML comprises a host, a blue fluorescent dopant, a TADF compound (“exciton transfer medium” on page 8, Means to solve the problem).
Kim teaches that the 1st EML comprises a blue emitter having wavelength of 440 nm to 480 nm and can have an anthracene derivative as a host (page 12).
Kim teaches that the blue dopant and the host of the 2nd EML can be same as those of the 1st EML (page 14). Kim teaches the 2nd EML includes exciton transfer medium (page 14, par. 4), which can be a TADF material (page 15, par. 2).
Kim teaches the device of Kim provides a white light emitting device having improved blue light emitting efficiency (page 8, the first and the last paragraphs)
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge by incorporating the light emitting layer materials of the device into the organic electroluminescent device of Kim (i.e. incorporating the TTA1 into the hosts of the 1st and 2nd EML, TADF2 into the exciton transfer medium of the 2nd EML, and NRCT2 into the blue fluorescent emitter of the 1st and 2nd EML of the device of Kim) such that each light emitting layer has thickness of 20 nm, as taught by Fluegge and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white-light-emitting organic electroluminescent device with improved blue light emitting efficiency, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim comprising an anode, a 1st HTL, a 1st EML (TTA1 as a host, NRCT2 as a blue fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a 1st ETL, a 1st CGL, a 2nd HTL, a 2nd EML (TTA1 as a host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a 2nd ETL, a 2nd CGL, a 3rd HTL, a 3rd EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a 3rd ETL, and a cathode.
The Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim is equated with an organic electroluminescent device having structure of a first electrode (anode), a second hole transport layer, a second light emitting layer (TTA1 as a second host, NRCT2 as a second fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a second electron transport layer, a charge generation layer, a first hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer (TTA1 as a first host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a first fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a first electron transport layer, a CGL, a HTL, an EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a ETL, and a second electrode (cathode).
The organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties: 1) the second host (TTA1) is a triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) material, and 2) a triplet energy level of the second host (TTA1) is less than a triplet energy level of the second fluorescent dye (NRCT2).
It is reasonable to presume that the organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses specific embodiments H12 as the TTA material. The compound H12 has identical structure as the compound TTA1 of Fluegge as modified by Kim.
The incident specification states that the triplet energy level of the second host material is less than a triplet energy level of the second fluorescent dye (page 5, line 23). The second host (TTA1) has identical structure as the specific embodiment H12 of the instant disclosure (page 15). The second fluorescent dye (NRCT2) has substantially similar structure as the specific embodiments including F-1 and F-10 of the instant disclosure (page 6).
Therefore, the organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, 15, and 19-20.
Fluegge in view of Kim does not disclose a specific display apparatus comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim; however, Fluegge does teach the organic electroluminescent device can be used for generating a flexible display ([0399]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a flexible display, as taught by Fluegge and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic electroluminescent devices in a flexible display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display apparatus comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 7, the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a second hole transport layer, a second light emitting layer (TTA1 as a second host, NRCT2 as a second fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a second electron transport layer, a charge generation layer, a first hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer (TTA1 as a first host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a first fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a first electron transport layer, a CGL, a HTL, an EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a ETL, and a second electrode (cathode).
The first and second fluorescent dyes (NRCT2) is not in the list of specific embodiments claimed in the claim 7; however, Fluegge does teach the following compound can be used as the fluorescent emitter (i.e. NRCT emitter) in the device of Fluegge.
PNG
media_image3.png
163
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound (F-1) of the instant claim 7.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim by substituting the fluorescent dye NRCT2 with the Compound (F-1), as taught by Fluegge and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the exemplified fluorescent dyes in the organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified of Kim (2) comprising a first electrode (anode), a second hole transport layer, a second light emitting layer (TTA1 as a second host, Compound (F-1) as a second fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a second electron transport layer, a charge generation layer, a first hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer (TTA1 as a first host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and Compound (F-1) as a first fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a first electron transport layer, a CGL, a HTL, an EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a ETL, and a second electrode (cathode).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluegge et al. (US 2020/0303656 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0078637 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, and 19-20 above, further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a second hole transport layer, a second light emitting layer (TTA1 as a second host, NRCT2 as a second fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a second electron transport layer, a charge generation layer, a first hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer (TTA1 as a first host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a first fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a first electron transport layer, a CGL, a HTL, an EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a ETL, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device does not comprises a capping layer on the second electrode.
Yoo discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a capping layer (layer 130 in Fig. 1) which is on the second electrode (112 in Fig. 1) of the organic light emitting device.
Yoo teaches the capping layer provides constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction ([0044]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim by incorporating a capping layer on the second electrode as taught by Yoo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction based on the teaching of Yoo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Fluegge as modified by Kim and Yoo comprises a first electrode (anode), a second hole transport layer, a second light emitting layer (TTA1 as a second host, NRCT2 as a second fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a second electron transport layer, a charge generation layer, a first hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer (TTA1 as a first host, TADF2 as a TADF sensitizer, and NRCT2 as a first fluorescent dye, 20 nm thick), a first electron transport layer, a CGL, a HTL, an EML (yellow-green, green, red, 20 nm thick), a ETL, a second electrode (cathode), and a capping layer.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 14, as outlined above, Kawamura is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kabasawa teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first light emitting layer consisting of a first host, a TADF sensitizer, and a first fluorescent dye and a second light emitting layer consisting of a second host, and a second fluorescent dye; however, Kawamura does not teach a specific first host and a specific first fluorescent dye having a specific triplet energy relationship as required in the instant claim 14.
With respect to claim 14, as outlined above, Fluegge in view of Kim is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Fluegge in view of Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first light emitting layer consisting of a first host, a TADF sensitizer, and a first fluorescent dye and a second light emitting layer consisting of a second host, and a second fluorescent dye; however, Fluegge and Kim do not teach a specific first host and a specific first fluorescent dye having a specific triplet energy relationship as required in the instant claim 14.
With respect to claim 17, as outlined above, Kawamura is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kabasawa teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first light emitting layer consisting of a first host, a TADF sensitizer, and a first fluorescent dye and a second light emitting layer consisting of a second host, and a second fluorescent dye; however, Kawamura does not teach a specific first host and a specific second host having a specific triplet energy relationship as required in the instant claim 17.
With respect to claim 17, as outlined above, Fluegge in view of Kim is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Fluegge in view of Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first light emitting layer consisting of a first host, a TADF sensitizer, and a first fluorescent dye and a second light emitting layer consisting of a second host, and a second fluorescent dye; however, Fluegge and Kim do not teach a specific first host and a specific second host having a specific triplet energy relationship as required in the instant claim 17.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights