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 (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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5: Claims 1-2 and 4-5 claim a hole transporting material and an electron transporting material each having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 with respect to light with a wavelength greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm or a hole transporting material and an electron transporting material each having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm. The claims additionally describe that the hole transport material is a monoamine compound and the proportion of carbon atoms forming a bond by sp3 hybrid orbitals to the total number of carbon atoms in the monoamine compound is higher than or equal to 23% and lower than or equal to 55%, or that the organic compound having an electron-transport property comprises at least one six-membered heteroaromatic ring comprising nitrogen, two benzene rings, one or a plurality of aromatic hydrocarbon rings each of which has 6 to 14 carbon atoms, and a plurality of hydrocarbon groups each forming a bond by sp3 hybrid orbitals, wherein the total carbon atoms forming the bond by the sp3 hybrid orbitals account for higher than or equal to 10% and lower than or equal to 60% of total carbon atoms in molecules of the organic compound.
The instant description includes a description of much more specific classes of compounds meeting the ordinary index of refraction limitations having specific structural formulas that are much more specific than the broad language of the current claims. The description only provides a limited number of specific example compounds in Tables 2 and 5 that meet the ordinary index of refraction limitations. While the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable as the hole transporting material or electron transporting material but provides no further description of which compounds meeting the broad current claim language that would meet the ordinary index of refraction limitations beyond the more specific structural formulas. The examples of Tables 2 and 5 and the more specific structure formulas described in the written description do(es) not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Regarding claims 3 and 6-22: Claims 3 and 6-22 are rejected due to their dependence from one of claims 1-2 and 4-5.
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2019-0005522 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0234098 A1) (hereafter “Lee ‘098”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 11, 15-16, and 18-22: Lee discloses the compound shown below {p. 22}.
PNG
media_image1.png
876
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches that the compound is useful as the material of an organic light emitting device and has the structure of chemical formula D of Lee {p. 2, lines 19-22; p. 3, line 23 through p. 4, line 16; p. 5, lines 18-21; p. 6, line 19 through p. 7, line 14; p. 21, final 2 lines}.
Lee does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound of Lee shown above except for having an alkyl substituent.
However, as described above, the compound of Lee above has the structure of chemical formula D of Lee, which describes that the compounds having the structure of chemical formula D can be substituted with alkyl groups {p. 6, line 19 through p. 7, line 35}.
Lee exemplifies a hexyl group as an alkyl substituent {p. 8, lines 30-32}.
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 compound of Lee by placing a hexyl substituent on the phenyl ring that is linked to the triazine ring through a bivalent phenylene linker, based on the teaching of Lee. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Lee does not exemplify a specific device comprising the compound of Lee shown above.
However, as described above, Lee teaches that the compound is useful as the material of an organic light emitting device of Lee {p. 2, lines 19-22; p. 3, line 23 through p. 4, line 16; p. 5, lines 18-21; p. 6, line 19 through p. 7, line 14; p. 21, final 2 lines}. Specifically, the compound of Lee shown above, in combination with a compound having the structure of Chemical Formula A of Lee, Chemical Formula B of Lee, or Chemical Formula C of Lee, is used as the host material of the light emitting layer of the device of Lee {p. 30, final paragraph}.
Lee additionally teaches that the organic light emitting device of Lee comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and the light emitting layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 30, final paragraph and p. 55, 2nd paragraph}. In addition to the light emitting layer, the organic light-emitting device of Lee may further include a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer {p. 55, 2nd paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Lee by using it as one of the components of the host material of the light-emitting layer of the device of Lee described above, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Lee does not teach wherein an electron transporting layer between the light-emitting layer and the second electrode that is a cathode comprises the triazine derivative of Lee.
However, as outlined above, the organic light-emitting device of Lee comprises a hole transport layer between the first electrode than is an anode and the light emitting layer as well as an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the second electrode that is a cathode.
Seo teaches an organic light-emitting device having the structure of a light-emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, and a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the electron transport materials {Fig. 22 as described in paragraph [0069]}.
Seo teaches that introducing a mixed layer between the electron-transport layer and the light-emitting layer lowers energy barriers between organic layers, lowering driving voltage and increase device lifetime {paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], [0054] describing Figs. 1A to 1D}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic light emitting device taught by Lee by including a mixed layer comprising each of the host material compounds and the electron transport material between the light-emitting layer and the electron transporting layer, based on the teachings of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to lower energy barriers between sub-layers of each organic layer, lowering driving voltage, and increasing device lifetime, as taught by Seo.
The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer can be equated with an electron transport layer, because it must necessarily transport electrons. In the resultant device the mixed layer that can be equated with an electron transport layer would comprise the triazine derivative of Lee described above.
Lee as modified by Seo does not teach that the hole transport layer comprises a monoamine compound.
Lee ‘098 teaches organic light-emitting devices comprising a hole transporting region comprising a first hole transporting layer between the first electrode and the light-emtting layer, a second hole transporting layer between the first hole transporting layer and the light-emitting layer, and a third hole transporting layer between the first hole transporting layer and the second hole transporting layer; the three hole transporting layers have a specific refractive index relationship {abstract; paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0087]-[0088]; claim 1}.
The first hole transporting layer and/or the second hole transporting layer comprises a monoamine such as the compound shown below {paragraph [0098] and p. 15; Compound 51}.
PNG
media_image2.png
730
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘098 teaches that the hole transporting layer stack of Lee ‘098 would have high light extraction efficiency {paragraph [0207]}.
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 device taught by Lee by including the hole transport layer stack of Lee ‘098, including the monoamine of Lee ‘098 shown above, based on the teaching of Lee ‘098. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high light extraction efficiency, as taught by Lee ‘098.
Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the triazine derivative taught by Lee having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 with respect to light with a wavelength greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm and the triazine derivative taught by Lee having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the triazine derivative taught by Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 with respect to light with a wavelength greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm and the triazine derivative taught by Lee having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is inherent to Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The triazine derivative taught by Lee has the structure of the instant Ge12 of the instant specification {paragraphs [0081]-[0082] and [0087]-[0090]}. The instant specification describes that compounds having the structure of the instant Ge12 of the instant specification are the electron transport materials of the instant disclosure {paragraph [0081]}, and that these materials have the ordinary refractive index properties described above {paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0097]}. Furthermore, the triazine derivative taught by Lee is very similar in structure to the instant compound mmtBumBPTzn {paragraph [0282]}. The only differences being the number and type of alkyl group substituents. However, given the structural similarities the compound taught by Lee would have an ordinary refractive index with respect to light greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm substantially similar to that of mmtBumBPTzn, which is 1.68 {Table 2}. The instant specification indicates that such an index would also be between 1.45 and 1.70 at 633 nm. Thus, the compound of Lee would possess the claimed properties.
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 Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 product 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.
Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the monoamine derivative taught Lee ‘098 has an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 with respect to light with a wavelength greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm and the monoamine derivative taught by Lee ‘098 has an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the monoamine derivative taught by Lee ‘098 has an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.5 and lower than or equal to 1.75 with respect to light with a wavelength greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm and the monoamine derivative taught by Lee ‘098 having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is inherent to Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The monoamine derivative taught by Lee ‘098 has the structure of the instant Gh11 of the instant specification {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}. The instant specification describes that compounds having the structure of the instant Gh11 of the instant specification are the hole transport materials of the instant disclosure {paragraph [0050]}, and that these materials have the ordinary refractive index properties described above {paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0074]}. Furthermore, the monoamine derivative taught by Lee ‘098 is very similar in structure to the instant compound dchPAF {paragraph [0308]}. The only differences being the type of alkyl group substituents. However, given the structural similarities the compound taught by Lee ‘098 would have an ordinary refractive index with respect to light greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm substantially similar to that of dchPAF, which is 1.71 {Table 5}. The instant specification indicates that such an index would also be between 1.45 and 1.70 at 633 nm. Thus, the compound of Lee ‘098 would possess the claimed properties.
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 Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 product 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.
Regarding claim 9: Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee does not exemplify a specific device in which one of the electrode is reflective.
However, Lee ‘098 teaches that an electrode of an organic light emitting device can be reflective {paragraphs [0018], [0031], [0080], and [0126]}.
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 device taught by Lee to use a electrode is reflective, based on the teaching of Lee ‘098. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case would be to provide a device that comprises a reflective electrode.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 2, as outlined above.
Lee does not exemplify a specific device in which the cathode comprises a metal.
However, Lee teaches that the cathode can comprise a metal {p. 61, 5th paragraph}.
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 device taught by Lee to use a cathode comprising a metal, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2019-0005522 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0234098 A1) (hereafter “Lee ‘098”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”).
Regarding claims 12: Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Lee is incorporated into a light-emitting device that is incorporated into an electronic device, the light-emitting device comprising a substrate, and the electronic device comprising at least one of a microphone, a camera, an operation button, an external connection portion, and a speaker.
Yamazaki ‘642 teaches a light emitting module—which is being equated with a light-emitting device—that can use an organic electroluminescent light emitting element as the light emitting elements {(paragraphs [0053]-[0057] describing Figs. 1A and 1B, which is the top view and a cross-sectional view, respectively, of a display device 100, comprising a light emitting element.), (paragraph [0095]: The light emitting element can be an organic electroluminescent element.)}.
The light emitting module comprises a substrate {paragraph [0061]: Element 410 is a substrate.}.
The light emitting module can be incorporated into an electronic device comprising a housing, an operation button, an external connection port, a speaker, and a microphone {(paragraph [0307]: The electronic devices comprise a light emitting module of the disclosure are those described in paragraphs [0308]-[0328].), (paragraphs [0320]-[0323]: An electronic device that comprises a housing, an operation button, an external connection port, a speaker, and a microphone.)}.
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 light emitting element of Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 by incorporating it into the light-emitting module of Yamazaki ‘642 described above, wherein the light emitting module is comprised in the electronic device of Yamazaki ‘642 comprising a housing, an operation button, an external connection port, a speaker, and a microphone, based on the teaching of Yamazaki ‘642. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal electronic devices.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2019-0005522 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0234098 A1) (hereafter “Lee ‘098”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 13: Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2019-0005522 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0234098 A1) (hereafter “Lee ‘098”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”).
Regarding claim 14: Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Kim is incorporated into a lighting device comprising a housing.
Yamazaki ‘642 teaches a light emitting module—which is being equated with a light-emitting device—that can use an organic electroluminescent light emitting element as the light emitting elements {(paragraphs [0053]-[0057] describing Figs. 1A and 1B, which is the top view and a cross-sectional view, respectively, of a display device 100, comprising a light emitting element.), (paragraph [0095]: The light emitting element can be an organic electroluminescent element.)}.
The light emitting module comprises a substrate {paragraph [0061]: Element 410 is a substrate.}.
The light emitting module can be incorporated into a lighting device comprising a housing {(paragraph [0307]: The electronic devices comprise a light emitting module of the disclosure are those described in paragraphs [0308]-[0328].), (paragraphs [0327]-[0328]: An electronic device that is a lighting device comprising a housing that comprises the light emitting module.)}.
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 light emitting element Lee as modified by Seo and Lee ‘098 by incorporating it into the light-emitting module of Yamazaki ‘642 described above, wherein the light emitting module is comprised in the lighting device of Yamazaki ‘642 comprising a housing, based on the teaching of Yamazaki ‘642. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal lighting devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights