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 Arguments/Amendments
The amendment of 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 53 of the reply filed on 03/20/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–2, 6, 8–14, 17, 19–20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0066616 A1, hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the Office Action of 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended to recite “wherein at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3”, rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 3–5, 7, 15–16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0066616 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended to recite “wherein at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3”, rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are not found to be persuasive for at least the following reason:
The applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Applicant asserts that Compounds C1 to C3 of Comparative Examples 1 to 3 of the present application are very similar to Compound 1 of Fleetham. However, Compound 1 of Fleetham has a terphenyl substituent, which is an essential feature of Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below). Compound C3 has the terphenyl substituent, however it has two nitrogens in the core structure instead of one nitrogen and one oxygen, as required by Applicant’s Formula 1. It follows that Compound 1 of Fleetham is the closest prior art. Therefore, a comparison between the claimed subject matter and Compounds C1 to C3 is not effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
171
153
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
193
203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
244
207
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the results are unexpected. Applicant states that Examples 1 to 8 had significantly and unexpectedly superior characteristics compared to light-emitting devices of Comparative Examples 1 to 3. However, as an example, Comparative Example 3 has a higher efficiency than Example 6. Therefore Examples 1 to 8 do not have universally superior characteristics compared to Comparative Examples 1 to 3. Applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are not found to be persuasive. However, the rejections have been withdrawn since they are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments, as discussed above.
Therefore, another round of rejections has been necessitated by amendment.
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, 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.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0066616 A1, hereafter “Fleetham”).
Regarding Claims 1–2, 4–6, 8–14, 16–17, 19–20, Fleetham teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode. The first organic layer comprises a compound of Fleetham Formula 1, exemplified by Compound 1. Fleetham further teaches that the first organic layer is an emissive layer [0074] – [0075]. Compound 1 [pg. 26] reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
302
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
244
207
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z1 and Z2 are each independently an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms,
n1 to n4 are each 0, so R1 to R4 are not present.
However, claims 1 and 13 require that at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3
Fleetham teaches Fleetham Formula 1, wherein some embodiments RC is selected from the group consisting of the preferred general substituents R1 to R120 [0053]. Specifically, Fleetham teaches substituent R95 (shown below) [pg. 22]. Fleetham teaches Compound 5 wherein RC of Fleetham Formula 1 is represented by R95 [pg. 28].
PNG
media_image6.png
206
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
220
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
340
219
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound 1 by adding R95 in the RC position, because it would have been choosing between R1 to R120 for RC, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham Formula 1 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1 and 13, the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer between the electrodes comprising the modified version of Compound 1 (hereafter “Modified Compound 1”), as discussed above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
302
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R3 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole),
Z1 and Z2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl),
n1, n2, and n4 are each 0, so R1, R2, and R4 are not present,
n3 is 1.
Per Claims 2 and 14, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 2 (shown below), wherein n5 and n6 are each 0, so R5 and R6 are not present. R1 to R4 and n1 to n4 are the same as defined above.
PNG
media_image10.png
405
509
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 4 and 16, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 4 (shown below), wherein R3-1 is represented by an unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms, n3’ is 0 so R3’ is not present. R1 to R4, Z1 and Z2, and n1 to n4 are the same as defined above.
Per Claim 5, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since R3-1 is represented by Formula 5-3 in Modified Compound 1 (shown below), wherein a is 0 so Y is a direct linkage, m3 and m4 are each 0 so Ra3 and Ra4 are each not present.
PNG
media_image11.png
164
402
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 6 and 17, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 6-1 (shown below), wherein R3, R4, Z1, Z2, n3, and n4 are the same as defined above.
PNG
media_image12.png
303
390
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 8 and 19, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Z1 and Z2 are each represented by Formula 8-1 in Modified Compound 1 (shown below), wherein m11 is 0 so Rb1 is not present.
PNG
media_image13.png
134
186
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 9 and 20, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
220
169
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, the organic light emitting device, as described above, does not exemplify a host.
Fleetham teaches that the organic layer may further comprise a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical group. In some embodiments, the host may be selected from the HOST Group, such as Compound 2 [0085] – [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use Compound 2 as a host, because it would have been choosing between the compounds listed in the HOST Group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 2 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 2 [pg. 34] reads on Applicant’s Formula H-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image15.png
212
287
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
212
319
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1 is a direct linkage,
Ar1 is a heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (dibenzothiophene) substituted with a heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole)
R41 and R42 are each hydrogen atoms,
n41 and n42 are each 4.
Regarding Claim 11, the organic light emitting device, as described above, does not exemplify a host.
Fleetham teaches that the organic layer may further comprise a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical group. In some embodiments, the host may be selected from the HOST Group, such as Compound 3 [0085] – [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use Compound 3 as a host, because it would have been choosing between the compounds listed in the HOST Group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 3 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 3 [pg. 34] reads on Applicant’s Formula H-2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image17.png
254
232
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
161
184
media_image18.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z3, Z4, and Z5 are each N,
R43 and R44 are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), while R45 is a heteroaryl group having 18 ring-forming carbon atoms (indolocarbazole) substituted with an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl).
Regarding Claim 12, the organic light emitting device, as described above, does not exemplify an additional emitter dopant.
Fleetman further teaches that one or more additional emitter dopants may be used in conjunction with the compound of the present disclosure [0136]. Additionally, Fleetham teaches a list of additional emitter dopants which may be used in combination with compounds of Formula 1 [0137], including Compound 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use Compound 4 as an additional emitter dopant, because it would have been choosing between the compounds listed as additional emitter dopants, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the additional emitter dopant in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 4 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 4 [pg. 77] reads on Applicant’s Formula D-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image19.png
203
284
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
375
342
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1–Q4 are each C,
C1 and C4 are each a hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), C2 and C3 are each a heterocycle having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole).
L11 and L13 is a direct linkage, while L12 is linked with an O,
b1–b3 are each 1,
R51–R54 are each a hydrogen atom,
d1 and d4 are each 4, while d2 and d3 are each 2.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 13, and 15, the organic light emitting device, as described above, does not read on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 1 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 3-2.
Fleetham teaches Compound 7 which reads on Applicants’ Formula 3-2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image21.png
569
495
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
296
279
media_image22.png
Greyscale
wherein,
X1 and X2 are NR17,
R17 is a aryl having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms,
n1, n2, n3, n4, n13, and n14 are each 0, so R1, R2, R3, R4, R13, and R14 are not present.
However, in Compound 7 the carbazoles are attached to the central phenyl through a nitrogen-carbon bond, while Formula 3-2 requires that the carbazoles are attached to the central phenyl through a carbon-carbon bond. Additionally, claims 1 and 13 require that at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3.
For the carbon-carbon bond, Fleetham teaches Fleetham Formula 1 exemplified by Compound 7. Fleetham teaches that Y2 can be NR, wherein R can be an aryl or heteroaryl [0052]. Fleetham further teaches that aryls or heteroaryls can be substituted [0038] – [0039]. For example, in Compound 7 Y2 is NR, wherein R is an aryl (phenyl) substituted with two heteroaryls (carbazoles) substituted on the nitrogen. Fleetham additionally teaches an embodiment where the substituent is a carbazole substituted on a carbon (R56) [pg. 19].
PNG
media_image6.png
206
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
249
147
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Fleetham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 7. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1/the positional isomers of the compound represented by Compound 7 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possess the properties taught by Fleetham. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified version of Compound 7 (hereafter “Modified Compound 7”) does not read on Applicant’s limitations since in claims 1 and 13 require that at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3.
PNG
media_image24.png
476
305
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Fleetham teaches Fleetham Formula 1, wherein some embodiments RC is selected from the group consisting of the preferred general substituents R1 to R120 [0053]. Specifically, Fleetham teaches substituent R95 (shown below) [pg. 22]. Fleetham teaches Compound 5 wherein RC of Fleetham Formula 1 is represented by R95 [pg. 28].
PNG
media_image6.png
206
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
220
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
340
219
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Modified Compound 7 by adding R95 in the RC position, because it would have been choosing between R1 to R120 for RC, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham Formula 1 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claims 1 and 13, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising the further modified version of Modified Compound 7 (hereafter “Further Modified Compound 7”) instead of Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Further Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
302
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
464
336
media_image25.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R3 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole),
Z1 and Z2 are each a heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl),
n1, n2, and n4 are each 0, so R1, R2, and R4 are not present,
n3 is 1.
Per Claims 3 and 15, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Further Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Further Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s Formula 3-2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image26.png
626
480
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
464
336
media_image25.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R3 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole),
X1 and X2 are each NR17 wherein R17 is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl),
n1, n2, n4, n13, and n14 are each 0, so R1, R2, R4, R13, and R14 are not present,
n3 is 1.
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 13, and 18, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Modified Compound 1 does not read on the limitation of Claims 7 and 18 because Modified Compound 1 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 7-1.
Fleetham teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode. The first organic layer comprises a compound of Fleetham Formula 1, exemplified by Compound 1. Fleetham further teaches that the first organic layer is an emissive layer [0074] – [0075]. Compound 1 [pg. 26] reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
302
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
244
207
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z1 and Z2 are each independently an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms,
n1 to n4 are each 0, so R1 to R4 are not present.
However, claims 1 and 13 require that at least one chosen from n1 and n2 is an integer of 1 to 4 or n3 is an integer from 1 to 3
Fleetham teaches Fleetham Formula 1, where in some embodiments RA and RB are selected from the group consisting of the preferred general substituents R1 to R120 [0053]. Specifically, Fleetham teaches substituent R18 (shown below) [pg. 15].
PNG
media_image6.png
206
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
166
147
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound 1 by adding R18 in the RA and RB positions, because it would have been choosing between R1 to R120 for RA and RB, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Fleetham and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham Formula 1 having the improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance [0006] benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1 and 13, the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer between the electrodes comprising the modified version of Compound 1 (hereafter “Other Modified Compound 1”), as discussed above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Other Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
302
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
444
343
media_image28.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl),
Z1 and Z2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl),
n1 and n2 are 1,
n3 and n4 are each 0, so R3 and R4 are not present.
Per Claims 7 and 18, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Other Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Other Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 7-1 (shown below), wherein n1’, n2’, n21, n22 are each 0, so R1’, R2’, R21, and R22 are not present. R1 to R1 and n1 to n4 are the same as defined above.
PNG
media_image29.png
411
506
media_image29.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
444
343
media_image28.png
Greyscale
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights