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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22: The last two lines of claim 22 recites “a communication unit provided in the housing and configured to communicate with an outside.” It is unclear what “an outside” is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that “an outside” is referring to the outside.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”).
Regarding claims 1-2: Pang discloses the compound shown below {(p. 4, final two lines: The compounds 1 to 241 are exemplified compounds of the disclosure of Pang.), (p. 7, Compound 69)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”).
Regarding claims 6-9: Pang discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Pang does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Pang.
However, Pang teaches an organic light-emitting element comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and one or more organic compound layers between the positive electrode and the negative electrode {p. 13, lines 2-16 and 27-35}.
The organic layer includes a light-emitting layer {p. 13, lines 2-16 and 27-35}.
The compound of the disclosure of Pang can be the main material of the light-emitting layer {p. 13, lines 2-16 and 27-35}.
The compound of the disclosure of Pang is useful as a host material of the light-emitting layer {p. 13, lines 27-35 and the paragraph bridging pages 21-22}.
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 Pang such that it was used as the host material (main material as described by Pang) of the light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Pang. 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.
As the main material of the light-emitting layer, the compound of Pang would constitute 50% to 99% by mass of the light-emitting layer as a host material.
Regarding claims 10-14: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Pang does not disclose a specific light-emitting dopant or a device comprising a third compound in the light-emitting layer in addition to the compound of Pang described above.
However, Pang teaches that the light-emitting dopant can be the compound shown below {paragraph bridging pages 21-22: The light-emitting dopant can be compound GD-1}.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pang additionally teaches that a cohost material can be used and can be the compound shown below {paragraph bridging pages 21-22: The light-emitting layer comprises an additional main material that can be compound GH-2.}
PNG
media_image3.png
204
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The host materials can each be present at a concentration by mass of 47% {paragraph bridging pages 21-22}. Given that each host material will be transporting excitons and charges, each host can be described as assisting the other. Therefore, the compound of Pang can be equated with an assist material.
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 of Pang such that the light emitting layer comprised the iridium complex shown above and the cohost material shown above where each host component is present at a concentration of 47%, based on the teaching of Pang. 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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0354347 A1) (hereafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 15-16: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach that the 2nd host material is a compound comprising an azine ring or a xanthone skeleton.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified compound of Pang—which is a carbazole derivative—with the first host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
Chen teaches compounds for use as host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0006]-[0008] and [0038]}.
Chen exemplifies the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
494
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Chen have high glass transition temperatures and molecular thermal stability {paragraphs [0006] and [0039]}.
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 device of Pang by using the compound of Chen shown above as the second host material, based on the teaching of Kondakova and Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host providing improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondokova, and to use a compound known to have high glass transition temperatures and molecular thermal stability, as taught by Chen.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claims 6-7 above, and further in view of in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”).
Regarding claims 17-19: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claims 6-7, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device comprises a second light-emitting layer different from the first light-emitting layer disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the first electrode or between the first light-emitting layer and the second electrode.
Liao teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting device that comprises three organic layers, each comprising a stack of layers, between the first organic layer and the second electrode {Fig. 7 as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0072]}.
The light is emitted from the device in the direction form the first electrode to the second electrode {Fig. 7 as well as the description of Fig. 7 in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] indicates that the light is emitted through the anode and the substrate—which is being equated with the instant second electrode}.
Each organic layer is an individual stack of organic layers {(paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims.), (paragraph [0049] describes the generalized structure of a stacked structure of the disclosure of which Fig. 7 is a specific embodiment. Elements 220.1 to 220.N are the organic EL units and N is the number of organic EL units.), (paragraph [0054]: Each organic EL unit in the stacked OLED device can be the same and can comprise a multilayer structure.)}.
Each organic layer emits a different color light, one emitting blue light—the layer nearest the anode, one emitting green light—the middle layer, and one emitting red light—the layer nearest the cathode {paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims and emit blue light, green light, and red light, respectively.}.
The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a display apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels wherein the pixels include the light emitting elements of Liao and an active element coupled to the light emitting elements of Liao comprising transistors coupled to the organic light-emitting elements {(paragraph [0073]: The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a plurality of pixels in a full color display.), (paragraphs [0074]-[0075]: Figs. 8 and 9 describe an example display device comprising the white light emitting organic light emitting devices where the white light emitting organic light emitting devices are arranged in a panel and are connected to thin film transistors that control emissions.)}. Because the X-direction driving circuit and the Y-direction driving circuit control emissions of the display panel, they can each be equated with an active element.
Liao sought to provide an organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration {p. 5, ¶ [0070]}. A stacked organic light emitting device using Liao’s configuration further has high luminance efficiency, increased lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, and provides a stacked OLED with decreased optical absorption {p. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0013]}. The stacked structure allows for white light generation at improved efficiency and operational lifetime {paragraph [0072]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting element of Pang by incorporating it into the stacked display unit of Liao by stacking two duplicate organic layer stacks (the organic EL elements of Liao) over the organic layer stack of Pang described above using the configuration of Liao where one organic layer emits blue light, one organic layer emits green light, and one organic layer emits red light, as taught by Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device comprising a white light emitting organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration, as well as to provide a whit light emitting organic light emitting device with high efficiency, and increased operational lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, decreased optical absorption as a result of the stacked configuration, as taught by Liao.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Toyoda (US 2006/0113898 A1).
Regarding claim 20: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach an electrographic image-forming apparatus comprising an exposing light source, comprising the organic light-emitting devices according to claim 3.
Toyoda teaches an electrographic image-forming apparatus {Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0061]; An electrophotographic printer is an electrographic image-forming device} comprising a photosensitive drum and a development unit {Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0062]-[0063]; Items 16 and 21}, and a light source for exposing light to the photosensitive drum to obtain electrostatic latent image, wherein the light source has a plurality of the organic light-emitting devices {(Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0063]; Items 20 are organic electroluminescent exposure heads), (Fig. 2 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0065]; The exposure heads emit light providing the light to the photosensitive layer on the photosensitive drum, exposing the electrostatic latent image.), (Fig. 2 as described on p. 5, ¶ [0077]; the exposure head comprises a plurality of regions for forming pixels, which use organic light emitting devices to emit light.)}. Toyoda teaches that organic light emitting devices are used in exposure heads to make them thin and light {p. 1, paragraph [0004]}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have included the organic light emitting devices as taught by Pang in the image forming apparatus described by Toyoda, based on the teaching of Toyoda. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an exposure head that was thin and light as taught by Toyoda.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) in view of Kawarada (US 2013/0300895 A1) (hereafter “Kawarada”).
Regarding claim 21: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach a digital camera comprising the organic light emitting element of Pang.
Kawarada teaches a digital camera that is a photoelectric conversion apparatus {Fig. 1, element 112 is an image sensor} comprising an optical unit with a plurality of lenses {paragraph [0021]}, an imaging element configured to receive light passing through the optical unit {Fig. 1, element 112 is an image sensor} and a display unit comprising organic electroluminescent elements configured to display an image taken by the imaging element {paragraph [0031]}.
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 taught by Pang by incorporating it into the display portion of the photoelectric conversion apparatus of Kawarada described above. 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 photoelectric conversion apparatus.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0254111 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 22: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Pang is incorporated into a display device in which the display unit is provided in a house and is configured for communication with the outside.
Yamazaki teaches an electronic equipment comprising a housing, a communication unit configured to communicate with the outside, and a display unit that can use an organic electroluminescent light emitting element as the light emitting elements {paragraphs [0036]-[0054] describing Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B, which is the top view of a display device 100.}. The device comprises a housing {paragraph [0054]}, a communication unit {paragraph [0044]}, and a display unit {paragraphs [0038]-[0041]}.
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 taught by Pang by incorporating it into the display device of Yamazaki described above. 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 display devices.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”).
Regarding claim 23: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Pang is incorporated into a lighting apparatus comprising a light source and an optical filter.
Yamazaki ‘642 teaches a light emitting apparatus 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 can incorporate an optical filter {paragraphs [0186]-[0187]}.
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 taught by Pang by incorporating it into the light-emitting module of Yamazaki ‘642 described above, wherein the light emitting module is comprised in a light emitting device comprising a module, as described above. 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 display devices.
Claim 24 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Blusseau (US 2004/0156211 A1) (hereafter “Blusseau).
Regarding claim 24: Pang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Pang does not teach a moving body comprising a body and a lamp provided on the body, wherein the lamp includes the organic light-emitting element of Pang.
Blusseau teaches an automobile headlight comprising electroluminescent devices, where the headlight is in the body of the car {Fig. 1, paragraphs [0001], [0021], [0031]}.
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 taught by Pang by incorporating it into automobile headlights of Blusseau described above, wherein the electroluminescent devices of Yeager are used as a light source for the headlight, as described above. 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 headlights.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113004259 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Pang”) in view of Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4: Pang discloses the compound shown below {(p. 4, final two lines: The compounds 1 to 241 are exemplified compounds of the disclosure of Pang.), (p. 5, Compound 2)}
PNG
media_image5.png
420
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compound of the disclosure of Pang is useful as a host material of the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {p. 13, lines 27-35 and the paragraph bridging pages 21-22}.
Pang does not teach a similar compound to the compound shown above except for having the phenyl linked carbazole linked to the xanthone moiety being part of a five fused ring structure.
Eum teaches compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Eum shown below {paragraphs [0018]-[0020]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
312
578
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where R1 to R3 can be heterocyclic groups; X and Y can be a single bond, a methylene linker or -O- among other choices {paragraphs [0025], [0029], example compounds 1-45 on p. 21}.
Eum teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum are useful as host materials for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0001], [0137], and [0237]}.
Eum teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum when used as materials of an organic light emitting device provide devices that have high efficiency, excellent lifetime properties, and low operating voltage {paragraph [0247]}.
The difference between the compounds of Eum and the compound of Pang shown above is the carbazole group nearest the xanthone moiety lacks a linking group to the attaching N-phenylene linking.
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 Pang by placing a methylene linker between the carbazole nearest the xanthone moiety and the phenylene group inking the carbazole to the xanthone moiety, based on the teaching of Eum. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound that when used as materials of an organic light emitting device provide devices that have high efficiency, excellent lifetime properties, and low operating voltage, as taught by Eum.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5: Pang discloses the compound shown below {(p. 4, final two lines: The compounds 1 to 241 are exemplified compounds of the disclosure of Pang.), (p. 5, Compound 2)}
PNG
media_image5.png
420
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compound of the disclosure of Pang is useful as a host material of the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {p. 13, lines 27-35 and the paragraph bridging pages 21-22}.
Pang does not teach a similar compound to the compound shown above except for having the phenyl linked carbazole linked to the xanthone moiety being part of a five fused ring structure.
Eum teaches compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Eum shown below {paragraphs [0018]-[0020]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
312
578
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where R1 to R3 can be heterocyclic groups; X and Y can be a single bond, a methylene linker or -O- among other choices {paragraphs [0025], [0029], example compounds 1-45 on p. 21}.
Eum teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum are useful as host materials for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0001], [0137], and [0237]}.
Eum teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum when used as materials of an organic light emitting device provide devices that have high efficiency, excellent lifetime properties, and low operating voltage {paragraph [0247]}.
The difference between the compounds of Eum and the compound of Pang shown above is the carbazole group nearest the xanthone moiety lacks a linking group to the attaching N-phenylene linking.
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 Pang by placing an oxygen linker between the carbazole nearest the xanthone moiety and the phenylene group inking the carbazole to the xanthone moiety, based on the teaching of Eum. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound that when used as materials of an organic light emitting device provide devices that have high efficiency, excellent lifetime properties, and low operating voltage, as taught by Eum.
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