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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210098714.5, filed on 01/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 01/19/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in the discussion of the prior art (paragraphs 0010-0014) are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, and 21 are 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.
With respect to claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, and 21, the claims contain one or more instances wherein a single variable is defined by a first Markush group then a second or third more narrow Markush group, and the Markush groups are separated by the word “preferably”.
Section 2173.05(d) of the MPEP teaches that description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims and if stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made.
In the instant case, it is not clear whether the first Markush group or a subsequent, narrower Markush group is required by the claim(s) and the boundaries of the claim are not discernible.
Please pick one definition.
In continuing examination, the most broad Markush group will be examined for each variable.
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.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2019/0007789 A, using the provided translation for references and herein after referred to as Lee 2019) and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2015/0077220 A, using the provided translation for references and herein after referred to as Lee 2015).
With respect to claim 1, Lee 2019 discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising an anode (20), a cathode (80), and an organic layer between the electrodes comprising an emission layer (50) (FIG. 1 and paragraph 0525), which comprises a first condensed ring compound of Formula A, and a second heterocyclic compound of Formula D which result in an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan (paragraph 0521).
Lee 2019 gives an example of the second host of Formula D in compound E160 (page 67), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula D is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
134
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee 2019 also teaches that n2 is 1 (paragraph 0034) and that the linking group L between the triazine (Az) and naphthyl group is a phenylene group of Structural Formula 22 (paragraph 0148, see also compounds such as E109).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Z is oxygen, Z4 is a carbon atom connected to the triazine through L1 which is a single bond, Z1-Z3, Z5, and Z7-Z8 are CRZ when R-Z is a hydrogen atom, and Z6 is CRZ when RZ is a heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms, L2 is a single bond and all Y atoms are C or CH, and Ar1 is a aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl).
Lee 2019 also teaches an example of the first host of Formula A in compound H185 (page 55 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
248
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, while compound H185 comprises the L-Ar structure required by the instant first host when L is a single bond and Ar is a heteroaryl having 16 carbon atoms (benzo[b]naphtho[d]furan), this compound differs from the claimed invention because it does not have the carbazole derivative moiety of instant Formula 1.
In analogous art, Lee 2015 teaches a compound for use in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0081, lines 5-6) of an organic electroluminescent device which improves the luminous efficiency, driving voltage, and lifespan of the device.
Lee 2015 teaches the compound should comprise a structure wherein a ring is formed by fusing an amine-containing moiety, such as carbazole, with a moiety which comprises a dibenzo moiety, such as carbazole (see for example at least compounds C-1 through C-9 on page 18 of the untranslated document). Lee 2015 teaches that a compound formed by fusing an amine and dibenzo-containing moiety has high triplet energy and a large electron donation ability, making carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy (paragraph 0027). Additionally, such a group is effective in suppressing crystallization of the organic layer and improving the durability and lifespan characteristics of the organic EL device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an amine-fused carbazole group from the carbazole group in the host compound of Lee 2019 in order to give the compound high triplet energy and large electron donation ability, which makes carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy, while suppressing crystallization of the organic layer of the organic EL device, as taught by Lee 2015.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when A1 through A3 are CR and R is a hydrogen atom, rings A, B, and C are each a carbocyclic ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene), the RX of ring A is a mono-substitution of a phenanthrene group, and each remaining RX is non-substitution.
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Lee 2015-modified first host compound of Lee 2019 with the second host compound of Lee 2019 in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Lee 2019.
With respect to claim 2, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and rings A, B, and C are all a C6 aromatic ring (benzene), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and H has the structure of Formula IA when all A characters are CH, X1-X2 and X4-X6 are CH, and X3 is CRX wherein RX is an aryl group having 14 carbon atoms (phenanthrene) as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and one of RX is an aryl group having 16 carbon atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee 2019 also teaches compound H182 (page 55 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
238
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
When modified by the teachings of Lee 2015, this produces a compound wherein H is represented by instant H-1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an amine-fused carbazole group from the carbazole group in the host compound of Lee 2019 in order to give the compound high triplet energy and large electron donation ability, which makes carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy, while suppressing crystallization of the organic layer of the organic EL device, as taught by Lee 2015.
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Lee 2015-modified first host compound of Lee 2019 with the second host compound of Lee 2019 in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Lee 2019.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Ar is represented by instant Formula 1-c when each K is CRK, the two adjacent RK at positions 3 and 4 of the dibenzofuran are joined to form a ring, and the remaining RK are hydrogen atoms.
With respect to claim 8, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Ar is a benzonaphthofuranyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Ar is represented by instant Ar-72, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1 and L is a single bond (L-0), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee 2019 also teaches compound H182 (page 55 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
238
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
When modified by the teachings of Lee 2015, this produces a compound with instant H-1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an amine-fused carbazole group from the carbazole group in the host compound of Lee 2019 in order to give the compound high triplet energy and large electron donation ability, which makes carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy, while suppressing crystallization of the organic layer of the organic EL device, as taught by Lee 2015.
Such a modification produces instant compound 72.
With respect to claim 12, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and the second dopant has the structure of instant Formula 2-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Z1-Z3, Z5, and Z7-Z8 are CRZ when R-Z is a hydrogen atom, and Z6 is CRZ when RZ is a heteroaryl group having 13 ring atoms, and all Y atoms are C or CH, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Z is an oxygen atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1 and L1 and L2 are both a single bond, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 17, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that compound E160 is represented by Formula D when HAr4 is represented by Structural Formula 12 (page 45).
Lee 2019 also teaches that HAr4 is represented by Structural Formula 11 (paragraph 0159), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
362
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In this formula, X12 is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0167), and R44 is a single bond to linker L is Chemical Formula D (paragraph 0168).
Such a modification produces instant A-153.
Lee 2019 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee 2019 being a lack of the unsubstituted dibenzofuran being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a moiety of Structural Formula 11 from each of the finite lists of possible HAr4 groups to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 18, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1 and the organic layer is a light emitting layer and the first and second compounds are hosts in the light emitting layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 19, 20, 21, and 22, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 18, and Lee 2019 also teaches the emitting layer comprises the red phosphorescent dopant RD (paragraph 0825, line 5), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
214
240
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claims when the metal has the formula Ir(La)2(Lb), wherein M is iridium, La is represented by Formula 3, and Lb is an acetylacetonate ligand, m is 2, n is 1, and q is 0 so that Lc is not present. In Formula 3, ring D is a 6-membered heteroaromatic ring (pyridine), ring E is a benzene ring, Ua and Ub are each a carbon atom, Rd is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group and Re is non-substitution, V1 through V4 are each CRv and Rv is a hydrogen atom. In the acetylacetonate ligand Xc and Xd are oxygen atoms, Ra and Rb are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group and Rc is a hydrogen atom.
With specific respect to the acetylacetonate ligand of claim 21, R1 through R7 form the above ancillary ligand when R1 through R7 are hydrogen atoms.
With respect to claim 23, Lee 2019 discloses a composition which comprises a first condensed ring compound of Formula A, and a second heterocyclic compound of Formula D which result in an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan (paragraph 0521).
Lee 2019 gives an example of the second host of Formula D in compound E160 (page 67), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula D is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
134
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee 2019 also teaches that n2 is 1 (paragraph 0034) and that the linking group L between the triazine (Az) and naphthyl group is a phenylene group of Structural Formula 22 (paragraph 0148, see also compounds such as E109).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Z is oxygen, Z4 is a carbon atom connected to the triazine through L1 which is a single bond, Z1-Z3, Z5, and Z7-Z8 are CRZ when R-Z is a hydrogen atom, and Z6 is CRZ when RZ is a heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms, L2 is a single bond and all Y atoms are C or CH, and Ar1 is a aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl).
Lee 2019 also teaches an example of the first host of Formula A in compound H185 (page 55 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
248
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, while compound H185 comprises the L-Ar structure required by the instant first host when L is a single bond and Ar is a heteroaryl having 16 carbon atoms (benzo[b]naphtho[d]furan), this compound differs from the claimed invention because it does not have the carbazole derivative moiety of instant Formula 1.
In analogous art, Lee 2015 teaches a compound for use in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0081, lines 5-6) of an organic electroluminescent device which improves the luminous efficiency, driving voltage, and lifespan of the device.
Lee 2015 teaches the compound should comprise a structure wherein a ring is formed by fusing an amine-containing moiety, such as carbazole, with a moiety which comprises a dibenzo moiety, such as carbazole (see for example at least compounds C-1 through C-9 on page 18 of the untranslated document). Lee 2015 teaches that a compound formed by fusing an amine and dibenzo-containing moiety has high triplet energy and a large electron donation ability, making carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy (paragraph 0027). Additionally, such a group is effective in suppressing crystallization of the organic layer and improving the durability and lifespan characteristics of the organic EL device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an amine-fused carbazole group from the carbazole group in the host compound of Lee 2019 in order to give the compound high triplet energy and large electron donation ability, which makes carrier transfer to dopant easy and also easy from the viewpoint of confining energy, while suppressing crystallization of the organic layer of the organic EL device, as taught by Lee 2015.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when A1 through A3 are CR and R is a hydrogen atom, rings A, B, and C are each a carbocyclic ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene), the RX of ring A is a mono-substitution of a phenanthrene group, and each remaining RX is non-substitution.
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Lee 2015-modified first host compound of Lee 2019 with the second host compound of Lee 2019 in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Lee 2019.
With respect to claim 24, Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 teach the device of claim 1, and Lee 2019 also teaches the electronic element may be used in an apparatus such as a flat panel display device (paragraph 0589).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Lee 2019 and Lee 2015 in an apparatus such as a flat panel display device, as taught by Lee 2019.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13-16, 18-19 and 22 of copending Application No. 17/564,776 (reference application, based on the amended claim set dated 02/10/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically,
The first compound and second compound of instant claim 1 are met by the first compound and second compound of claim 1 of ‘776.
The definitions of rings A, B, and C of instant claim 2 are met by the definitions of rings A, B, and C in claim 2 of ‘776.
The structure of moiety H of instant claim 3 is met by the structure of moiety H of claim 3 of ‘776.
The definitions of R and Rx found in instant claim 4 are met by the definitions of R and Rx found in claim 4 of ‘776.
The structures of moiety H of instant claim 5 are the same structures set forth in claim 5 of ‘776.
Formulae 1-a through 1-d of instant claim 6 have the same structure and analogous definitions as formulae 1-a through a-d of claim 6 of ‘776.
Instant claim 7 has the same definitions for Rq, RK, and RG, as the definitions for Rq and Rc in claim 7 of ‘776.
Instant claim 8 contains definitions for Ar which are the same as the definitions for Ar in claim 8 of ‘776.
The structures of Ar set forth in instant claim 9 are the same structures set forth for Ar in claim 9 of ‘776.
Instant claim 10 contains definitions for linking group L which are the same definitions for linking group L in claim 10 of ‘776.
Instant claim 11 contains a table with different combinations of the definitions of H, L, and Ar. Claim 11 of ‘776 meets this same limitation because it contains the same definitions and same possible combinations, even if not specifically listed out in a table.
The formulae of instant claim 12 are met by the formula of claim 13 of ‘776, which allows for either bonding position.
The definitions for Z1 to Z8, Z, Ar1, and L1 and L2 of instant claims 13 through 16 are met by the definitions for the same structures in claim 13 of ‘776.
The device limitations of instant claim 18 are met by the device limitations of claim 18 of ‘776.
The phosphorescent dopant of instant claims 19 through 22 are met by the phosphorescent dopant of claims 19 through 21 of ‘776.
The compound combination of instant claim 23 is met by the compound combination of claim 22 of ‘776.
The apparatus of instant claim 24 is met by the apparatus of claim 23 of ‘776.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon et al. (US 2018/0337340 A1) – discloses relevant compounds of instant Formula 1.
Xing et al. (CN 113816898 A) – discloses relevant compounds of instant Formula 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights