DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 01/12/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the feature of the sub-insulating layers being spaced entirely apart from each other in a first direction in a plan view. However, the aforementioned feature is an obvious modification of the cited prior art. ¶ [0053] of Zehnder et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668 A1) teaches that the configuration of unpatterned regions 106B controls the light emitting areas of Zehnder’s device by blocking current flow. Further, strip shaped light emitting areas and corresponding strip shaped non-light emitting areas are known in the art (as evidence, see Fig. 5, Light Emitting Area, ¶ [0226] of Prior art Omata et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of Zehnder’s unpatterned regions 106B to be spaced entirely apart from each other in the plan view of Zehnder Fig. 2 in a similar manner to the non-light emitting areas of Omata Fig. 5 in order to achieve a desired light emitting area configuration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ZEHNDER et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668) in view of OMATA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zehnder teaches a light-emitting element (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1, 104, ¶ [0051]);
an insulating layer (Figs. 1-2, 106, ¶ [0053]) comprising a plurality of sub-insulating layers (Figs. 1-2, 106B, ¶ [0053]) disposed on the first electrode, extending in a second direction (Fig. 2) substantially perpendicular to the first direction;
a hole transport region (Fig. 1, 110, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the insulating layer and comprising:
a contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping patterned regions 106A is in electrical contact with anode 104) in contact with the first electrode; and
a non-contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping regions 106B are not in electrical contact with the portions of the anode 104 under the insulating layer 106) not contacting the first electrode;
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 1, 114, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the hole transport region and comprising:
a light-emitting portion (Fig. 1, portions of 114 in electrically active regions 107A) overlapping the contact portion in a plan view; and a diffusion portion (Fig. 1, portions of 114 in electrically inactive regions 107B) overlapping the non-contact portion in a plan view;
an electron transport region (Fig. 1, 118, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the light-emitting layer; and
a second electrode (Fig. 1, 122, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the electron transport region.
However, Zehnder does not explicitly teach that the plurality of sub-insulatinq layers spaced entirely apart from each other by a distance in a first direction in a plan view.
However, ¶ [0053] of Zehnder et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668 A1) teaches that the configuration of unpatterned regions 106B controls the light emitting areas of Zehnder’s device by creating non-light emitting areas through blocking current flow. Strip shaped light emitting areas and corresponding strip shaped non-light emitting areas are known in the art (as evidence, see Fig. 5, Light Emitting Area, ¶ [0226] of Prior art Omata et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of Zehnder’s unpatterned regions 106B to be spaced entirely apart from each other in the plan view of Zehnder Fig. 2 in a similar manner to the non-light emitting areas of Omata Fig. 5 in order to achieve a desired light emitting area configuration.
Regarding claim 2, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1, and Zehnder teaches that the light-emitting layer emits (Fig. 1, 114, ¶ [0048]) light in a range of about 450 nm to about 520 nm (¶ [0050] teaches that the light emitting layer 114 can emit light wavelengths in the visible spectrum (e.g., wavelengths ranging from 435 to about 750 nm)).
Regarding claim 3, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1, and Zehnder teaches that a thickness of each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers (Figs. 1-2, 106B, ¶ [0053]) is in a range of about 30 nm to about 60 nm (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can have a thickness ranging from 50 nm to about 50 μm. The thickness range taught by Zehnder overlaps with the range claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.).).
Regarding claim 4, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1.
However, Zehnder does not explicitly teach that a width in the first direction of each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers is in a range of about 150 nm to about 200 nm.
However, Zehnder recognizes that the width of the insulating layer 106 impact the current flow between anode and cathode (¶ [0053] teaches that the unpatterned regions 106B block the current flow between anode and cathode while the patterned regions 106A allow current flow. It would be obvious that the size and number of patterned regions 106A are affected by the width of the unpatterned regions 106B, which would therefore affect current flow). Zehnder further recognizes the need to generate and display the desired image by arranging selective regions corresponding to the patterned regions 106A. Therefore, the width of the insulating layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 4 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the insulating layer on current flow and the need for generating and displaying desired images as taught by Zehnder. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 6, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1.
However, Zehnder does not explicitly teach that a sum of a separation distance between adjacent sub-insulating layers of the plurality of sub-insulating layers and a width in the first direction of one of the adjacent sub-insulating layers is in a range of about 500 nm to about 600 nm.
However, Zehnder recognizes that the width of the insulating layer 106 impacts the current flow between anode and cathode (¶ [0053] teaches that the unpatterned regions 106B block the current flow between anode and cathode while the patterned regions 106A allow current flow. It would be obvious that the width of patterned regions 106A are affected by the width of the unpatterned regions 106B, which would therefore impact current flow). Zehnder further recognizes the need to generate and display the desired image by arranging selective regions corresponding to the patterned regions 106A. Therefore, the width of the unpatterned and patterned regions of the insulating layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 6 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the insulating layer on current flow and the need for generating and displaying desired images as taught by Zehnder. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 7, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1, and Zehnder teaches that each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers (Figs. 1-2, 106B, ¶ [0053]) comprises a photosensitizer for laser interference lithography (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can be a photoresist material).
Regarding claim 8, Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1, and Zehnder teaches that the insulating layer (Figs. 1-2, 106, ¶ [0053]) has a visible light transmittance of about 85% or more (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can be a photoresist material in a same manner as Applicant’s sub-insulating layers and would therefore fulfill this limitation. ¶ [0055] also teaches that 106 can be optically transparent).
Regarding claim 10, Zehnder teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1, and Zehnder teaches that excitons are formed in the light-emitting layer (Fig. 1, 114, ¶ [0049] teaches that emitting layer 114 includes organic light emitting layers. ¶ [0051] teaches that electrons and holes recombine in 114. It would be obvious that excitons form in an organic light emitting layer from electron hole recombination between anode and cathode); and
a density of the excitons in the light-emitting portion is greater (Fig. 1, it would be obvious that the portions of emitting layer 114 in electrically active regions 107A would have a higher density of excitons than the portions of the emitting layer in the electrically inactive regions 107B due to the lack of current flow in the inactive regions caused by the unpatterned regions of the insulating layer 106) than a density of the excitons in the diffusion portion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ZEHNDER et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668) in view of OMATA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091) and further in view of SEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0277784).
Regarding claim 9, Zehnder teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1.
However, Zehnder does not explicitly teach that the light-emitting layer is a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent light-emitting layer, a hyper-fluorescent light- emitting layer, or a phosphorescent light-emitting layer.
However, Seo is a pertinent art that teaches a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent light-emitting layer (Fig. 3A, 113, ¶ [0125] teaches that light emitting layer 113 can be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence layer), a hyper-fluorescent light- emitting layer, or a phosphorescent light-emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zehnder’s light emitting layer to be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence layer according to the teaching of Seo (Fig. 1) in order to increase efficiency (¶¶ [0116] & [0129]).
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0277784) in view of ZEHNDER et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668) and further in view of OMATA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091).
Regarding independent claim 11, Seo teaches a display device (Fig. 7A) comprising:
first to third light-emitting regions (Fig. 7A, areas overlapping 1034R, 1034G, and 1034B);
a circuit layer (Fig. 7A, transistors of gate electrodes 1006, ¶ [0198]) disposed on a base substrate (Fig. 7A, 1001, ¶ [0198]); and
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 7A, 1028, ¶ [0203]) comprising:
a pixel defining film (Fig. 7A, 1025, ¶ [0198]) disposed on the circuit layer and having an opening (Fig. &a, area in between partitions 1025); and first to third light-emitting elements (Fig. 7A, layers overlapping 1024R, 1024G, and 1024B),
However, Seo does not explicitly teach that each of the first to third light-emitting elements comprises: a first electrode exposed by the pixel defining film;
an insulating layer comprising a plurality of sub-insulating layers disposed on the first electrode, the plurality of sub-insulating layers spaced entirely apart from each other by a distance in a first direction in the opening in a plan view, and having a bar shape extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction in a plan view;
a hole transport region disposed on the insulating layer and comprising:
a contact portion in contact with the first electrode; and a non-contact portion not contacting the first electrode;
a light-emitting layer disposed on the hole transport region and divided by the pixel defining film;
an electron transport region disposed on the light-emitting layer; and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region.
However, Zehnder is a pertinent art that teaches each of the first to third light-emitting elements (¶ [0051] teaches that Zenhder’s device can emit red, green, or blue light. Therefore, Seo’s red, green, and blue light emitting devices can be modified according to Zehnder’s teachings) comprises: a first electrode (Fig. 1, 104, ¶ [0051]) exposed by the pixel defining film (Seo modified by Zehnder would fulfill this limitation);
an insulating layer (Figs. 1-2, 106, ¶ [0053]) comprising a plurality of sub-insulating layers (Figs. 1-2, 106B, ¶ [0053]) disposed on the first electrode;
a hole transport region (Fig. 1, 110, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the insulating layer and comprising:
a contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping patterned regions 106A is in electrical contact with anode 104) in contact with the first electrode; and
a non-contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping regions 106B are not in electrical contact with the portions of the anode 104 under the insulating layer 106) not contacting the first electrode;
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 1, 114, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the hole transport region;
an electron transport region (Fig. 1, 118, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the light-emitting layer; and
a second electrode (Fig. 1, 122, ¶ [0048]) disposed on the electron transport region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo’s device to include a patterned insulating layer on Seo’s anodes according to the teaching of Zehnder (Figs. 1-2) in order to control light emission through the use of electrically active regions created by patterned regions of the insulating layer (Zehnder ¶ [0053]).
However, Seo modified by Zehnder does not explicitly teach
a light-emitting layer divided by the pixel defining film;
the plurality of sub-insulating layers spaced entirely apart from each other by a distance in a first direction in the opening in a plan view, and having a bar shape extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction in a plan view.
However, Fig. 9B of Seo is an alternative embodiment that teaches a light-emitting layer (Fig. 9B, 955 ¶ [0206]) divided by the pixel defining film (Fig. 9B, 954, ¶ [0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Seo modified by Zehnder’s light emitting layer to be divided by Seo’s partition layer according to Fig. 9B of Seo in order to prevent light emitting element defects (Seo ¶ [0206]).
However, Seo modified by Zehnder does not explicitly teach that the plurality of sub-insulating layers spaced entirely apart from each other by a distance in a first direction in the opening in a plan view, and having a bar shape extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction in a plan view.
However, ¶ [0053] of Zehnder et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303668 A1) teaches that the configuration of unpatterned regions 106B controls the light emitting areas of Zehnder’s device by creating non-light emitting areas through blocking current flow. Strip shaped light emitting areas and corresponding strip shaped non-light emitting areas are known in the art (as evidence, see Fig. 5, Light Emitting Area, ¶ [0226] of Prior art Omata et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0044091)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of Zehnder’s unpatterned regions 106B to be spaced entirely apart from each other in the plan view of Zehnder Fig. 2 in a similar manner to the non-light emitting areas of Omata Fig. 5 in order to achieve a desired light emitting area configuration.
Regarding claim 12, Seo modified by Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Seo teaches that the light-emitting layer is a thermally activated delayed fluorescent light-emitting layer (Fig. 3A, 113, ¶¶ [0125] & [0203] teaches that Seo’s light emitting layer can be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence layer), a hyper-fluorescent light-emitting layer, or a phosphorescent light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 13, Seo modified by Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Seo teaches that the light-emitting layer comprises:
a first light-emitting layer (Fig. 7A, 1028 overlapping 1024R, ¶ [0203]) disposed to correspond to the first light-emitting region;
a second light-emitting layer (Fig. 7A, 1028 overlapping 1024G, ¶ [0203]) disposed to correspond to the second light- emitting region; and
a third light-emitting layer (Fig. 7A, 1028 overlapping 1024G, ¶ [0203]) disposed to correspond to the third light-emitting region (the Examiner notes that Seo modified by Zehnder’s light emitting layers are divided by Seo’s partition according to the teaching of Seo Fig. 9B), and
the first to third light-emitting layers respectively emit light of different wavelength ranges (Seo ¶ [0205] teaches that Seo’s devices emit red, green, and blue light. Zehnder ¶ [0051] teaches that Zenhder’s device can also emit red, green, or blue light).
Regarding claim 15, Seo modified by Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Zehnder teaches that in at least one of the first to third light-emitting elements, a thickness of each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers is in a range of about 30 nm to about 60 nm (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can have a thickness ranging from 50 nm to about 50 μm. The thickness range taught by Zehnder overlaps with the range claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.).).
Regarding claim 16, Seo modified by Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11.
However, Seo modified by Zehnder does not explicitly teach that a sum of a separation distance between adjacent sub-insulating layers of the plurality of sub-insulating layers and a width in the first direction of one of the adjacent sub-insulating layers is in a range of about 500 nm to about 600 nm.
However, Zehnder recognizes that the width of the insulating layer 106 impacts the current flow between anode and cathode (¶ [0053] teaches that the unpatterned regions 106B block the current flow between anode and cathode while the patterned regions 106A allow current flow. It would be obvious that the width of patterned regions 106A are affected by the width of the unpatterned regions 106B, which would therefore impact current flow). Zehnder further recognizes the need to generate and display the desired image by arranging selective regions corresponding to the patterned regions 106A. Therefore, the width of the unpatterned and patterned regions of the insulating layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 16 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the insulating layer on current flow and the need for generating and displaying desired images as taught by Zehnder. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 17, Seo modified by Zehnder in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11.
However, Seo modified by Zendher does not explicitly teach that in at least one of the first to third light-emitting elements, a width in the first direction of each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers is in a range of about 150 nm to about 200 nm.
However, Zehnder recognizes that the width of the insulating layer 106 impact the current flow between anode and cathode (¶ [0053] teaches that the unpatterned regions 106B block the current flow between anode and cathode while the patterned regions 106A allow current flow. It would be obvious that the size and number of patterned regions 106A are affected by the width of the unpatterned regions 106B, which would therefore affect current flow). Zehnder further recognizes the need generate and display the desired image by arranging selective regions corresponding to the patterned regions 106A. Therefore, the width of the insulating layer is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 4 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the insulating layer on current flow and the need for generating and displaying desired images as taught by Zehnder. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 18, Seo modified by Zendher in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Zendher teaches that the insulating layer (Figs. 1-2, 106, ¶ [0053]) has a visible light transmittance of about 85% or more (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can be a photoresist material in a same manner as Applicant’s sub-insulating layers and would therefore fulfill this limitation. ¶ [0055] also teaches that 106 can be optically transparent).
Regarding claim 19, Seo modified by Zendher in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Zendher teaches that each of the plurality of sub-insulating layers (Figs. 1-2, 106B, ¶ [0053]) comprises a photosensitizer for laser interference lithography (¶ [0055] teaches that 106 can be a photoresist material).
Regarding claim 20, Seo modified by Zendher in view of Omata teaches the display device of claim 11, and Zendher teaches that the light-emitting layer comprises:
a light-emitting portion (Fig. 1, portions of 114 in electrically active regions 107A) overlapping the contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping patterned regions 106A is in electrical contact with anode 104) in a plan view; and
a diffusion portion (Fig. 1, portions of 114 in electrically inactive regions 107B) overlapping the non-contact portion (Fig. 1, portion of 110 overlapping regions 106B are not in electrical contact with the portions of the anode 104 under the insulating layer 106) in a plan view;
excitons are formed in the light-emitting layer (Fig. 1, 114, ¶ [0049] teaches that emitting layer 114 includes organic light emitting layers. ¶ [0051] teaches that electrons and holes recombine in 114. It would be obvious that excitons form in an organic light emitting layer from electron hole recombination between anode and cathode); and
a density of the excitons in the light-emitting portion is greater (Fig. 1, it would be obvious that the portions of emitting layer 114 in electrically active regions 107A would have a higher density of excitons than the portions of the emitting layer in the electrically inactive regions 107B due to the lack of current flow in the inactive regions caused by the unpatterned regions of the insulating layer 106) than a density of the excitons in the diffusion portion.
Allowable subject matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of the reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, “the electron transport region comprises: a plurality of first portions overlapping the plurality of sub-insulating layers in a plan view; and a plurality of second portions non-overlapping the plurality of sub-insulating layers in a plan view, and wherein: each of the plurality of first portions has a convex shape in a direction of the second electrode; and each of the plurality of second portions has a convex shape in a direction of the first electrode” , in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 5.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 11), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “the electron transport region comprises: a plurality of first portions overlapping the plurality of sub-insulating layers in a plan view; and a plurality of second portions non-overlapping the plurality of sub-insulating layers in a plan view, and each of the plurality of first portions has a convex shape in a direction of the second electrode; and each of the plurality of second portions has a convex shape in a direction of the first electrode.”
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813