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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 5 and 13-15 have been canceled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-24 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 16-20 have been amended.
The cancelation of claims 5 and 13-15 obviates the objections and rejections of claims 5 and 13-15 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of the drawings and the specification have overcome the objection of specification set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 9 has overcome the objection of claim 9 set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment of claims 2-9 have overcome the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 11 have overcome the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 29 of the reply filed 07/15/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the Office Action of 04/23/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 11 now properly depends from claim 10 and includes all limitations thereof.
The amended claim 11 overcomes the 112(d) rejection; however, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied.
Applicant recites “The compound of claim 10, wherein when X is a linking site, X is CR3; when Y is a linking site, Y is NR4”.
In order to make a linkage between the group Ar1 and the group L2 in the Formula (1), R3 of the CR3 at the linking site requires to be a direct bond (or a single bond); however, the claim does not allow to choose a direct bond as R3. Similarly, in order to make a linkage between the group Ar1 and the group L2 in the Formula (1), R4 of the NR4 at the linking site requires to be a direct bond (or a single bond); however, the claim does not allow to choose a direct bond as R4.
It is unclear how the moieties Ar1 and L2 are linked at the linking site X, when X is selected to be CR3. It is unclear how the moieties Ar1 and L2 are linked at the linking site X, when Y is selected to be NR4.
A new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied to claim 11. The amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 30 of the reply filed 07/15/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the Office Action of 04/23/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 has been amended to explicitly permit L1 and L2 to be “a combination thereof”; thus, claim 17 now properly depends from claim 1 and includes all limitations thereof.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The amended claim 1 recites “L1 and L2 are each independently selected from a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms, or a combination thereof.”
It appears that the only phrases that the instant specification support are “L1 and L2 are each independently selected from a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms” ([0054]). The instant specification appears not to support the phrase “a combination thereof.”
Thus, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the claimed specificity regarding a combination of a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, and a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms at the position L1 and L2. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (i.e. new matter rejection) are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Because the independent claim 1 has a 112(a) issue and does not support “a combination thereof”, the rejection under 112(d) of claim 17 is maintained.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 31-34 of the reply filed 07/15/2026 regarding
the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0093868 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1, hereafter Geum), and the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Geum as applied to claims 1-18 and 20 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0028084 A1, hereafter Song) set forth in the Office Action of 04/23/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims defines that in Formula (1), Ar2 is a phenyl group substituted at both ortho positions with different substituents; in other words, the two ortho substitution on the phenyl ring form an asymmetric substitution pattern (pages 31 and 33). Applicant further argues that Lee teaches away from asymmetric substitution (page 31).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Lee does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage that the two substituent of Ar2 being asymmetric (see definition of Ar1 in Formula 1 in [0009]-[0021]). While there are a portion of examples wherein two Ar2 groups are same (i.e. symmetric), there are also another portion of examples wherein two Ar2 are different (i.e. asymmetric). See specific examples in paragraph [0116] including at least the 2nd , 3rd, and 5th compounds on page 11. Lee does not teach a symmetric structure is more beneficial than an asymmetric structure. The Examiner refers to MPEP 2123(II).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Geum is directed to a fundamentally different class of compound, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to transplant the ortho substitution pattern from B-N based core (Geum) into an anthracene-dibenzofuran core (Lee) (page 32). Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Lee and Geum to arrive at the claimed asymmetric structure (page 33)
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The compound represented by Formula 1 of Lee includes all the claimed features including anthracene core, ortho substituted phenyl, and ortho substituted dibenzofuran, and Lee specifically exemplifies all the claimed features.
Lee discloses a compound of Formula 1 ([0006]-[0008]) and exemplifies a compound ([0116], the second compound on page 27, hereafter Compound p27-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound p27-2 of Lee has a dibenzofuran group at the position corresponding to the Ar1 of Formula 1 of Lee, as enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above. The Compound p27-2 of Lee does not have an ortho substituted phenyl group as another Ar1 group; however, Lee does teach that the variable a can be 2 ([0079]) and Ar1 can be a unsubstituted phenyl group and a dibenzofuran group ([0076]). Lee exemplifies compounds, wherein a is 2; and one of Ar1 is an ortho substituted phenyl (examples in [0116] including at least the 6th compound on page 10 and the 2nd compound on page 11). Please see the ortho substituted phenyl groups enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Lee teaches not only the cores anthracene structure but also the specific substituent structure including an ortho phenyl group and an ortho dibenzofuranyl group at the positions corresponding to Ar1 of formula 1 of Lee.
The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art would rely upon form Geum is advantages and/or benefits of an ortho substituted phenyl group for a compound used in an organic light device.
Geum discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting device wherein the compound has a planar core structure having an ortho-substituted phenyl group ([0011]-[0012]).
Geum teaches that introducing an ortho substituted phenyl group having large volume prevents aggregation of molecules by minimizing the stacking between molecules and inhibits intermolecular interaction ([0037]) such that exciton annihilation is prevented and the efficiency is improved ([0039]). An ordinary skill in the art would have thought that an ortho substituted phenyl in addition to an ortho substituted dibenzofuranyl group would provide larger volume such that molecule stacking and intermolecular interaction would be reduced.
Both anthracene compound of Lee and the boron compound of Geum have a planar core structure which are easy to be stacked and aggregated due to lack of substituents; thus, an ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to introduce an ortho substituted phenyl to increase molecular volume and minimize molecular stacking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p27-2 of Lee by incorporating an ortho substituted phenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar1 of Formula 1 of Lee, as taught by Lee and Geum.
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Geum which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) and Applicant’s specific embodiment of claim 18.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are updated and maintained. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant argues that the specific synthetic examples in Applicant’s specification demonstrate that such asymmetric compounds can be successfully prepared, thereby providing novel chemical entities that were neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references (item 5 on page 33).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
As outlined above, the compound of Lee as modified by Geum reads on all the features of the amended claims. There is no claim directed to synthesis of the claimed compound. The instant claims are directed to products including a compound of Formula (1), a composition comprising the same, and an organic electronic device comprising the same. Those claimed products would have been obvious from the prior arts of Lee in view of Geum and Song.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Applicant recites “L1 and L2 are each independently selected from a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms, or a combination thereof.”
It appears that the only phrases that the instant specification support are “L1 and L2 are each independently selected from a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms” ([0054]). The instant specification appears not to support a combination thereof.
Thus, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the claimed specificity regarding a combination of a single bond, an aromatic group containing 6 to 60 ring atoms, and a heteroaromatic group containing 5 to 60 ring atoms at the position L1 and L2.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-12, 16-18, and 21-24, claims 2-4, 6-12, 16-18, and 21-24 are rejected due to the dependency from claims 1 and 20.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code for 112(b) and (d) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11 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 11, Applicant recites “The compound of claim 10, wherein when X is a linking site, X is CR3; when Y is a linking site, Y is NR4”.
In order to make a linkage between the claimed moiety Ar1 and the group L2 in the Formula (1), R3 of the CR3 at the linking site requires to be a direct bond (or a single bond); however, the claim does not allow to choose a direct bond as R3. Similarly, in order to make a linkage between the claimed moiety Ar1 and the group L2 in the Formula (1), R4 of the NR4 at the linking site requires to be a direct bond (or a single bond); however, the claim does not allow to choose a direct bond as R4.
It is unclear how the moieties Ar1 and L2 are linked at the linking site X, when X is selected to be CR3. It is unclear how the moieties Ar1 and L2 are linked at the linking site X, when Y is selected to be NR4.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that when X is a linking site X is C and when Y is a linking site Y is N, regardless of the dependency of claim 11 (i.e. claim 11 is handled as if claim 11 were an independent claim ).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 claims specific structures for L1 and L2 of the compound of claim 1. However, some of the structures are not encompassed by the limitation of L1 and L2 of the independent claim 1.
For instance, the following L1 and/or L2 structures of claim 17 are a combination of multiple aromatic groups or a combination of an aromatic group and a heteroaromatic group.
PNG
media_image4.png
81
100
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
47
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
96
94
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
103
100
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, etc.
However, as outlined above, claim 1 has a 112(a) new matter issue such that the claim 1 does not support the claim language “a combination thereof”. Claim 1 requires L1 and L2 each to be a single structure selected from a single bond, an aromatic group, or a heteroaromatic group. Therefore, claim 17 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 16-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0093868 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1, hereafter Geum).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 16-18, and 20-24, Lee discloses a compound of Formula 1 used as the host material with a dopant material of Formula 2 in an organic light emitting device ([0006]-[0008]). Lee exemplifies a compound ([0116], the second compound on page 27, hereafter Compound p27-2) as the host material of Formula 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound p27-2 of Lee has a dibenzofuran group at the position corresponding to the Ar1 of Formula 1 of Lee, as enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above. The Compound p27-2 of Lee does not have an ortho substituted phenyl group as another Ar1 group; however, Lee does teach that the variable a can be 2 ([0079]) and Ar1 can be a unsubstituted phenyl group and a dibenzofuran group ([0076]). Lee exemplifies compounds, wherein a is 2; and one of Ar1 is an ortho substituted phenyl (examples in [0116] including at least the 6th compound on page 10 and the 2nd compound on page 11). Please see the ortho substituted phenyl groups enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Geum discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting device wherein the compound has a planar core structure having an ortho-substituted phenyl group ([0011]-[0012]).
Geum teaches that introducing an ortho substituted phenyl group having large volume prevents aggregation of molecules by minimizing the stacking between molecules and inhibits intermolecular interaction ([0037]) such that exciton annihilation is prevented and the efficiency is improved ([0039]). An ordinary skill in the art would have thought that an ortho substituted phenyl in addition to an ortho substituted dibenzofuranyl group would provide larger volume such that molecule stacking and intermolecular interaction would be reduced.
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 p27-2 of Lee by incorporating an ortho substituted phenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar1 of Formula 1 of Lee, as taught by Lee and Geum.
The motivation of doing so would have been to make the resultant compound bulkier and having a larger molecular volume such that the stacking between molecules, intermolecular interaction, and exciton annihilation are reduced, and the efficiency is improved, based on the teaching of Geum.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Lee exemplifies the variable “a” of the (Ar1)a being 2 and the Ar1 being an ortho substituted phenyl. Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the position corresponding to Ar1 of the compound of Formula 1 of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
314
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Geum which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) and Applicant’s specific embodiment of claim 18, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 16-18.
Lee in view of Geum does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Lee as modified by Geum; however, Lee does teach the compound represented by Formula 1 of Lee can be used as the host material of an organic light emitting device having the structure comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (an organoboron compound BD-1 as a dopant, the compound of Formula 1 of Lee as a dopant), and a second electrode ([0006]-[0007], Example 1 in [0175]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lee as modified by Geum by incorporating it into the emission layer as a host, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the host compounds represented by Formula 1 of Lee in the device of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lee as modified by Geum comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Geum as a host, Compound BD-1 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic electronic device; and the emission layer is an organic functional layer, meeting all the limitations of claim 20-24.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0093868 A1) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 16-18, and 20-24 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0028084 A1, hereafter Song).
Regarding claim 19, the Organic light emitting device of Lee as modified by Geum reads on all the features of claims 1 and 20 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Geum as a host, Compound BD-1 of Lee as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic electronic device; and the emission layer is an organic functional layer.
The emission layer does not comprise a diamino pyrene compound.
PNG
media_image8.png
405
664
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Song discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a compound of Formula 1 as a first dopant and a compound of Formula 2 as a second dopant ([0009]). The Compound BD-1 of Lee is directed to the second dopant of Formula 2 of Song ([0014]).
PNG
media_image9.png
444
450
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Song exemplifies Compound 1-66 as the first dopant of Formula 1 of Song ([0047]). The Compound 1-66 of Song has identical structure as Applicant’s diamino pyrene compound claimed in claim 19.
Song teaches that use of a boron type dopant with a pyrene type dopant provides excellent color characteristic, efficiency, and lifespan ([0026]).
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 light emitting device of Lee as modified by Geum by incorporating Compound BD-1 of Lee as a second dopant, as taught by Song.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide excellent color characteristic, efficiency, and lifespan based on the teaching of Song.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lee as modified by Geum and Song comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Geum as a host, Compound BD-1 of Lee as a dopant, and a Compound 1-66 of Song as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic electronic device; the emission layer is an organic functional layer; and the emission layer materials are a composition.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights