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 Preliminary Amendment
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 11, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 25, 27-29, 31-34, 36, and 39-49 have been cancelled; and claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 30, 35, and 37-38 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE.
In regards to claim 1, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an optoelectronic device, comprising an anode (16), a hole transport layer (14) disposed on the anode (16), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) disposed on the hole transport layer (14), and a cathode (17) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]).
HE is silent about a top energy level difference between a valence band of an outer shell layer material of the quantum dot material and a valence band of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer ranges from 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a lower energy differences ranging from 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV since the selection of specific energy level differences within known parameters constitutes obvious design choice, as established in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
One of ordinary skill would have motivation to explore different energy level differences to optimize device performance characteristics such as hole injection efficiency, operating voltage, device stability, and luminous efficiency.
Furthermore, obviousness can be established when "the claimed ranges are not critical" and there would be motivation to select values within the claimed range. Given the HE reference's teaching of successful quantum dot devices with energy differences in the 1.4-1.7 eV range, one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation that materials could be selected to achieve the lower claimed range of 0.5-0.7 eV while maintaining device functionality. Therefore, the claimed energy level difference range of 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV represents obvious optimization of the parameters taught by the HE reference, and one of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with ordinary skill and knowledge, and motivated by well-understood performance objectives, would have been led to select hole transport materials yielding energy differences within the claimed range with reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 3, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3)
HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an optoelectronic device, comprising an anode (16), a hole transport layer (14) disposed on the anode (16), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) disposed on the hole transport layer (14), and a cathode (17) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]).
HE is silent about a top energy level difference between a valence band of an outer shell layer material of the quantum dot material and a valence band of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer ranges from 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a lower energy differences ranging from 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV since the selection of specific energy level differences within known parameters constitutes obvious design choice, as established in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
One of ordinary skill would have motivation to explore different energy level differences to optimize device performance characteristics such as hole injection efficiency, operating voltage, device stability, and luminous efficiency.
Furthermore, obviousness can be established when "the claimed ranges are not critical" and there would be motivation to select values within the claimed range. Given the HE reference's teaching of successful quantum dot devices with energy differences in the 1.4-1.7 eV range, one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation that materials could be selected to achieve the lower claimed range of 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV while maintaining device functionality. Therefore, the claimed energy level difference range of 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV represents obvious optimization of the parameters taught by the HE reference, and one of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with ordinary skill and knowledge, and motivated by well-understood performance objectives, would have been led to select hole transport materials yielding energy differences within the claimed range with reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 6, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device comprises a first hole injection layer (15), the first hole injection layer (15) is located between the anode layer (16) and the hole transport layer (14), and an absolute value of a difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and a work function of a first hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) in the first hole injection layer (15) is less than or equal to 0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 7, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an absolute value of the work function of the first hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) ranges from 5.3 eV to 5.6 eV.
In regards to claim 9, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device comprises a second hole injection layer (15), the second hole injection layer (15) is located between the anode layer (16) and the hole transport layer (14), and a difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and a work function of a second hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) in the second hole injection layer (15) is less than −0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 10, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and the work function of the second hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) ranges from −0.9 eV to −0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 12, HE discloses all limitations of claim 7 above except that the first hole injection material in the first hole injection layer is selected from a first metal oxide material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a metal oxide material instead of PEDOT:PSS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 13, HE discloses all limitations of claim 10 above except that the second hole injection material in the second hole injection layer is selected from a second metal oxide material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a metal oxide material instead of PEDOT:PSS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 14, HE discloses all limitations of claim 12 above except that the first metal oxide material comprises at least one metal nanomaterial of tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, nickel oxide, and copper oxide.
It is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide instead of PEDOT:PSS because it is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material. Furthermore, it has been also held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 17, HE discloses all limitations of claim 13 above except that the second metal oxide material comprises at least one metal nanomaterial of tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, nickel oxide, and copper oxide.
It is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide instead of PEDOT:PSS because it is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material. Furthermore, it has been also held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 30, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device further comprises an electron transport layer (13), and an electron transport material (ZnO) in the electron transport layer (13) is at least one selected from a metal-chalcogenide transport material (“Zn” is a metal, and “O” is a chalcogen) and an organic transport material.
However, HE fails to teach that the metal-chalcogenide transport material is at least one selected from titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide as metal-chalcogenide transport material instead of ZnO because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 20-21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of WANG et al. (CN 105374953 A, hereinafter “WANG”).
In regards to claim 20, HE discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that the hole transport layer comprises at least two hole transport materials, and an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of at least one hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV.
WANG while disclosing quantum dot light diodes discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4) the hole transport layer comprises at least two hole transport materials, and an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of at least one hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV. ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by WANG because this would help provide quantum dot light emitting device with improved performance, stability, and service life.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by YANG because this would help improve the luminous efficiency of the quantum dot materials.
In regards to claim 21, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) in the hole transport layer, the hole transport material having the absolute value of the top energy level of the valence band less than or equal to 5.3 eV has a mass percentage content of 30%-90% (See, for example, page 5 and 6). ; and wherein, the hole transport layer further comprises a hole transport material having an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV (See, for example, materials listed in last paragraph in page 5 and its continuation on page 6).
In regards to claim 23, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of each hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
However, HE as modified by WANG is silent about in the hole transport layer, the each hole transport material has a mass percentage content of 5%-95%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a mass percentage content of 5% -95% for each hole transporting material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 24, HE as modified by WANG discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) that the hole transport material has a mobility of higher than 1×10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
In regards to claim 26, HE as modified by WANG discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4) that the hole transport material having the absolute value of the top energy level of the valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV comprises: at least one of TFB, poly-TPD, and P11 ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
Claims 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of YANG et al. (WO 2019/010999 A1, however, its equivalent US PG Pub 2020/0308478 A1 is used instead, hereinafter “YANG”).
In regards to claim 35, HE discloses all limitations of claim 30 above except that the organic transport material has an electron mobility of no less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs; and/or wherein the organic transport material is at least one selected from 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium, 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum, fullerene derivative, 3,5-bis(4-tert-butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole, 1,3,5-tris(1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl)benzene.
YANG while disclosing a quantum dot light emitting device teaches the organic transport material is at least one selected from 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium, 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum, fullerene derivative, 3,5-bis(4-tert-butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole, 1,3,5-tris(1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl)benzene (“…a material of the electrons transport layer may be …..at least one of organic materials such as Alq3…”, See, for example, Par [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by YANG because this would help improve the luminous efficiency of the quantum dot materials.
In regards to claim 37, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1, YANG)
the hole transport layer (4) further comprises a hole transport material (See, Par [0090]) having an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV, the electron transport layer (6) comprises: at least one of an organic electron transport material layer, a metal oxide nanoparticle layer, and a sputter-deposited metal oxide layer (See, for example, Par [0092]).
In regards to claim 38, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1, YANG) the electron transport layer has a laminated composite structure, which comprises at least two sub-electron transport layers; and wherein at least one sub-electron transport layer in the electron transport layer is made of an organic transport material (“…the electrons transport layer may be, but not limited to, a plurality of inorganic materials including ZnO, Cs.sub.2CO.sub.3, TiO.sub.2, WO.sub.3, SnO.sub.2, AlZnO, ZnSnO, InSnO, and at least one of organic materials such as Alq.sub.3, TPBI (1,3,5-tris(N-phenylbenzimidazol-2-yl) benzene) or TAZ (3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-tert-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole). The electrons transport layer may be prepared by a solution method including printing or spraying, or a vacuum method including vacuum evaporation or sputtering.”, See, for example, Par [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the HE reference is addressing a technical problem that is different from that is addressed by claim 1 of the present application. Applicant contends that because the purpose (solution it provides to solve a problem) of the HE reference differs from that of the present application, the HE reference should not be applied as prior art against the pending device claims. (See, applicant’s remarks foiled on 12/05/2025, pp. 9-11)
This is not persuasive because applicant's argument that the HE reference teaches a different invention or is directed to a different purpose does not overcome the rejection for the reasons set forth below:
The Court directly addressed this issue in In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ
560 (CCPA 1972). In that case, the appellant argued that a component in the claimed composition served a different purpose than disclosed in the prior art.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)
The court rejected this argument and held:
"The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be [sic, would have been] prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references." In re Lintner 173 USPQ at 562.
Applying Lintner to the present case, the fact that Applicant may use the claimed optoelectronic device structural layers to reduce hole injection efficiency than optimize the hole injection as disclosed in the HE reference does not alter the conclusion that the claimed device structure would have been prima facie obvious over the HE reference.
The Federal Circuit reinforced this principle in In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93,
16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), holding:
"[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness . . . that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant." In re Dillon 919 F.2d at 693, 16 USPQ2d at 1901 (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, Applicant's discovery of a new or different utility for the claimed optoelectronic device does not render the device non-obvious when the structural elements are taught by the prior art.
The pending claims are directed to a device—i.e., apparatus claims. MPEP § 2114
provides that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art based on structure, not intended use or purpose. Specifically, MPEP § 2114 states:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)
MPEP § 2114 further provides:
"A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Here, the HE reference teaches all the structural layers of the optoelectronic device as recited in the claims. Because the claims are apparatus claims, the relevant inquiry is whether the HE reference discloses the claimed structure—not whether the HE reference is directed to the same purpose (solution it provides to solve a problem) or application as the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2145, Subsection II, titled "Arguing Additional Advantages or Latent
Properties," is directly on point:
"Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art."
The MPEP further explains:
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See also In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) (holding that "[g]ranting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function . . . 'would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.'").
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant's argument that the HE reference is directed to a different invention or serves a different purpose is not persuasive and does not overcome the prima-facie case of obviousness. The HE reference teaches all structural limitations of the claimed optoelectronic device. Because apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or purpose, and because the prior art need not suggest the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed to be proper.
Applicant further argues that: “the defined range of the top energy level difference of the valence bands in claim1 of the present application, from 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV, does not constitute an obvious design choice.” (See, applicant’s remarks, page 11).
This is not persuasive because Par [0071] of HE discloses that quantum dot materials may be functionalized with various ligands, including phosphate ligands, thiol ligands, and carboxylate ligands. As established in the art and acknowledged by Applicant in the present remarks, each of these ligand types produces a different valence band energy in quantum dot materials. Thiol ligands generally raise the valence band energy, carboxylate ligands produce intermediate values, and phosphate ligands lower the valence band energy.
This disclosure in Par [0071] of HE establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, was aware that valence band energy is not a fixed property but rather a tunable parameter that varies depending on ligand selection. HE does not limit itself to a single ligand type but instead presents multiple options, thereby teaching the skilled artisan that different valence band energies are achievable within the same device architecture.
By listing phosphate, thiol, and carboxylate ligands as suitable options for quantum dot surface functionalization, HE inherently teaches that the resulting devices will exhibit different valence band energies depending on which ligand is selected. It is also generally known in the art that:
Selecting a thiol ligand yields a relatively shallow valence band;
Selecting a carboxylate ligand yields an intermediate valence band; and
Selecting a phosphate ligand yields a relatively deep valence band.
It is understood that the valence band energy difference between the quantum dot and the hole transport layer is the difference of two values: the valence band energy of the quantum dot and the valence band energy of the hole transport layer. HE in Par [0071] teaches that the first value is variable depending on ligand choice. It is equally well established that hole transport layer materials span a range of valence band energies depending on composition. Therefore, the difference between these two layers is necessarily variable, and achieving any particular difference—including the claimed range—requires only selecting appropriate materials from known options.
Furthermore, applicant does not dispute that different ligands produce different valence band energies nor dispute that HE discloses phosphate, thiol, and carboxylate ligands as suitable options. Given these admissions, the Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed valence band energy difference simply by selecting an appropriate ligand from among those disclosed in HE and pairing it with an appropriate hole transport layer material.
This is the essence of design choice. HE provides a menu of ligand options, each producing a known effect on valence band energy. Selecting from this menu to achieve a desired band alignment requires no inventive effort. The claimed range does not represent a discovery; it represents one of many achievable configurations using materials expressly taught by HE.
In Conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, the prima-facie case of obviousness is deemed to be proper. Given that both the quantum dot valence band energy and the hole transport layer valence band energy are independently variable through material selection, the difference between them is necessarily variable as well. Achieving the claimed range requires only selecting appropriate materials from known options disclosed in the prior art. Applicant has not provided objective evidence that the claimed range produces unexpected results or is otherwise critical. The claims remain directed to routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, which does not constitute patentable invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights