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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds and formulas are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0058: There seems to be a typographical error in line 5 of the paragraph. Currently the paragraph recites “This role” and should be revised to “The role” for clarity.
Paragraphs [0006], [0009], [0014], [0019], [0020], [0046], [0048]:The compounds and formulas are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim is 3 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. As per MPEP 608.01(n), under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), a claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth. As written, claim 3 does not include a reference to a previously set forth claim. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim is 3 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. In the instant case, claim 3 is dependent on itself and examiner cannot discern the dependency of the claim. For examination purposes claim 3 is interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vo et al. (US 2022/0162222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vo teaches:
An organic light emitting device (device example 1, para. [0293] – [0303]) comprising a first electrode (para. [0295]), a second electrode (para. [0303]) opposite to the first electrode (para. [0295]), and one or more organic layers (para. [0296] – [0302]) interposed between the first (para. [0295]) and second electrodes (para. [0303]) wherein one of the organic layers (para. [0296] – [0302]) is a light emitting layer (para. [0299]), wherein the light emitting layer (para. [0299]) comprises at least one host (Compound 1-3, para [0245], [0299], and Table 1, Example 1) and at least one dopant (Dopant-1, para. [0299]), and wherein the host is a compound represented by Formula A:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-3 reads on Formula A (para [0245], [0299], and Table 1, Example 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
369
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R1 to R8 and R10 to R13 are hydrogens, and R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
X is oxygen
Regarding claim 2, Vo further teaches wherein R9 in Formula A is unsubstituted C6 aryl (compound 1-3 depicted in paragraph 15 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vo further teaches wherein the compound represented by Formula A is compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
226
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of the instant application (Compound 1-3 from Vo as depicted above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Vo further teaches wherein the organic layers (para. [0296] – [0302]) comprise a hole injecting layer (para [0296]), a hole transport layer (para. [0297]), an electron transport layer (para. [0300]), an electron injecting layer (para. [0302]).
Regarding claim 10, Vo further teaches wherein one or more of the layers are formed by a deposition process (vapor deposition, para. [0289]).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 2024/0349607 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ha teaches:
An organic light emitting device (device example 1, Table 14, para. [0373] – [0377]) comprising a first electrode (positive electrode para. [0373]), a second electrode (negative electrode, para. [0374]) opposite to the first electrode (positive electrode, para. [0373]), and one or more organic layers (para. [0374]) interposed between the first (positive electrode, para. [0373]) and second electrodes (negative electrode, para. [0374]) wherein one of the organic layers (hole injection layer, hole transporting layer, light emitting layer, electron adjusting layer, electron transport layer, para. [0374]) is a light emitting layer (para. [0374]), wherein the light emitting layer (para. [0374]) comprises at least one host (Compound 1, para. [0374]) and at least one dopant (Compound BD1, para. [0374], Table 12, Table 14), and wherein the host is a compound represented by Formula A:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on Formula A (para. [0374], Table 12, table 14)
PNG
media_image4.png
439
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is a substituted C6 aryl
R1 to R8 are deuterium, R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl, R10 and R12 to R13 are hydrogens, and R11 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
X is oxygen
Regarding claim 2, Ha further teaches wherein R9 in Formula A is unsubstituted C6 aryl (compound 1 depicted in paragraph 21 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ha further teaches wherein R11 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (Compound 1 depicted in paragraph 21 for claim 1).
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 3, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo et al. (US 2022/0162222 A1) as applied to claim 1-2, 4-5, and 10 above.
Regarding claim 3, Vo discloses the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 15.
In Example 1 cited above, Vo does not specifically teach wherein at least one of R10, R11, and R12 is substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 aryl.
However, Vo teaches a host of formula
PNG
media_image5.png
467
357
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(para. [0006]).
wherein Ar1 may be a C6-C50 aryl (para. [0007]).
Q is
PNG
media_image6.png
394
393
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Ar2 may be a C6 aryl (para. [0008]).
Y may be O or S (para. [0011]).
and R2 may be a C6-C30 aryl (para. [0013]).
Thus, Vo’s general formula read in the claimed Formula I and R10, R11, and R12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a compound of the claimed Formula A wherein at least one of R10, R11, and R12 is substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 aryl, because Vo expressly suggests the use of such compound as a host as a suitable host for an organic light emitting device.
Vo includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Vo being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of new electroactive compounds that can be use as hosts or electroluminescent materials, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Regarding claim 6, Vo discloses the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 15.
In Example 1 cited above, Vo does not specifically teach wherein one or more hosts other than the compound represented by Formula A (Compound 1-3) are mixed or stacked in the light emitting layer.
However, Vo teaches that in some embodiments of the light emitting layer (photoactive layer), a second host material is present (para. [0213]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Vo to mix or stack one or more hosts other than the compound represented by Formula A in the light emitting layer, because Vo expressly suggests the presence of a second host material, and the use of multiple host materials in the light emitting layer was a known practice in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Vo discloses the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 15.
In Example 1 cited above, Vo does not specifically teach wherein the organic light emitting device according is used in a display or lighting system selected from flat panel displays, flexible displays, monochromatic flat panel lighting systems, white flat panel lighting systems, flexible monochromatic lighting systems, flexible white lighting systems, displays for automotive applications, displays for virtual reality, and displays for augmented reality.
However, Vo teaches Organic electronic devices that may benefit from having one or more layers comprising the compounds having Formula I (Compound 1-3) include light emitting diode display or lighting panel (para. [0202]) which reads on at least on flat panel displays, flexible displays, monochromatic flat panel lighting systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting device of Vo in a display or lighting system as the ones cited in the claimed, because Vo expressly suggests the use of organic light emitting devices for a light emitting diode display or a lighting panel. The use of organic light emitting devices for displays and lighting systems is a predictably suitable application in the art.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo et al. (US 2022/0162222 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Yamatani (US 2020/0227639 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Vo discloses the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 15. Vo teaches that compounds of Formula I (Compound 1-3 as depicted for claim 1 above) can be used with a variety of dopants and will perform in a similar way (para. [0214]). Exemplary dopants from Vo include, but are not limited to, anthracenes, benzanthracenes, benz[de]anthracenes, chrysenes, pyrenes, triphenylenes, benzofluorenes, other polycyclic aromatics, analogs having one or more heteroatoms, benzofurans, dibenzofurans, carbazoles, benzocarbazoles, carbazolocarbazoles, and azaborines (para. [2014]). Vo also teaches that the photoactive layer includes a blue luminescent material as dopant (para. [0215]). Vo also teaches that the dopant can be a boron-containing polycyclic aromatic compound (para. [0288]).
In Example 1 cited above, Vo does not specifically teach wherein the dopant is selected from compounds represented by Formulas D-1 and D-2:
PNG
media_image7.png
163
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
269
208
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yamatani teaches an organic electroluminescence device having a long life-time and high efficiency, and a polycyclic compound used therefor (para. [0006]). Yamatani also teaches the emission layer may be a delayed fluorescence emission layer including a host and a dopant, wherein the dopant may be a polycyclic compound (para. [0013]). Yamatani also teaches that the polycyclic compound may boron-containing polycyclic aromatic compound (Formula 1, where Z may be BAr2, para [0072]). Additionally, Yamatani discloses wherein the dopant is selected from compounds represented by Formulas D-1 (compound 9, para [0104]):
Compound 9 reads on Formula D-1
PNG
media_image9.png
393
737
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein X1 is B
Y1 and Y2 are NR21, and Y3 is S
A1 to A3 are unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings
R21 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula D-1, because Vo teaches that boron-containing polycyclic aromatic compounds are suitable dopants for use in organic light emitting devices and Yamatani teaches that compounds within the scope of Formula D-1 (compound 9) improve the luminous efficiency and/or life-time of the organic electroluminescence device (para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Vo further teaches wherein one or more dopants other than the compound represented by Formula D-1 or D-2 are mixed or stacked in the light emitting layer (para. [0213]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamatani teaches wherein the compound represented by Formula D-1 is compound D-101
PNG
media_image10.png
122
155
media_image10.png
Greyscale
of the instant application (Compound 9 from Yamatani as depicted above for claim 7).
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.
Claim 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because,
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 teaches,
An organic light emitting device (claim 1, col. 188, line 62) comprising a first electrode (claim 1, col. 188, line 62), a second electrode (claim 1, col. 188, line 62) opposite to the first electrode (claim 1, col. 188, line 62), and one or more organic layers interposed between the first and second electrodes (light emitting layer, claim 1, col. 188, line 63), wherein one of the organic layers is a light emitting layer (claim 1, col. 188, line 63), wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one host (claim 1, col. 188, line 66) and at least one dopant (claim 1, col. 188, line 66), and wherein the host is a compound represented by Formula A:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound A-20 of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 reads on Formula A
PNG
media_image11.png
265
342
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R1 to R8 and R10 to R13 are hydrogens, and R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
X is oxygen
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches wherein R9 in Formula A is unsubstituted C6 aryl (Compound A-20 from claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 as depicted in paragraph 40 for claim 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches Compound A-29 of claim 3 that reads on all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and wherein R11 and R13 are unsubstituted C6 aryl
PNG
media_image12.png
349
345
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R1 to R10 and R12 are hydrogens
X is sulfur
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches wherein the compound represented by Formula A is compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
226
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of the instant application (Compound A-20 from claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 as depicted in paragraph 40 for claim 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches wherein the organic layers comprise a hole injecting layer, a hole transport layer, a functional layer having functions of both hole injection and hole transport, an electron transport layer, an electron injecting layer, and/or a functional layer having functions of both electron injection and electron transport (claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches wherein one or more of the layers are formed by a deposition or solution process (claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,493 further teaches wherein the organic light emitting device is used in a display or lighting system selected from flat panel displays, flexible displays, monochromatic flat panel lighting systems, white flat panel lighting systems, flexible monochromatic lighting systems, flexible white lighting systems, displays for automotive applications, displays for virtual reality, and displays for augmented reality (claim 10).
Claim 1-5 and 10-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 14-15, and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/715,729 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because,
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 18/715,729 teaches,
An organic light emitting device (claim 1, line 3) comprising a first electrode (claim 1, line 4), a second electrode (claim 1, line 5) opposite to the first electrode (facing the first electrode, claim 1, line 5), and one or more organic layers interposed between the first and second electrodes (first and second light emitting layer, claim 1, lines 6-7), wherein one of the organic layers is a light emitting layer (first and second light emitting layer, claim 1, lines 6-7), wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one host (claim 1, line 6-7) and at least one dopant ((claim 1, line 6-7), and wherein the host is a compound represented by Formula A:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound A-20 of claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/715,729 reads on Formula A
PNG
media_image13.png
212
198
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R1 to R8 and R10 to R13 are hydrogens, and R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
X is oxygen
Regarding claim 2, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches wherein R9 in Formula A is unsubstituted C6 aryl (Compound A-20 of claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/715,729 as depicted in paragraph 48 for claim 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches Compound A-29 of claim 14 that reads on all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and wherein R11 and R13 are unsubstituted C6 aryl
PNG
media_image14.png
239
168
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R1 to R10 and R12 are hydrogens
X is sulfur
Regarding claim 4, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches wherein the compound represented by Formula A is compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
226
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of the instant application (Compound A-20 from claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/715,729 as depicted in paragraph 48 for claim 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches wherein the organic layers comprise a hole injecting layer (claim 15, line 4), a hole transport layer (claim 15, line 4), an electron transport layer (claim 15, line 5), and an electron injecting layer (claim 15, line 6).
Regarding claim 10, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches wherein one or more of the layers are formed by a deposition or solution process (claim 21).
Regarding claim 11, copending Application No. 18/715,729 further teaches wherein the organic light emitting device is used in a display or lighting system selected from flat panel displays, flexible displays, monochromatic flat panel lighting systems, white flat panel lighting systems, flexible monochromatic lighting systems, flexible white lighting systems, displays for automotive applications, displays for virtual reality, and displays for augmented reality (claim 22).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights