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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “Figure 1” label needs to be removed. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: various structures throughout the specification are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 16 contain blurry structures and compounds.
Claim 1 recites “if existing to connect with the pyrene ring moiety, two or more moieties of Structural Formula A are same or different”. For ease of reading, it is recommended to replace this limitation with “if two or more moieties of Structural Formula A connect with the pyrene ring moiety, two or more moieties of Structural Formula A are the same or different”.
Claim 3 recites in lines 1-2 “wherein the substituent R1 is be a single bond linked to the linker L”. For ease of reading, it is recommended to replace this with “wherein the substituent R1 is [[be]] a single bond linked to the linker L”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the organic layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the variable “12r” in Chemical Formula D1 and D2 but fails to provide a definition for “12r”. Additionally, claim 16 recites a definition for “r12” but fails to include the variable “r12” in Chemical Formula D1 and D2. Accordingly, it is unclear whether “12r” and “r12” are the same, and if not the same, it is unclear what the definition of “12r” is and how to interpret “r12”. For purposes of examination, “12r” and “r12” will be interpreted as the same variable.
Claims 15 and 17 are further rejected for being dependent upon claim 14 and claim 16 is further rejected for being dependent upon claim 15.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 9, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagao (US 2010/0163852 A1), supporting information provided by Korvus Technology (Thin-Film Thermal Deposition Explained | Korvus Technology. 9 Mar. 2022. Accessed 19 Aug. 2026.)
Regarding claims 1-4, 9, 12-14, and 17, Nagao teaches a light emitting device having high efficiency and excellent chromatic purity and durability by including a pyrene compound represented by formula (1) (abstract). Examples of such devices include that of Example 18 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, an emissive layer containing a host material and a dopant material of Compound 61, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (¶ [0126]; Table 2 on pg. 37). Compound 61 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula A and Structural Formula A (see structure on pg. 15).
61:
PNG
media_image1.png
117
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A:
PNG
media_image2.png
194
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 61 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein:
R1 is a single bond linked to linker L in Structural Formula A and R2 to R9 are each hydrogen (claims 2-3);
The linker L is a single bond (claim 9);
n is 1; and
R11 is a single bond linked to the linker L and R12 to R16 are each hydrogen.
Per claim 4, Nagao alternatively teaches compound 156 which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula A in the same way as compound 61 above except wherein R1 and R6 are each a single bond linked to linker L in Structural Formula A, and R2 to R5 and R7 to R9 are each hydrogen (see structure on pg. 29).
Per claim 12, Nagao alternatively teaches compound 67 which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula A in the same way as compound 61 above except wherein R6 is an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms (see structure on pg. 16). Accordingly, compound 67 reads on the claimed compound 157.
Per claim 17, Nagao teaches the hole transporting layer is formed using a resistance heating evaporation method (¶ [0066] and [0127]). As evidenced by Korvus Technology, the resistance heating evaporation method is a deposition method (see first paragraph of pg. 1 and second to last paragraph of pg. 2).
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Meng (US 2011/0101310 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, and 12, Meng teaches an electroactive material having Formula I wherein examples thereof include Compound 21 (¶ [0008]; pg. 14). Compound 21 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula A and Structural Formula A.
21:
PNG
media_image3.png
144
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A:
PNG
media_image2.png
194
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 21 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein:
R1 and R6 are each a single bond linked to linker L in Structural Formula A, and R2 to R5 and R7 to R9 are each hydrogen (claims 2 and 4);
The linker L is a single bond (claim 9);
n is 1; and
R11 and R12 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms, R13 and R15 to R16 are each hydrogen, and R14 is a single bond linked to the linker L (claim 7).
Per claim 12, compound 21 is identical to the claimed compound 97.
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 7-8, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao (US 2010/0163852 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nagao teaches compound 61, as described above with respect to claim 1.
61:
PNG
media_image1.png
117
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 61 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein one of R13 to R16 within Structural Formula A is a single bond linked to the linker L.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound 61 wherein the pyrene is attached to the benzofuran group in the position corresponding to R13. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by Nagao’s formula (1) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the light emitting device of Nagao and possess the properties taught by Nagao. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Nagao teaches compound 61, as described above with respect to claim 1.
61:
PNG
media_image1.png
117
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 61 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R12 within Structural Formula A is a single bond linked to the linker L.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound 61 wherein the pyrene is attached to the benzofuran group in the position corresponding to R12. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by Nagao’s formula (1) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the light emitting device of Nagao and possess the properties taught by Nagao. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Regarding claim 15, Nagao teaches the device of Example 18 wherein compound 61 is used as a dopant in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 14.
Example 18 fails to include compound 61 as a host. However, Nagao does teach the pyrene compound represented by formula (1) may be used as the host material in the light emitting device (¶ [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 61 as a host material in the device of Example 18, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Nagao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a light emitting device with high efficiency and excellent chromatic purity and durability, as taught by Nagao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 18, Nagao teaches the device of Example 18, as described above with respect to claim 14.
Nagao fails to specifically teach the device of Example 18 is used in a flat panel display. However, Nagao does teach the light emitting device may be used in flat panel displays (¶ [0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Example 18 in a flat panel display, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Nagao according to known methods to yield predictable results of light emitting device having the benefits of high efficiency and excellent chromatic purity and durability, as taught by Nagao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao (US 2010/0163852 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Nagao teaches Compound 61, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 61 fails to include deuterium.
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime compared to their non-deuterated analogs (¶ [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate compound 61 to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
Regarding claim 6, Nagao in view of Fennimore teach the deuterated compound 61, as described above with respect to claim 5.
Nagao in view of Fennimore fail to specifically teach where deuterium atoms are provided on the deuterated compound 61.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate compound 61 such that at least the location corresponding to the claimed R3 is deuterium, because it would have been choosing a specific location of compound 61 in which to deuterate, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the device of Nagao and possessing the benefits taught by Fennimore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising deuterium having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao (US 2010/0163852 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nagao teaches the light emitting device including a light emitting layer comprising a dopant and compound 61 as a host material, as described above with respect to claim 15.
Nagao fails to teach a dopant that reads on one of the claimed Chemical Formulas D1 to D10.
Hatakeyama teaches an excellent organic EL element may be provided when a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) is used (¶ [0619]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of such organic EL elements including Example 16 which includes Compound (1-401) as a dopant in the light emitting layer (see Table 5 on pg. 184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) as the dopant in Nagao’s light emitting layer, and specifically Compound (1-401) as shown in Hatakeyama’s Example 16, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an excellent organic electronic device, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Compound (1-401) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula D3 (see Hatakeyama, pg. 37).
(1-401):
PNG
media_image4.png
129
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
D3:
PNG
media_image5.png
153
159
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-401) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula D3 wherein:
X1 is B;
T1 to T3 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms;
Y1 is N-R61 and Y2 is N-R66; and
R61 and R66 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 2011/0101310 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Meng teaches Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 21 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R6 is hydrogen. However, Meng teaches in the compound represented by Formula I, at least one of R2 through R10 is an aryl group, wherein the aryl group may be unsubstituted or further substituted by a unit represented by Formula I (¶ [0051]-[00052]). Meng teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I wherein R4 is an aryl group, and the aryl group is unsubstituted (for example, see Compound 1 on pg. 10) or the aryl group is substituted by a unit represented by Formula I (for example, see Compound 3 and Compound 21 on pgs. 10 and 14).
Therefore in Compound 21, given the general formula and teachings of Meng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second unit of Formula I
PNG
media_image3.png
144
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with hydrogen, because Meng teaches the aryl group of the compound represented by Formula I may suitably be unsubstituted or substituted with a unit represented by Formula I. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as an electroactive material of Meng. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified Compound 21 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R6 is hydrogen.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Meng teaches Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 21 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R12 is a single bond linked to the linker L. However, Meng teaches in the compound represented by Formula I, at least one of R2 through R10 is an aryl group, wherein the aryl group may be further substituted by a unit represented by Formula I (¶ [0051]-[00052]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Meng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 21 wherein each unit represented by Formula I is attached to the pyrene aryl group via R8 (which corresponds to the claimed R12). One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Meng’s Formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the electroactive material of Meng. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17, Meng teaches Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Meng fails to teach an example of a device comprising Compound 21. However, Meng does teach an organic electronic device including an anode, a hole transport layer, a photoactive layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the photoactive layer comprises a host and a dopant and the compound represented by Formula I is used as the host (¶ [0064] and [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 21 as a host in a photoactive layer of an organic electronic device having the structure described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Meng according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic electronic device, as taught by Meng. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per claim 17, Meng teaches the device layers may be formed by any deposition technique (¶ [0097]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 2011/0101310 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Meng teaches Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 21 fails to include deuterium.
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime compared to their non-deuterated analogs (¶ [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate Compound 21 to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
Regarding claim 6, Meng in view of Fennimore teach the deuterated Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 5.
Meng in view of Fennimore fail to specifically teach where deuterium atoms are provided on the deuterated Compound 21.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate Compound 21 such that at least the location corresponding to the claimed R3 is deuterium, because it would have been choosing a specific location of Compound 21 in which to deuterate, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electroactive material of Meng and possessing the benefits taught by Fennimore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising deuterium having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 2011/0101310 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Meng teaches an organic electronic device including a photoactive layer comprising a dopant and Compound 21 as a host, as described above with respect to claim 15.
Meng fails to teach a dopant that reads on one of the claimed Chemical Formulas D1 to D10. However, Meng does not limit the structure of the dopant.
Hatakeyama teaches an excellent organic EL element may be provided when a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) is used (¶ [0619]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of such organic EL elements including Example 16 which includes Compound (1-401) as a dopant in the light emitting layer (see Table 5 on pg. 184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) as the dopant in Meng’s photoactive layer, and specifically Compound (1-401) as shown in Hatakeyama’s Example 16, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an excellent organic electronic device, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Compound (1-401) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula D3 (see Hatakeyama, pg. 37).
(1-401):
PNG
media_image4.png
129
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
D3:
PNG
media_image5.png
153
159
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-401) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula D3 wherein:
X1 is B;
T1 to T3 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms;
Y1 is N-R61 and Y2 is N-R66; and
R61 and R66 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 18, Meng teaches an organic electronic device including a photoactive layer comprising a dopant and Compound 21, as described above with respect to claim 13.
Meng fails to specifically teach the organic electronic device is used for a flat panel display device. However, Meng teaches organic electronic devices may be used in displays (¶ [0005]).
Hatakeyama teaches organic electroluminescent elements may be used in a display apparatus, wherein examples thereof include color flat panel displays (¶ [0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic electronic device including Compound 21 in a color flat panel display, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Meng and Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic electronic device, as taught by Meng. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights