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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0046641, filed on 04/15/2022.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0041393, filed on 03/29/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake (US 2016/0372677 A1, hereafter “Miyake ‘677”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Miyake ‘677 teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode wherein at least one organic layer includes the monoamine derivative represented by Formula 1 [0026]. Additionally, Miyake ‘677 teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising the monoamine derivative results in an improved emission efficiency [0007]. Miyake ‘677 further teaches Compound 40 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
169
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1 is O,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group,
k1 and k2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
X1 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
n1 is 1,
FG is represented by Formula 2-1 wherein,
X2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
k3 is 0, so R3 is not present,
n2 is 2.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Compound 40 is represented by Formula 3-1 (shown below) wherein m1 and m2 are each 0, so R8 to R9 are not present, while R1, R2, Q1, FG, n1, k1, k2 are the same as defined in Formula 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
250
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
169
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, FG is represented by Formula 2-1 in Compound 40, wherein X1 and X2 are each an unsubstituted naphthyl group.
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.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (US 2019/0237676 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 04/14/2023, hereafter “Miyake”).
Regarding Claims 1–11 and 13-–19, Miyake discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 6 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0215]. The electron blocking layer comprises Compound 105 which nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula 1.
However, the dibenzothiophene of Compound 105 is connected to the amine in the 1-position instead of the 2-position, as required by Applicant’s Formula 1.
Compound 105 is represented by Miyake’s Formula 1 wherein the amine position to the dibenzothiophene is not specified [0004]. Miyake further teaches Compound 51 which is nearly identical to Compound 105 but the dibenzothiophene is connected to the amine in the 2-position. Additionally, Miyake teaches the monoamine compound has a high thermal resistance and electric charge resistance leading to an extended device lifetime [0128]
PNG
media_image4.png
189
305
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
269
312
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
243
316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Miyake, 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 105 wherein the dibenzothiophene is bonded to the amine in the 2-position instead of the 1-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1/the positional isomers of the compound represented by Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as an electron blocking material in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Miyake and possess the properties taught by Miyake. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Per Claims 1 and 13, the organic light emitting device of Example 6 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0215], wherein the electron blocking layer comprises Modified Compound 105 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified Compound 105 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1 is S,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group,
k1 and k2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
X1 is a naphthyl group substituted with an aryl group (phenyl),
n1 is 1,
FG is represented by Formula 2-1 wherein,
X2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
k3 is 0, so R3 is not present,
n2 is 1.
Per Claims 2 and 3, Example 6 includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron blocking layer comprises Modified Compound 105 [0215].
Per Claims 4 and 14, Formula 2-1 of Modified Compound 105 is represented by Formula 2-1a (shown below), wherein k3-1 is 0, so R3-1 is not present, while X2 and n2 are the same as defined in Formula 2-1.
PNG
media_image8.png
170
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 5 and 15, Modified Compound 105 does not comprise Formula 2-2, Therefore it reads on Applicant’s further limitation of Formula 2-2.
Per Claims 6 and 16, FG in Modified Compound 105 is represented by Formula FG-1 (shown below), wherein k3i is 0, so R3i is not present, while X2 is the same as defined in Formula 2-1.
PNG
media_image9.png
165
163
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 7 and 17, Modified Compound 105 is represented by Formula 3-1 (shown below) wherein m1 and m2 are each 0, so R8 to R9 are not present, while R1, R2, Q1, FG, n1, k1, k2 are the same as defined in Formula 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
250
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 8 and 18, Modified Compound 105 is represented by Formula 4-1 (shown below), wherein k2a and k3a are each 0, so R2a and R3a are not present, l1 is 1, while X1, X2, Q1, Ar1, R1, and k1 are the same as defined in Formula 1.
PNG
media_image10.png
313
316
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 9 and 19, FG is represented by Formula 2-1 in Modified Compound 105, wherein X1 is a naphthyl group substituted with an aryl group (phenyl), while X2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group.
Per Claim 10, X1 is represented by XS-1 wherein s1 is 1 and Rs1 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carb atoms (phenyl) in Modified Compound 105. X2 is represented by XS-1 wherein s1 is 0, so Rs1 is not present in Modified Compound 105.
PNG
media_image11.png
135
213
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, Example 6 comprises Compound BH which reads on Applicant’s Formula E-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image12.png
298
218
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
405
175
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R31 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom,
R39 and R40 are each aryl groups of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms which are combined to an adjacent group to form a naphthyl ring,
c and d are each 1.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, Modified Compound 105 is nearly identical to Applicant’s Compound 66 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
151
168
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Modified Compound 105 has a phenyl substituent off of one of the naphthyl groups, which appears to be an essential feature taught by Miyake.
Miyake also teaches Compound 83 and Compound 107 (shown below). Compound 83 nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, however one of the dibenzofuran groups needs to be substituted by a phenyl group, like in Compound 107. Additionally, Miyake teaches the monoamine compound has a high thermal resistance and electric charge resistance leading to an extended device lifetime [0128]
PNG
media_image15.png
325
296
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
277
341
media_image16.png
Greyscale
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 add a phenyl substituent to Compound 83, because it would have been choosing between the substituents of the exemplified compounds taught by Miyake, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electron blocking material in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Miyake and possessing the benefits taught by Miyake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Miyake in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified version of Compound 83 (hereafter “Modified Compound 83”) is identical to Applicant’s Compound 73 (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
278
205
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
372
334
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Claims 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (US 2019/0237676 A1) as applied to claims 1–20 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0091324 A1, hereafter “Jung”).
Miyake teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0215]. Miyake teaches the monoamine compound of present disclosure may be used as a material for a hole transport region to decrease the driving voltage of an organic electroluminescent device [0230].
However, Miyake does not an exemplified display device comprising a base layer, a circuit layer, and a display element comprising a light emitting element, as recited in claim 21.
Jung teaches the display device represented by Figure 14 (shown below), including a base substrate (BS), a circuit layer (DP-CL) on the BS, and a display device layer (DP-EL) wherein DP-EL comprises a light emitting diode (ED-a) [0188] – [0189]. The display device further comprises a light conversion layer (CCL) including a quantum dot composition [0192].
PNG
media_image19.png
733
537
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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 light emitting device of Miyake as ED-a in the display device of Jung, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Miyake and Jung according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with a decreased driving voltage, as taught by Miyake. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 21, the resulting display device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a base substrate, a circuit layer, and a display device layer comprising a light emitting diode which comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole transport region comprises Modified Compound 105 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
347
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1 is S,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group,
k1 and k2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
X1 is a naphthyl group substituted with an aryl group (phenyl),
n1 is 1,
FG is represented by Formula 2-1 wherein,
X2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
k3 is 0, so R3 is not present,
n2 is 1.
Per Claim 22, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a light conversion layer (CCL) including a quantum dot composition [0192].
Claims 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (US 2016/0372677 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0091324 A1).
Miyake ‘677 teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode wherein at least one organic layer includes the monoamine derivative represented by Formula 1 [0026]. Miyake ‘677 further teaches the organic layer including the monoamine derivative is selected from a hole injection layer or a hole transfer layer (hole transport region) [0030]. Additionally, Miyake ‘677 teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising the monoamine derivative results in an improved emission efficiency [0007]. Specifically, Miyake ‘677 teaches Compound 40.
However, Miyake ‘677 does not an exemplified display device comprising a base layer, a circuit layer, and a display element comprising a light emitting element, as recited in claim 21.
Jung teaches the display device represented by Figure 14 (shown below), including a base substrate (BS), a circuit layer (DP-CL) on the BS, and a display device layer (DP-EL) wherein DP-EL comprises a light emitting diode (ED-a) [0188] – [0189]. The display device further comprises a light conversion layer (CCL) including a quantum dot composition [0192].
PNG
media_image19.png
733
537
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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 light emitting device of Miyake ‘677 as ED-a in the display device of Jung, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Miyake ‘677 and Jung according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with an improved emission efficiency, as taught by Miyake ‘677. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 21, the resulting display device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a base substrate, a circuit layer, and a display device layer comprising a light emitting diode which comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole transport region comprises Compound 40 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
169
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1 is O,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group,
k1 and k2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
X1 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
n1 is 1,
FG is represented by Formula 2-1 wherein,
X2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group,
k3 is 0, so R3 is not present,
n2 is 2.
Per Claim 22, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a light conversion layer (CCL) including a quantum dot composition [0192].
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.
Claims 1, 4–8, 10, 13–18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 13 of copending Application No. 17/935,894 (reference application) (hereafter “Uno”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘894 recites an light emitting device comprising a species of the instant application.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, claim 1 of Uno recites “a light emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a plurality of functional layers between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one functional layer among the plurality of functional layers comprises an amine compound represented by Formula 1”. Claim 13 of Uno recites the amine compound may be Compound C126 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Q1 is S,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group,
k1 and k2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
X1 is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (dibenzofuran) substituted with an aryl group (phenyl),
n1 is 1,
FG is represented by Formula 2-2 wherein,
Q2 is S,
Z is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms,
k4 is 0, so R4 is not present.
Per Claims 4 and 14, Formula 2-1 of Compound C126 is represented by Formula 2-1a (shown below), wherein k3-1 is 0, so R3-1 is not present, while X2 and n2 are the same as defined in Formula 2-1.
PNG
media_image8.png
170
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 5 and 15, Formula 2-2 of Compound C126 is represented by Formula 2-2b (shown below), wherein Za is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, k4-1 is 0 so R4-1 is not present, and Q2 is the same as defined in Formula 2-2.
Per Claims 6 and 16, FG in Compound C126 is represented by Formula FG-5 (shown below), wherein k4i and k4ii are each 0, so R4i and R4ii are not present, Q2 is the same as defined in Formula 2-2.
PNG
media_image21.png
127
254
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 7 and 17, Compound C126 is represented by Formula 3-1 (shown below) wherein m1 and m3 are each 0, so R8 to R10 are not present, while R1, R2, Q1, FG, n1, k1, k2 are the same as defined in Formula 1.
PNG
media_image22.png
227
379
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 8 and 18, Compound C126 is represented by Formula 4-1 (shown below), wherein k2a and k4a are each 0, so R2a and R4a are not present, l1 is 1, while X1, Q1, Q2, Ar1, R1, and k1 are the same as defined in Formula 1.
PNG
media_image23.png
282
344
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, X1 is represented by XS-2 wherein s1 is 1 and Rs1 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carb atoms (phenyl) Compound C126.
PNG
media_image24.png
124
209
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
275
328
media_image20.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyake et al. (US 2016/0093810 A1, hereafter “Miyake ‘810”) teaches compounds which nearly read on Applicant’s Formula 1, such as Compound 1 (shown below). However, Compound 1 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 because it does not have a phenyl substituent off of one of the dibenzofurans. Miyake ‘810 also teaches Compound 2 which has a phenyl substituent off of one of the dibenzofurans. Therefore, Compound 1 may be reasonably modified to add a phenyl substituent off of one of the dibenzofurans.
PNG
media_image25.png
305
182
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
369
280
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights