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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A of Fig. 7, claims 1-9 and 12-18, in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 12-18 are presented for examination.
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. KR10-2022-0190404, filed on 12/30/2022.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2024/0023430, Filed: May 3, 2023, Foreign Priority: May 13, 2022 (KR); hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses for a display device comprising that
a first sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-3, Fig. 2) including a 1-1 hole transport layer (hole transport layer HTL2, Fig. 6), a 1-2 hole transport layer (hole transport layer HTL3, Fig. 6) disposed on the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-3 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 6, and a first organic light-emitting layer (emission layer EML, Fig. 6) disposed on the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6). Examiner notes that because Applicants do not specifically claim what the 1-1 and 1-2 hole transport layers are made of and/or whether the first sub light-emitting element includes only two HTLs or more than two HTLs, the HTL2 and HTL3 of Oh’s Fig. 6 can be selected as 1-1 and 1-2 hole transport layers in the claimed invention, respectively;
a second sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-2, Fig. 2) including a 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), a 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4) disposed on the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-2 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 4, and a second organic light-emitting layer (EML, Fig. 4) disposed on the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4); and
a third sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-1, Fig. 2) including a 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), a 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4) disposed on the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-1 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 4, and a third organic light-emitting layer (EML, Fig. 4) disposed on the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4),
wherein a refractive index of the 1-1 hole transport layer (refractive index of HTL2 in Fig. 6) is greater than a refractive index of the 1-2 hole transport layer (refractive index of HTL3 in Fig. 6), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the third hole transport layer HTL3 (hereinafter, a third refractive index) may be smaller than the second refractive index” ([0134]) and since the second refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 ([0130]), therefore, the refractive index of HTL2 (claimed 1-1 HTL) is greater than the refractive index of HTL3 (claimed 1-2 HTL), and
a refractive index of the 2-1 hole transport layer (refractive index of HTL1 in Fig. 4) is less than a refractive index of the 2-2 hole transport layer (refractive index of HTL2 in Fig. 4), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]) and since the first refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the first hole transport layer HTL1 ([0123]), therefore, the refractive index of HTL1 (claimed 2-1 HTL) is less than the refractive index of HTL2 (claimed 2-2 HTL).
Regarding claim 2, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that the refractive index of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2 in Fig. 6) is greater than the refractive index of the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1 in Fig. 4), because “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]); and
the refractive index of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3 in Fig. 6) is less than the refractive index of the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2 in Fig. 4), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the third hole transport layer HTL3 (hereinafter, a third refractive index) may be smaller than the second refractive index” ([0134]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that a refractive index of the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1 in Fig. 4) is less than a refractive index of the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2 in Fig. 4), because “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]), therefore, the refractive index of HTL1 is less than the refractive index of HTL2.
Regarding claim 4, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that the first organic light-emitting layer (EML-B of ED-3, Fig. 2) is configured to emit light in a blue wavelength range (EML-Blue), the second organic light-emitting layer (EML-G of ED-2, Fig. 2) is configured to emit light in a green wavelength range (EML-Green), and the third organic light-emitting layer (EML-R of ED-1, Fig. 2) is configured to emit light in a red wavelength range (EML-Red).
Regarding claim 7, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that the refractive index of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2 in Fig. 6) is greater than a refractive index of the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1 in Fig. 4), because “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]); and
the refractive index of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3 in Fig. 6) is less than a refractive index of the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2 in Fig. 4), “the refractive index of the third hole transport layer HTL3 (hereinafter, a third refractive index) may be smaller than the second refractive index” ([0134]) and the second refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 ([0130]).
Regarding claim 8, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that the refractive indices of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6), the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), and the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4) are the same, because the second hole transport layer HTL2 can be selected for the claimed 1-1, 2-2 and 3-2 hole transport layers, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Oh further discloses for the display device of claim 1 that the refractive indices of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6), the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), and the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4) are the same, because “the refractive index of the first hole transport layer HTL1 (hereinafter, a first refractive index) may be about 1.4 to about 1.75. For example, the first refractive index may be about 1.5 to 1.75, and for example, may be about 1.7” ([0123]) and “the third refractive index may be about 1.4 to about 1.75. For example, the refractive index of the third hole transport layer may be 1.7” ([0134]), therefore, the refractive indices of HTL1 and HTL3 by Oh can be the same.
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 5-6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Oh et al. (US 2024/0023430, Filed: May 3, 2023, Foreign Priority: May 13, 2022 (KR); hereinafter Oh) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0407028, hereinafter Lee). The teachings of Oh are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Oh does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the 1-2 hole transport layer is greater than a thickness of the 1-1 hole transport layer.
However, Lee discloses for a light emitting diode and display device that the light emitting diode structure includes multiple layers of the hole transport layer (HTL1/HTL2/HTL3, Fig. 5) and Lee further discloses that “the thickness ratio (D1:D3:D2) of the first to third hole transport layers HTL1, HTL3, and HTL2 included in the hole transport region HTR may be range of about 0.1:0.8:0.1 to about 0.45:0.1:0.45” ([0120]) and “the thickness ratio (D1:D3:D2) of the first to third hole transport layers HTL1, HTL3, and HTL2 may be controlled to an optimum range according to the wavelength region of light emitted from the emission layer EML, display quality required for the display device DD (FIG. 2), and the type of the hole transport materials used in each of the hole transport layers HTL1, HTL2, and HTL3 of the hole transport region HTR” (emphasis added, [0120]). Lee recognizes that the thickness of hole transport layers impacts a light emitted from the emission layer and quality of display device. The thickness of hole transport layers is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, thicknesses of hole transport layers as Lee has identified the thicknesses as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the 1-2 hole transport layer greater than a thickness of the 1-1 hole transport layer, in order to achieve the desired emission characteristics of the light emitting device, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ion dosage is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the claimed thickness relationship).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses that a thickness of the 2-2 hole transport layer is greater than a thickness of the 2-1 hole transport layer, as the same reason discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 12, Oh does not explicitly disclose that a hole mobility of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6) is lower than a hole mobility of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6).
However, Oh further discloses that “the first hole transport layer HTL1 having the first refractive index and having a conductivity of about 6.0x10-5 cm/(V·s) to about 10.0x10-4 cm/(V·s) and the second hole transport layer HTL2 having the second refractive index greater than the first refractive index, and thus, may have excellent or improved hole mobility and improved electrical characteristics” (emphasis added, [0152]) and “the third hole transport layer HTL3 and the fourth hole transport layer HTL4, each of which has a conductivity of about 6.0x10-5 cm/(V·s) to about 10.0x10-4 cm/(V·s)…” ([0152]), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the second hole transport layer HTL2 by Oh, which corresponds to the 1-1 hole transport layer in the claimed invention, exhibits improved hole mobility compared to the first and third hole transport layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose lower hole transport layer having higher hole mobility and greater refractive index than upper hole transport layer, as disclosed by Oh, in order to optimize optical and electrical characteristics of the organic light-emitting diode device.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chae et al. (US 2021/0143231, hereinafter Chae) in view of Oh et al. (US 2024/0023430, Filed: May 3, 2023, Foreign Priority: May 13, 2022 (KR); hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 13, Chae discloses for a display device comprising that
a first display region (first display area DA1, Fig. 5) where a plurality of first pixels (a plurality of main subpixels group of Pm1/Pm2/Pm3, Fig. 5) are disposed; and
a second display region (second display area DA2, Fig. 5) including a pixel region (single pixel group Pg, Fig. 5) where a plurality of second pixels (a plurality of auxiliary subpixels group of Pa1/Pa2/Pa3, Fig. 5) are disposed, and a plurality of light transmission regions (a plurality of transmission portions TA, Fig. 5) disposed between the plurality of second pixels (a plurality of group of Pa1/Pa2/Pa3, Fig. 5),
wherein a number of the plurality of second pixels (the plurality of group of Pa1/Pa2/Pa3, Fig. 5) per unit area (basic unit U, Fig. 5) is less than a number of the plurality of first pixels (the plurality of group of Pm1/Pm2/Pm3, Fig. 4) per unit area (basic unit U’, Fig. 5), because the second display area DA2 by Chae includes the light transmission portions TA per unit area U, the number of the plurality of auxiliary subpixels group in DA2 is less than the number of the plurality of the main subpixels group in DA1 (Fig. 5),
the plurality of first pixels (the plurality of group of Pm1/Pm2/Pm3 in DA1, Fig. 4) include a first organic light-emitting element (OLED in DA1, Fig. 6),
the plurality of second pixels (the plurality of group of Pa1/Pa2/Pa3 in DA2, Fig. 4) include a second organic light-emitting element (OLED’, Fig. 6).
Chae does not explicitly disclose that a refractive index of a hole transport layer of the first organic light-emitting element is different from a refractive index of at least one hole transport layer of the second organic light-emitting element.
However, Oh discloses the light emitting elements ED-1 (Red), ED-2 (Green) and ED-3 (Blue) (Fig. 2) and teaches that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, each light emitting element can adopt any of the light emitting element structures drawn in Figs. 3-9; for example, ED-3 (Blue) may include multiple hole transport layers HTL1, HTL2 and HTL3 (Fig. 6), while ED-2 (Green) may include hole transport layers HTL1 and HTL2 (Fig. 4), and in this arrangement, ED-3 and ED-2 correspond to the first and second organic light-emitting element in the claimed invention, respectively; and Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]) and the first refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the first hole transport layer HTL1 ([0123]), therefore, Oh teaches the refractive index of HTL1 is different from the refractive index of HTL2. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the light-emitting element of Chae can adopt the structure of light-emitting element disclosed by Oh, to optimize and improve optical characteristics of OLED device.
Since both Chae and Oh teach a light emitting element of OLED display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multilayer HTL structures disclosed by Oh into the OLED element of Chae, including HTLs with different refractive indices, in order to improve optical performance and overall display device efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Chae further discloses that the hole transport layer (hole transport layer HTL in first functional layer 222a, Fig. 6, [0159]) of the first organic light-emitting element (OLED in DA1, Fig. 6) has a constant refractive index in a thickness direction, because “the first functional layer 22a may include (e.g., may be) a hole transport layer (HTL) that is a single layer” (emphasis added, [0159]), therefore, a single hole transport layer would have a constant refractive index in a thickness direction; and
Chae does not explicitly disclose that the hole transport layer of the second organic light-emitting element has a section in which a refractive index changes in the thickness direction.
However, Oh teaches that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, when an organic light-emitting element of Chae adopts multi-layers of HTLs drawn in Fig. 4 of Oh, the composite layer of HTL1/HTL2 by Oh can correspond to the claimed hole transport layer of the second organic light-emitting element, and the refractive index of the composite layer of HTL1/HTL2 would change in the thickness direction (i.e., vertical direction, Fig. 4), because the refractive index of HTL2 is greater than that of HTL1.
Since both Chae and Oh teach a light-emitting element of the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multilayer HTL structures disclosed by Oh into the OLED element of Chae, including HTLs with different refractive indices, in order to improve optical performance and overall display device efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Oh further discloses that the second organic light-emitting element (Fig. 2) includes:
a first sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-3, Fig. 2) including a 1-1 hole transport layer (hole transport layer HTL2, Fig. 6), a 1-2 hole transport layer (hole transport layer HTL3, Fig. 6) disposed on the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6), and a first organic light-emitting layer (emission layer EML, Fig. 6) disposed on the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-3 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 6;
a second sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-2, Fig. 2) including a 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), a 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4) disposed on the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), and a second organic light-emitting layer (EML, Fig. 4) disposed on the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-2 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 4; and
a third sub light-emitting element (light-emitting element ED-1, Fig. 2) including a 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), a 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4) disposed on the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), and a third organic light-emitting layer (EML, Fig. 4) disposed on the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), because Oh discloses that “each of the light emitting elements ED-1, ED-2, ED-3 may have a structure of a light emitting element ED of one or more embodiments according to FIGS. 3 to 9…” ([0098]), therefore, the light emitting element ED-1 in Fig. 2 can adopt the light emitting element structure drawn in Fig. 4,
wherein a refractive index of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6) is greater than a refractive index of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the third hole transport layer HTL3 (hereinafter, a third refractive index) may be smaller than the second refractive index” ([0134]) and since the second refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 ([0130]), therefore, the refractive index of HTL2 (claimed 1-1 HTL) is greater than the refractive index of HTL3 (claimed 1-2 HTL), and
a refractive index of the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4) is less than a refractive index of the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]) and since the first refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the first hole transport layer HTL1 ([0123]), therefore, the refractive index of HTL1 (claimed 2-1 HTL) is less than the refractive index of HTL2 (claimed 2-2 HTL).
Regarding claim 16, Oh further discloses that the refractive index of the 1-1 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 6) is greater than the refractive index of the 2-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4), because “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]); and
the refractive index of the 1-2 hole transport layer (HTL3, Fig. 6) is less than the refractive index of the 2-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), because Oh further discloses that “the refractive index of the third hole transport layer HTL3 (hereinafter, a third refractive index) may be smaller than the second refractive index” ([0134]).
Regarding claim 17, Oh further discloses that a refractive index of the 3-1 hole transport layer (HTL1, Fig. 4) is less than a refractive index of the 3-2 hole transport layer (HTL2, Fig. 4), because “the refractive index of the second hole transport layer HTL2 (hereinafter, a second refractive index) is larger than the first refractive index” ([0130]), and the first refractive index by Oh refers to the refractive index of the first hole transport layer HTL1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chae et al. (US 2021/0143231, hereinafter Chae) in view of Oh et al. (US 2024/0023430, Filed: May 3, 2023, Foreign Priority: May 13, 2022 (KR); hereinafter Oh) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0407028, hereinafter Lee). The teachings of Chae in view of Oh are discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Chae in view of Oh does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the 1-2 hole transport layer is greater than a thickness of the 1-1 hole transport layer, and wherein a thickness of the 2-2 hole transport layer is greater than a thickness of the 2-1 hole transport layer.
However, Lee discloses for a light emitting diode and display device that the light emitting diode structure includes multiple layers of the hole transport layer (HTL1/HTL2/HTL3, Fig. 5) and Lee further discloses that “the thickness ratio (D1:D3:D2) of the first to third hole transport layers HTL1, HTL3, and HTL2 included in the hole transport region HTR may be range of about 0.1:0.8:0.1 to about 0.45:0.1:0.45” (emphasis added, [0120]) and “the thickness ratio (D1:D3:D2) of the first to third hole transport layers HTL1, HTL3, and HTL2 may be controlled to an optimum range according to the wavelength region of light emitted from the emission layer EML, display quality required for the display device DD (FIG. 2), and the type of the hole transport materials used in each of the hole transport layers HTL1, HTL2, and HTL3 of the hole transport region HTR” (emphasis added, [0120]). Lee recognizes that the thickness of hole transport layers impacts a light emitted from the emission layer and quality of display device. The thickness of hole transport layers is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, thicknesses of hole transport layers as Lee has identified the thicknesses as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the 1-2 hole transport layer greater than a thickness of the 1-1 hole transport layer, while a thickness of the 2-2 hole transport layer greater than a thickness of the 2-1 hole transport layer, in order to achieve the desired emission characteristics of the light emitting device, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ion dosage is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the claimed thickness relationship).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights