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 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 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, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada et al. (US 2010/0171111 A1, hereafter Takada) as evidenced by Mori et al. (“Electroluminescent Properties of Organic Light-Emitting Diodes with Blue-emitting Alq”, J. Photopolymer Sci. and Tech., 2004, vol. 17, page 301-306, hereafter Mori).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9, Takada discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting diode ([0009]-[0014]) and exemplifies Compound 2 ([0305]).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The tetradentate ligand of the Compound 2 of Takada has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1).
Takada discloses an organic light emitting diode (Inventive device 1-2 in [0319]-[0322] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPD), a light emitting layer (Compound 2 as a dopant and Compound H-1 as a host), an electron transport layer (BAlq), and a cathode (Al).
In the OLED device, the light emitting layer is equated with a semiconductor layer because the materials of the layer are organic semiconductors. Furthermore, the light emitting layer is capable of transporting holes because the Compound H-1 of Takada is a host material having a hole transporting property; thus, the light emitting layer is a hole transport layer.
The electron transport layer consisting of BAlq is equated with a photoactive layer, because BAlq inherently possesses a non-zero photon absorption activity under visible light (i.e. at least the light having a wavelength over 500 nm, see Fig. 3) as evidenced by Mori. For instance, BAlq is photoactive when the OLED device is operated in a daylight environment. The compound BAlq can even absorb the light emitted from the phosphorescent emitter of the OLED device. Thus, the BAlq layer should be a photoactive layer.
The Organic light emitting diode of Takada is equated with an organic electronic device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPD), a hole transport layer (Compound 2 and Compound H-1), a photoactive layer (BAlq), and a cathode (Al), wherein the hole transport layer is a semiconductor layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9.
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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2010/0171111 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Takada discloses an organic light emitting diode (Inventive device 1-2 in [0319]-[0322] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPD), a light emitting layer (Compound 2 as a dopant and Compound H-1 as a host), an electron transport layer (BAlq), and a cathode (Al).
The organic light emitting diode of Takada reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. The diode is equated with an organic electronic device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPD), a hole transport layer (Compound 2 and Compound H-1), a photoactive layer (BAlq), and a cathode (Al), wherein the hole transport layer is a semiconductor layer.
Takada does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting diode of Takada; however, Takada does teach that the organic light emitting diode of Takada can be incorporated in a display device ([0268]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting diode of Takada by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Takada.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting diodes in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display device comprising the Organic light emitting diode of Takada.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al. (JP 2014/096290 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Egashira).
Regarding claims 11-14, Egashira discloses a sodium second battery containing sodium salt and ionic liquid ([0020], [0021]).
Egashira teaches that amide anion can be included in the ionic liquid, wherein the amide anion is represented by Formula (1) ([0023]-[0027]) and exemplifies Formula (3) ([0028]).
PNG
media_image2.png
226
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the structure “O=” enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above should be a typographic error and should not exist, since the general Formula (1) of Egashira teaches that R2 can be SO2 or CO. There is no option to select CO2 at the position R2.
The sodium battery including sodium salt and the amide anion of Formula (3) of Egashira has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound B-6,
PNG
media_image3.png
79
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of claim 14. The only difference is the CF3 groups at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 are required to be each a C4F9 group; however, Egashira does teach that R1 and R3 can be identically an alkyl group having four carbon atoms, preferably perfluoroalkyl group ([0025]-[0026]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ionic liquid of Egashira by incorporating sodium salt and an amide anion of Formula (1), wherein R1 and R3 are each C4F9 and R2 is C=O, as taught by Egashira.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of CF3 groups of Formula (3) with C4F9 group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of the C4F9 groups at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified ionic liquid of Egashira comprising a mixture of sodium salt and the amide represented by Formula (1) of Egashira, wherein R1 and R3 are each C4F9 and R2 is C=O. The ionic liquid necessarily forms Applicant’s Compound B-6,
PNG
media_image3.png
79
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
via an ion exchange process.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0229024 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claim 15, Hatakeyama discloses a composition including an ionic material, wherein the ionic material can be an alkali metal salt (Li, Na, K, or Ca) of amide represented by Formula (1): [R1-C(=O)-N--SO2-Rf1]nMn+ ([0017]-[0018]) and exemplifies the following formulas ([0061]; the 3rd formula on page 13, hereafter Formula A; the first formula on page 11, hereafter Formula B).
PNG
media_image4.png
262
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Formula A of Hatakeyama has similar structure as the ligand of Applicant’s Formula (5). The only difference is that the fluoro groups substituted to the phenyl ring are required to be CF3 groups; however, Hatakeyama does teach that R1 can be a cyclic monovalent hydrocarbon group of 6 carbon atoms (i.e. phenyl) substituted by a heteroatom or mediated by a heteroatom ([0019]). Hatakeyama exemplifies CF3 group as the substituent of the phenyl group (see Formula B above).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ionic material by incorporating an alkali metal salt selected from Li, Na, K, and Ca and an amide represented by Formula (1), wherein the Formula (1) has identical structure as the Formula A above except all the F atoms are substituted by CF3 groups, as taught by Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of F with CF3 groups in the Formula (1) of Hatakeyama would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of exemplified substituents for the phenyl group at R1. The selection of the CF3 group would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified compound of Hatakeyama.
PNG
media_image5.png
198
722
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiyuki et al. (JP 2002/246179 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Yoshiyuki).
Regarding claims 11-12, Yoshiyuki discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a metal complex having a ligand of Formula (1) or a metal complex having a deprotonated anion of the ligand represented by Formula (1) ([0009]), wherein A1 and A2 can be Formulae (2) and (3) (claim 1). Yoshiyuki exemplifies Compound 17-M-2 ([0117]).
PNG
media_image6.png
348
573
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula (3). The only difference between the compound and the Formula (3) is that the perfluoro ethyl groups at the positions R1 and R3 of the Formulae of Yoshiyuki are required to be unsubstituted phenyl; however, Yoshiyuki does teach R1 and R3 can be each unsubstituted phenyl ([0045] and see examples including at least 1-15
PNG
media_image7.png
136
305
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in [0116]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki by substituting the perfluoro ethyl groups with unsubstituted phenyl groups (or substituting the ligand at the position corresponding to Formula (1) with the ligand 1-15 of Yoshiyuki), as taught by Yoshiyuki.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of perfluoro ethyl with unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of the ligand 1-15 as the ligand of Formula (1) would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (1).
PNG
media_image8.png
224
545
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound satisfies the last condition of claim 12.
PNG
media_image9.png
266
638
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Yoshiyuki discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a metal complex having a ligand of Formula (1) or a metal complex having a deprotonated anion of the ligand represented by Formula (1) ([0009]), wherein A1 and A2 can be Formulae (2) and (3) (claim 1). Yoshiyuki exemplifies Compound 17-M-2 ([0117]).
In the Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki, the metal is not Na; however, Yoshiyuki does teach that M can be alkali metal ([0010]). There are only 6 alkali metals including Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki by substituting the Cs atom with a Na atom, as taught by Yoshiyuki.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of alkali metal M from Cs to Na would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of alkali metals including Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr. The selection of Na as the alkali metal of the compound of Yoshiyuki would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2).
PNG
media_image10.png
158
549
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2) has similar structure as the compound of claim 13. The only difference is that the perfluoro ethyl groups at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 of Formulae of Yoshiyuki are required to be perfluoro propyl group. However, Yoshiyuki does teach that the substituents R1 and R3 can be each perfluoro propyl group ([0045]).
Furthermore, the Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2) is a homolog – a compound differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, in the present instance, -CF2-, of a compound in which each of the perfluoro ethyl groups are substituted by a perfluoro propyl group.
With respect to homologs, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2) such that the perfluoro ethyl groups at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 are each substituted by a perfluoro propyl group. A compound comprising perfluoro propyl groups at the positions corresponding to R1 and R3 would be a homolog of Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (2) having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Yoshiyuki (3).
PNG
media_image11.png
162
547
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiyuki et al. (JP 2002/246179 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10, Yoshiyuki discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a metal complex having a ligand of Formula (1) or a metal complex having a deprotonated anion of the ligand represented by Formula (1) ([0009]), wherein A1 and A2 can be Formulae (2) and (3) (claim 1). Yoshiyuki exemplifies Compound 17-M-2 ([0117]).
PNG
media_image6.png
348
573
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The ligand of the Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) of the instant claims.
Yoshiyuki does not disclose a specific organic light emitting diode comprising the Compound 17-M-2; however, Yoshiyuki does teach the compound of Formula (1) of Yoshiyuki can be used as the electron injecting layer material of an organic light emitting diode ([0009], [0038]).
Yoshiyuki teaches the structure of an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, an electron injecting layer (Compound 9-M-1), and a cathode ([0181]-[0183]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki by incorporating it into the electron injecting layer of an organic light emitting diode, as taught by Yoshiyuki.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the electron injecting layer materials of Yoshiyuki in the device of Yoshiyuki would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Yoshiyuki comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, an electron injecting layer (Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki), and a cathode.
The device is not a white light emitting device because the light emitting layer has a single emitting dopant.
Liao discloses a white light emitting device ([0033] and Fig. 7).
Liao teaches that the device can be formed by stacking organic electroluminescence (EL) units disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein each EL unit comprises organic layers including blue, green, or red emitting layer (Fig. 7, Examples in [0234]-[0262]).
Liao teaches the white light emitting device provides improved efficiency and lifetime ([0072]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Yoshiyuki by stacking the organic layers between the anode and the cathode, and incorporating red, green, and blue emitting dopants in the light emitting layer of each of the EL units, as taught by Yoshiyuki and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device having improved efficiency and lifetime, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Yoshiyuki as modified by Liao comprising an anode, a blue light emitting layer, an electron injecting layer (Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki), a charge generation layer (CGL), a green light emitting layer, an electron injecting layer (Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki), CGL, a red light emitting layer, an electron injecting layer (Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki), and a cathode.
The device is equated with Organic light emitting diode of Yoshiyuki as modified by Liao comprising an anode, a semiconductor layer (electron injecting layer comprising Compound 17-M-2 of Yoshiyuki), a photoactive layer (green light emitting layer), and a cathode, wherein the organic light emitting diode is an organic electronic device, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7.
Yoshiyuki and Liao does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting diode of Yoshiyuki as modified by Liao.
Liao teaches that the organic light emitting diode can be incorporated in a display device such as cell phone or television ([0070]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting diode of Yoshiyuki as modified by Liao by incorporating it into a display device such as a cell phone or television, as taught by Yoshiyuki and Liao.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The Substitution of organic light emitting diodes in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display device comprising the Organic light emitting diode of Yoshiyuki as modified by Liao, meeting all the limitations of claims 10.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 28 and 41 of copending Application No. 18/567,087 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘087). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-15, Application ‘087 discloses a display device (“active-matrix OLED display”) comprising an anode, a common hole injection layer, an emission layer, and a cathode, wherein the common hole injection layer comprises one hole injection metal compound (claim 28)
Application teaches the hole injection metal compound can be Compound E14 or E20 (claim 41).
PNG
media_image12.png
241
586
media_image12.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display device by incorporating Compound E14 (or E20) as the hole injection metal compound, as taught by Application ‘087.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The Substitution of hole injection metal compounds in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified display device comprising an anode, a common hole injection layer, an emission layer, and a cathode, wherein the common hole injection layer comprises Compound E14 (or E20), wherein combination of the anode, the common hole injection layer, the emission layer, and the cathode is an organic electronic device, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-10.
The Compound E14 has identical structure as Formula (3), meeting all the limitations of claims 11-14.
The Compound E20 has identical structure as Formula (5) , meeting all the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights