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 .
Summary of Claims
Claim 1 is amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 02/27/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 02/27/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 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 as set forth in paragraph 26 of the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 16 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 as set forth in paragraph 27 of the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shingo (English translation of WO 2013/161515 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo in view of Park (US 2016/0308137 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8-10, 12-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo in view of Jeong and Cok (US 2004/0080267 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 of the reply dated 02/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 13-14, Applicant argues the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner's response –Claim 16 recites “wherein the fourth host is of Formula 2”. While claim 16 further recites a general structure, this structure is not labeled and thus it is unclear if the structure recited in claim 16 is the Formula 2 or if Formula 2 has a different structure. Additionally, given that the period of claim 16 is provided before the recited structure, this makes it further unclear whether the structure recited in claim 16 is the Formula 2. Given that none of claims 1, 8, and 12-14 (of which claim 16 is dependent upon) recite a structure of Formula 2, it is unclear what the structure of the fourth host is required to be. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has not been overcome and the rejection is maintained.
It should be noted that even if the structure recited in claim 16 is the Formula 2, claim 16 does not define the variables present in the structure (i.e., X21 to X23, L21 to L23, etc.). Accordingly, even if the structure provided in claim 16 was labeled as “Formula 2”, it would still be unclear what the structure of the fourth host is required to be.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-16 of the reply dated 02/27/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 fails to include a period after the formula.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the fourth host is of Formula 2. However, none of claims 1, 8, and 12-14 (of which claim 16 is dependent upon) recite a structure of Formula 2. Accordingly, it is unclear what the structure of the fourth host is required to be. The instant specification recites Formula 2 in ¶ [0101]-[0112]. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, Formula 2 will be interpreted as described in ¶ [0101]-[0112] of the instant specification.
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, 3, 5-9, 11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1), as evidenced by US 2014/0042469 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 17-18, Seo teaches a light-emitting element having high external quantum efficiency and lifetime by including a light emitting layer containing at least a first organic compound having an electron-transport property and a second organic compound having a hole-transport property, wherein the light-emitting layer includes a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer (abstract). Examples of such elements include light-emitting element 4 which includes an anode (first electrode), a hole-injection layer, a hole-transport layer, a first light emitting layer (first emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (first host) and PCBNBB (third host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac) (first dopant), a second light emitting layer (second emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (fourth host) and PCBNBB (second host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac) (second dopant), an electron-transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (second electrode) (¶ [0313]-[0321]; Table 7).
2mDBTBPDPq-II (first host) has a triplet energy of 2.41 eV and PCBNBB (second host) has a triplet energy of 2.21 eV (see Table 7 of US 2014/0042469 A1 on pg. 28). Accordingly, Condition 1 and the limitation of claim 3 are satisfied.
The structure of 2mDBTBPDBq-II is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 25).
2mDBTBPDBq-II:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
210
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2mDBTBPDBq-II reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X11 is S;
R11 to R17 are each hydrogen, and R18 is a C12 carbocyclic group substituted with one R10a; and
R10a is a C16 heterocyclic group.
The structure of PCBNBB is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 25).
PCBNBB:
PNG
media_image3.png
327
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
210
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PCBNBB reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X11 is N(R19);
R11 to R15, R17, and R18 are each hydrogen, R16 is a *-(L11)a11-(A11)b11, and R19 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group;
L11 is a π electron-rich C6 cyclic group of benzene (see instant ¶ [0327] and [0329]);
a11 and b11 are each 1;
A11 is -N(Ar5)(Ar6);
Ar5 and Ar6 are each a π electron-rich C6 cyclic group of benzene substituted with R20a; and
R20a is a π electron-rich C6 cyclic group of naphthalene (see instant ¶ [0327] and [0329]).
The anode alternatively reads on the claimed second electrode and the cathode alternatively reads on the claimed first electrode (claim 6).
As shown by the structures above, 2mDBTBPDBq-II does not comprise pyrene and PCBNBB does not comprise anthracene (claim 11).
The dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac) is a phosphorescent emitter (¶ [0328]) (claim 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Sasabe (Sasabe, Hisahiro, et al. "3, 3'-Bicarbazole-based host materials for high-efficiency blue phosphorescent OLEDs with extremely low driving voltage." Advanced Materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) 24.24 (2012): 3212-3217.)
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 12-14, Seo teaches the light emitting element 4 including a first light emitting layer (first emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (first host) and PCBNBB (third host), and a second light emitting layer (second emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (fourth host) and PCBNBB (second host), as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8.
As discussed above, none of the hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II or PCBNBB have a triplet energy level of 3.0 eV or above. However, Seo does teach the organic compound having high hole-transport property (i.e, the second organic compound) may be PCBNBB or may be a carbazole derivative, among others (¶ [0146] and [0151]).
Sasabe teaches high-performance OLEDs by using carbazole derivatives as host materials, as these materials show superior performance and may provide a device with reduced driving voltage (first and second paragraph on pg. 3212). Sasabe teaches specific carbazole derivatives based on bicarbazole (BCz derivatives), which obtain enhanced hole-injection (last paragraph of pg. 3212). Examples of BCz derivatives include BCzPh (Figure 1 on pg. 3213). Sasabe teaches an OLED comprising BCzPh as a host showed extremely reduced operating voltage (last paragraph of pg. 3214). Additionally, as shown in Table 3, the OLED comprising BCzPh obtained the highest external quantum efficiency compared to other BCz derivatives (see pg. 3215).
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 substitute PCBNBB with BCzPh in the first light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Sasabe. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with extremely reduced operating voltage and improved external quantum efficiency, as taught by Sasabe.
The modified light emitting element 4 includes the following structure and reads on the claimed limitations in the following way: a first light emitting layer (first emission layer) including hosts of BCzPh (first host) and 2mDBTBPDBq-II (third host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac), a second light emitting layer (second emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (fourth host) and PCBNBB (second host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac).
BCzPh (first host) has a triplet energy of 3.02 eV and PCBNBB (second host) has a triplet energy of 2.21 eV (see Sasabe, Table 1 on pg. 3213; see Table 7 of US 2014/0042469 A1 on pg. 28). Accordingly, the limitations of Condition 1 and claim 2 are met.
The structure of BCzPh is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 25).
BCzPh:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
261
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
210
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BCzPh reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X11 is N(R19); and
R11 to R15, R17, and R18 are each hydrogen, and R16 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group of carbazole.
Per claim 12, compounds having hole transport property include PCBNBB and carbazole derivatives, and compounds having electron-transport property include 2mDBTBPDBq-II (see Seo, ¶ [0145]-[0146] and [0151]). Accordingly BCzPh (first host) and PCBNBB (second host) read on the claimed first and second hole transport compound, and 2mDBTBPDBq-II (third and fourth hosts) read on the claimed first and second electron transport compound.
Per claims 13-14, 2mDBTBPDBq-II (the first and second electron transport compound) contains an electron withdrawing group of a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C16 cyclic group (dibenzoquinoxaline) and contains an electron donating group of a π electron-rich C6 cyclic group (benzene) (see instant ¶ [0072] and [0327]-[0329]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2016/0308137 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Seo teaches the light emitting element 4 including a first light emitting layer (first emission layer) and a second light emitting layer (second emission layer), as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seo fails to teach the second light emitting layer has a concentration of excitons higher than a concentration of excitons in the first light emitting layer.
Park teaches an organic light-emitting diode comprising a light-emitting layer including a host and a dopant, wherein an electron-density-controlling layer including an anthracene derivative represented by Chemical Formula A is disposed between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer, and wherein an affinity (Ah) of the host of the light-emitting layer, an affinity (Aed) of the electron-density-controlling layer, and an affinity (Ae) of the electron transport layer satisfy the relationship Ah ≥ Aed ≥ Ae. Such a device obtains high luminous efficiency, wherein the light-emitting layer has increased exciton density, as shown in Fig. 3 (¶ [0016] and [0087]).
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 include in Seo’s element an electron-density-controlling layer including an anthracene derivative represented by Chemical Formula A, wherein the electron-density controlling layer is provided between the second light emitting layer and the electron transport layer, wherein the compounds of the electron-density-controlling layer and the electron transport layer are further selected such that an affinity (Ah) of the host of the second light emitting layer, an affinity (Aed) of the electron-density-controlling layer, and an affinity (Ae) of the electron transport layer satisfy the relationship Ah ≥ Aed ≥ Ae, based on the teaching of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high luminous efficiency, wherein the second light emitting layer has increased exciton density, as taught by Park.
As the second light emitting layer has increased exciton density, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the second light emitting layer to have a higher concentration of excitons than the first light emitting layer.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1) in view of Sasabe (Sasabe, Hisahiro, et al. "3, 3'-Bicarbazole-based host materials for high-efficiency blue phosphorescent OLEDs with extremely low driving voltage." Advanced Materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) 24.24 (2012): 3212-3217.) as applied to claims 8 and 14 above, and further in view of and Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1), as evidenced by B3PYMPM, Ossila, 2025. and US 2017/0213875 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Seo in view of Sasabe teaches the modified light emitting element 4, as described above with respect to claims 8 and 14.
The modified light emitting element 4 includes the following: a first light emitting layer (first emission layer) including hosts of BCzPh (first host) and 2mDBTBPDBq-II (third host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac), a second light emitting layer (second emission layer) including hosts of 2mDBTBPDBq-II (fourth host) and PCBNBB (second host) and a dopant of Ir(dppm)2(acac).
Seo in view of Sasabe fail to teach a structure that reads on the claimed Formula 2 and fail to teach wherein the claimed third and fourth hosts satisfy Condition 2.
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant (abstract). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]). Kim teaches the hole transporting host may include a carbazole derivative or an aromatic amine compound (¶ [0051]). Additionally, Kim teaches the electron transporting host may include a π-electron deficient heteroaryl compound, wherein examples thereof include B3PYMPM and TmPyPB, among others (¶ [0051]-[0052]). Accordingly, Kim teaches B3PYMPM and TmPyPB are suitable π-electron deficient heteroaryl compounds for use as electron transporting hosts.
Therefore, as the second and third light-emitting layers of Seo in view of Sasabe already include a carbazole derivative (BCzPh) and an aromatic amine compound (PCBNBB) as hole transport hosts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a fluorescent dopant in each of the first and second light emitting layers of the device of Seo in view of Sasabe, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of the device, as taught by Kim.
Additionally, as 2mDBTBPDBq-II is a host having electron-transport property that contains an electron withdrawing group of a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing heteroaryl group (as discussed above), and Kim teaches B3PYMPM and TmPyPB are suitable π-electron deficient heteroaryl compounds for use as electron transporting hosts, 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 2mDBTBPDBq-II with B3PYMPM and TmPyPB in the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer, respectively, because Kim teaches B3PYMPM and TmPyPB are suitable π-electron deficient heteroaryl compounds for use as electron transporting hosts. 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 compounds would be useful as hosts in the first and second light emitting layer of the element of Seo in view of Sasabe and Kim and possess the benefits taught by Seo, Sasabe, and Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select B3PYMPM as the electron transporting host in the first light emitting layer and to select TmPyPB as the electron transporting host in the second light emitting layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transporting hosts taught by Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising electron transporting hosts having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
B3PYMPM (third host) has a triplet energy of 3.08 eV1 and TmPyPB (fourth host) has a triplet energy of 2.78 eV2. Thus, Condition 2 (claim 10) is satisfied.
B3PYMPM is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 2 (see Kim, pg. 4).
B3PYMPM:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image6.png
163
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
B3PYPM reads on the claimed Formula 2 wherein:
X21 to X22 are each N and X23 is C(R23);
L21 to L22 are each a C6 carbocyclic group and L23 is a single bond;
Ar21 to Ar22 are each an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group and A23 is an C1 alkyl group; and
R23 is hydrogen.
TmPyPB is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 2 (see Kim, pg. 5) (claim 16).
TmPyPB:
PNG
media_image7.png
245
278
media_image7.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image6.png
163
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
TmPyPB reads on the claimed Formula 2 wherein:
X21 is N, X22 is C(R22) and X23 is C(R23);
L21 to L23 are each a single bond;
Ar21 to Ar22 are each a hydrogen;
R22 is hydrogen and R23 is a C12 carbocyclic group substituted with at least one R10a; and
R10a is a combination of a C6 carbocyclic group and a C5 heterocyclic group.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Seo teaches the light emitting element 4, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seo fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting element and a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
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 include the light emitting element of Seo as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, to provide a device having high external quantum efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Seo.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0164035 A1) in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cok (US 2004/0080267 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Seo in view of Jeong teach an electronic apparatus, as described above with respect to claim 19.
Seo in view of Jeong fail to teach the electron apparatus further comprises a touchscreen layer.
Cok teaches an integrated OLED display and touch screen made by providing an OLED on a substrate, providing a transparent encapsulating cover on the OLED, and forming a touch screen on a side of the transparent encapsulating cover (abstract). The display may be formed with a thin-film transistor (¶ [0022] and [0028]). The display of Cok reduces the number of manufacturing steps, reduces the manufacturing costs, reduces the combined size of the display and touch screen device, and provides superior optical performance (¶ [0011]).
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 include the light emitting display device of Seo in view of Jeong as the OLED and thin-film transistor of the integrated OLED display and touch screen of Cok, based on the teaching of Cok. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of manufacturing steps, the manufacturing costs, the combined size of the display and touch screen device, and provide superior optical performance, as taught by Cok; substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong; and to provide a device having high external quantum efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Seo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
1 B3PYMPM, Ossila, 2025. See general information on page 1.
2 US 2017/0213875 A1. See ¶ [0025].
Prosecution Insights