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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 6, 13, 17, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1, 13, 17, and 22 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-19, 22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2003/0072964 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been made, as outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-19, 22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2003/0072964 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action—see the final paragraph of p. 50 through the 1st paragraph of p. 51; the 2nd paragraph of p. 52 through the 1st paragraph of p. 54; and the final paragraph of p. 56 through the final paragraph of p. 58 of the reply filed 26 June 2026—have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-19, 22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2003/0072964 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action—see the 2nd paragraph of p. 51 through the 1st paragraph of p. 52; the 2nd paragraph of p. 53; through the 3rd paragraph of p. 56 of the reply filed 26 June 2026—have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the product of the current claims possesses properties not predicted by the prior art, rendering the claims nonobvious.
It is unclear that the improved results observed by Applicant are due to the differences in maximum phosphorescence emission of the second compound at 77 K. There are multiple differences between the instant second compounds of the inventive examples and the comparative example (utilizing the instant compound HB). Therefore, it cannot be determined that the property of the instant second compound having a maximum phosphorescence emissive wavelength of greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K led to the observed improved properties.
Furthermore, the results do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the current claims. The improved device performance is observed for only a single phosphorescent dopant. It is not clear that similar results would be observed for either fluorescent dopants or other phosphorescent dopants. The improved device performance is observed for only a single ratio of first compound to second compound to light emitting dopant. It is not clear that similar device performances would be observed for other light-emitting layer compositions. The improved device performance is observed using only two different examples of the instant first compound. It is unclear that these two compounds are representative of the entire genus of the current first compound. The improved device performance is only observed for a single device structure (beyond the light-emitting layer). It is unclear that similar results would be observed for other device structures.
For at least these reasons, with respect to the current rejections, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-19, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (JP 2017-107992 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-16, 18-19, 22, and 24-28: Sugino teaches a compound having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0058]-[0064]: Compound 19}.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugino does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Sugino shown above.
Sugino teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Sugino are useful as host materials for phosphorescent light emitting dopants {paragraphs [0019], [0021], [0028], [0038]-[0039], [0086]-[0087], and [0258]-[0265]}.
Sugino teaches an electroluminescent device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0085]-[0089] and [0258]-[0265]}.
The organic layer comprises an emissive layer comprising a host material and a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0106]-[0109] and [0258]-[0265]}.
As described above, the host material can be the compound of the disclosure of Sugino.
The phosphorescent light emitting compound can have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0257] and [0262]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
132
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified the compound of Sugino such that the compound of Sugino was used as the host material of the light emitting layer of the device of Sugino described above for the phosphorescent light emitting dopant of Sugino described above, based on the teaching of Sugino. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Sugino does not exemplify a specific device comprising the compound of Sugino shown above in which the light-emitting layer comprises a second host.
However, Sugino teaches that the light emitting layer can comprise an additional host material {paragraphs [0021], [0039], [0087], and [0130]}. Sugino teaches that using multiple host materials, the charge transfer properties of the light emitting layer can be adjusted {paragraph [0130]}.
Lee teaches that the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device can comprise two host materials {paragraphs [0028]-[0035]}.
Lee teaches that the use of a second host material can reduce the crystallization of the first host material {paragraphs [0031]-[0032]}.
Lee teaches that the first host can be an arylamine {paragraph [0029]}. Lee teaches that the second host can be a triazine derivative {paragraph [0031]}.
It is noted that Lee does not require that one host be a hole transporting host and the other be an electron transporting host, but rather this arrangement is an option {paragraphs [0029]-[0031]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Sugino by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Sugino and Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with reduced crystallization, as taught by Lee.
Sugino as modified by Lee does not teach that the additional host has the structure of the instant Formula 1.
Lee ‘220 teaches compounds having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 {p. 2, lines 15-17}. The compounds having the structures of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 are useful as host materials for phosphorescent dopants in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 3, lines 19-26; p. 3, lines 46-50; p. 12, lines 26-33}.
Lee ‘220 exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 {p. 9 and p. 18, Compound C-5}.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘220 describes the compounds having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 as being compounds that have an amine structure that is fused to a dibenzo moiety such as carbazole, as illustrated by the compound shown above {p. 3, lines 31-32}.
Lee ‘220 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘220 provide devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan {p. 3, lines 19-26; p. 3, lines 46-50; p. 12, lines 26-33}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the device of Sugino by using the host material of Lee ‘220 shown above as the additional host, based on the teaching of Kondakova and Lee ‘220. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound known to provide organic electroluminescent devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Lee ‘220. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Sugino is greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K. It is reasonable to presume that the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Sugino being greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K is inherent to Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The compound of Sugino shown above is structurally very similar to the instant compounds G-122 as well as the instant G-124 to G-125. The instant compounds G-122 and G-124 to G-125 are compounds listed in the current claim 17, which depends from claim 1, which requires that the compounds of claim 1 have a maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K. The difference between the instant compounds G-122 and G-124 to G-125 and the compound of Sugino being presence of one or more biphenyl groups in place of a phenyl group as the instant Ar1 and/or Ar2. However, each of Sugino {paragraphs [0025], [0044], [0047]-[0048], [0054], and [0069]} and the instant specification {paragraph [0087]} each describe these variations as predictable options for the compounds of Sugino and the instant specification. Given the structural similarities described above, the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Sugino shown above would be greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 17: Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teach all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino does not exemplify a specific compound having the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 17.
However, Sugino teaches that the compounds of Sugino have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Sugino {paragraphs [0025] and [0044]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
152
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sugino teaches that Ar1 and Ar2 of Chemical Formula 1 of Sugino can be optionally be biphenyl in addition optionally being phenyl as in the compound of Sugino shown above {paragraphs [0025], [0044], [0047]-[0048], [0054], and [0069]}. Sugino exemplifies that the biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, is an optional alternative as Ar1 and Ar2 of Chemical Formula 1 of Sugino {paragraph [0069]}.
Sugino teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Sugino allow for organic light-emitting devices having improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics {paragraph [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 compound of Sugino shown above by substituting the biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, in place of one or both of the phenyl groups as Ar1 and Ar2 of Chemical Formula 1 of Sugino, based on the teaching of Sugino. The substitution 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 biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups Ar1 and Ar2 of Chemical Formula 1 of Sugino), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, which in this case means producing additional compounds allowing for organic light-emitting devices having improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics, as taught by Sugino.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (JP 2017-107992 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4: Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify that the modified compound of Sugino shown above is deuterated at a position equivalent to the instant R or Rx.
Li teaches electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Sugino such that the host materials of the light emitting layer were deuterated, based on the teaching of Li. one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have deuterated at least one of the positions equivalent to the instant R or Rx, because R and Rx would represent a finite number of possible positions for substitution of deuterium onto the compound of Lee ‘220, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (JP 2017-107992 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwabara et al. (Advanced Materials, 1994, 6, No. 9, pp. 677-679) (hereafter “Kuwabara”).
Regarding claim 6: Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify that the compound of Lee ‘220 comprises a carbazolyl group in place of the amine group.
However, Lee ‘220 teaches that the amine group can instead be carbazole {pp. 6-7: options for groups for Ar1 to Ar2 and R1 to R10 of Lee ‘220}.
Kuwabara teaches that compounds utilizing carbazole groups in place of diphenylamine groups have a higher glass transition temperature and therefore better heat resistance {(p. 677, col. 1, 2nd paragraph; Compounds that remain amorphous at high temperatures are desirable for thermal stability of organic electroluminescent devices.), (p. 677, col. 1, 3rd paragraph; m-MTDATA has a glass transition temperature of 75 °C.), (p. 677, col. 2, 3rd paragraph; TCTA has a glass transition temperature of 151 °C.), (p. 677, structures for TCTA and m-MTDATA)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.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 compound of Lee ‘220 such that the phenylamine group was replaced with a phenylcarbazole group, based on the teaching of Lee ‘220 and Kuwabara. The replacement would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In this case, this means replacing the amine group with a carbazole group to obtain a structure having greater thermal stability, as taught by Kuwabara.
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (JP 2017-107992 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2003/0072964 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims 20-21: Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify a phosphorescent light emitting dopant comprising a structure of the instant Formula 3.
Kwong teaches a cyclometalated complex of iridium as a dopant for an organic electroluminescent device having the structure shown below {(paragraph [0163]; The present invention includes compounds having Formula IV), (paragraph [0176]; The compounds of the invention can be used as emitters in organic electroluminescent devices), (p. 11, Formula IV)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Kwong’s Formula IV)]
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kwong exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraphs [0200]-[0205] as well as paragraph [0137] describing Fig. 1: Compound 3}.
PNG
media_image8.png
436
664
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kwong sought to provide compounds that when utilized in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with high external quantum and luminous efficiencies as well as improved device lifetimes {p. 11, paragraph [0178]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device of Sugino by using the compound of Kwong shown above as the phosphorescent dopant, based on the teachings of Kwong. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant that when utilized in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with high external quantum and luminous efficiencies as well as improved device lifetimes, as taught by Kwong.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (JP 2017-107992 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 23: Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify a display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device of Galan described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device of Sugino as modified by Lee and Lee ‘220 to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights