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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 3-4, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2005/0110400 A1) (hereafter “Nakamura”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2005/0110400 A1) (hereafter “Nakamura”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
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) 1-4, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 14: Lee ‘074 teaches compounds that can be used as host materials for phosphorescent light-emitting materials in organic light emitting devices {(p. 1 final line through 1st line of p. 2: The compounds of the disclosure of Lee ‘074 have the structure of chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘074.), (p. 42, 1st paragraph: The compounds of chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘074 are host materials.), (p. 41, final paragraph: The light-emitting material can be phosphorescent.).}.
Lee ‘074 exemplifies the compounds shown below, among others {(p. 8, final line: The compounds of Lee ‘074 are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 9-39.), (pp. 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
192
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
204
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
226
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
236
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘074 does not teach a specific compound in which the dibenzofuran group of the compounds above is substituted with unsubstituted naphthyl or phenyl, which would meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
However, Lee ‘074 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘074 have the structure of Chemical Formula 1, shown below {p. 1, first paragraph through p. 2, first paragraph}.
PNG
media_image7.png
718
614
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where L2 of the structural formula above can be a single bond {p. 2, line 5 as well as the exemplified compounds on p. 21}, and Ar3 of the structural formula above can be unsubstituted phenyl or naphthyl {p. 7, final paragraph}.
Lee ‘074 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘074 provide organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and good lifetime {p. 2, lines 18-21}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified one or more of the compounds of Lee ‘074 shown above, based on the teaching of Lee ‘074. The modification would have been a substitution of one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of unsubstituted phenyl or unsubstituted naphthyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups that can be Ar3 of Lee ‘074), 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 providing additional compounds known to provide organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and good lifetime, as taught by Lee ‘074.
Lee ‘074 does not teach a specific organic electric element comprising one of the modified compounds of Lee ‘074.
However, as described above, Lee ‘074 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘074 can be used as host materials for phosphorescent light-emitting materials in organic light emitting devices {(p. 1 final line through 1st line of p. 2: The compounds of the disclosure of Lee ‘074 have the structure of chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘074.), (p. 42, 1st paragraph: The compounds of chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘074 are host materials.), (p. 41, final paragraph: The light-emitting material can be phosphorescent.).}.
Lee ‘074 additionally teaches the structure of an organic electric element comprising an anode that is a first electrode, a cathode that is a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 40, 3rd paragraph through 3rd and 4th paragraphs}.
The organic material layer comprises a phosphorescent light-emitting layer comprising a host and a phosphorescent dopant {(p. 42, 1st paragraph: The compounds of chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘074 are host materials.), (p. 41, final paragraph: The light-emitting material can be phosphorescent.)}.
The organic electroluminescent element additionally comprises a hole transport layer between the first electrode than is an anode and the light emitting layer as well as an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the second electrode that is a cathode {p. 40, 4th paragraph}.
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 a compound of Lee ‘074 by using it as the host material of the phosphorescent light-emitting layer of the device of Lee ‘074, based on the teaching of Lee ‘074. 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 compounds known to provide organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and good lifetime, as taught by Lee ‘074.
Lee ‘074 does not teach that the phosphorescent layer comprises an additional host material.
Lee ‘789 teaches an organic electroluminescent element comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 81 final paragraph and Table 1, Example 1}.
The organic material layer comprises a phosphorescent light emitting layer, and the host of the phosphorescent light emitting layer comprises a first host and a second host {p. 81 final paragraph and Table 1, Example 1}.
The first host has the structure of Chemical Formula A of Lee ‘789, shown below {p. 5, 5th paragraph as illustrated in Example 1 described in the final paragraph of p. 81 and Table 1}.
PNG
media_image8.png
136
388
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Where HAr1 can be one of the structure shown below {the final 3 lines of p. 2 through line 12 of p. 3}.
PNG
media_image9.png
536
682
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Where any of R1 to R10 can be the bond to L1 {p. 3, lines 11-12}.
The second host can have the structure of Chemical Formula D of Lee ‘789 {p. 5, 5th paragraph as illustrated in Example 1 described in the final paragraph of p. 81 and Table 1}.
Chemical Formula D of Lee ‘789 is shown below {p. 6, lines 13-14} where Az can be triazine {p. 6, lines 23-25 and p. 9, lines 7-8} and HAr4 can be dibenzofuran {p. 10, final 5 lines through p. 11, line 5} or aryl {p. 6, lines 15-16}. The dibenzofuran can be substituted with aryl groups {p. 11, lines 18-24}.
PNG
media_image10.png
86
418
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The compounds of Lee ‘074 shown above have the structure of Chemical Formula D of Lee ‘789, which describes the 2nd host of Lee ‘789, described above.
The host can be a mixture of 1:1 of the first host compound and the second host compound {p. 81 final paragraph and Table 1, Example 1}.
Lee ‘789 teaches that by using the combination of host materials taught by Lee ‘789, a device having improved efficiency and longer lifespan can be provided {p. 5, 1st paragraph; p. 8, 10th paragraph; p. 63, 2nd paragraph; p. 83, final paragraph}.
Moon teaches the compound shown below, which has the structure of Formula A of Lee ‘789, shown above {p. 18}.
PNG
media_image11.png
340
384
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Moon teaches that the compounds of Moon can be used as a material of any layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0136]-[0137]}. Moon teaches that the compounds of Moon enable organic light emitting devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan {paragraph [0015]}.
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 device of Lee ‘074 by using the combination of host materials at a ratio of 1:1 taught by Lee ‘789 using the compound of Moon shown above as one of the host materials and with one of the modified compounds of Lee ‘074 as the other host of the light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Lee ‘789. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an organic electric element having improved efficiency and longer lifespan, based on the teaching of Lee ‘789 by using a material known to enable organic light emitting devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Moon.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13: Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘074 does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device comprises two or more stacks, and the stacks each comprise a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and electron transport layer formed sequentially on the first electrode that is the anode and wherein the organic material layer further comprises a charge generation layer formed between the two or more stacks.
Liao teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting device that comprises three organic layers, each comprising a stack of layers, between the first organic layer and the second electrode {Fig. 7 as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0072]}.
The light is emitted from the device in the direction form the first electrode to the second electrode {Fig. 7 as well as the description of Fig. 7 in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] indicates that the light is emitted through the anode and the substrate—which is being equated with the instant second electrode}.
Each organic layer is an individual stack of organic layers {(paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims.), (paragraph [0049] describes the generalized structure of a stacked structure of the disclosure of which Fig. 7 is a specific embodiment. Elements 220.1 to 220.N are the organic EL units and N is the number of organic EL units.), (paragraph [0054]: Each organic EL unit in the stacked OLED device can be the same and can comprise a multilayer structure.)}.
Each organic layer emits a different color light, one emitting blue light—the layer nearest the anode, one emitting green light—the middle layer, and one emitting red light—the layer nearest the cathode {paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims and emit blue light, green light, and red light, respectively.}.
Liao further teaches that the stacked configuration contains a charge generation layer between each of the organic layers {(Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0072]: Doped connectors 230.1 and 230.2 are between the organic layers.),(p. 3, ¶ [0049]; Disposed between any two adjacent organic EL units is a doped organic connector 230.1 through 230.(N-1) where N is the number of organic EL units, which are being equated with the organic layers of the claims.), (paragraph [0050]; Electrons and holes are generated in, and separated from, each of the doped organic connectors.),(p. 4, ¶ [0059]; The doped organic connectors provide for efficient electron and hole injection into adjacent organic EL units.)}.
The charge generation layer can contain both a p-type doped organic layer and an n-type doped organic layer, where the n-type doped organic layer is preferably oriented toward the anode {paragraph [0059]}. The p-type doped organic layer can be equated with a p-type charge generation layer, because the p-type doped organic layer is described {paragraphs [0064]-[0065]} as comprising similar materials to the p-type charge generation layer of the published instant specification {paragraph [0220]}.
The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a display panel of a display device and are connected to thin film transistors connected to an X-direction driving circuit and a Y-direction driving circuit that control the light emissions of the organic electroluminescent devices making up the display panel {(paragraph [0073]: The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a full color display.), (paragraphs [0074]-[0075]: Figs. 8 and 9 describe an example display device comprising the white light emitting organic light emitting devices where the white light emitting organic light emitting devices are arranged in a panel and are connected to thin film transistors that control emissons.)}. Because the X-direction driving circuit and the Y-direction driving circuit control emissions of the display panel, they can each be equated with a control unit.
Liao sought to provide an organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration {p. 5, ¶ [0070]}. A stacked organic light emitting device using Liao’s configuration further has high luminance efficiency, increased lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, and provides a stacked OLED with decreased optical absorption {p. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0013]}. The stacked structure allows for white light generation at improved efficiency and operational lifetime {paragraph [0072]}.
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 organic light emitting diode of Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 by incorporating it into the stacked display unit of Liao by stacking two duplicate organic layer stacks (the organic EL elements of Liao) over the organic layer stack of Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 described above using the configuration of Liao where one organic layer emits blue light, one organic layer emits green light, and one organic layer emits red light, as taught by Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device comprising a white light emitting organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration, as well as to provide a whit light emitting organic light emitting device with high efficiency, and increased operational lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, decreased optical absorption as a result of the stacked configuration, as taught by Liao.
Furthermore, the selection of a charge generation layer comprising both a p-doped layer and an n-doped layer would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the different types of charge generation layer taught by Liao), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum layer structures to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
As described above, each organic layer is a duplicate. Therefore each organic layer comprises the same stack of layers described by Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789, including the hole transport layer and electron transport layer of Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”).
Regarding claims 11: Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 does not teach wherein a hole transporting layer between the first electrode that is the anode and the light-emitting layer comprises the compound according to the instant Formula 1.
However, as outlined above, the organic electroluminescent element of Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 additionally comprises a hole transport layer between the first electrode than is an anode and the light emitting layer as well as an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the second electrode that is a cathode {paragraphs [0318]-[0327] and Fig. 2}.
Seo et al. teaches an organic light-emitting device having the structure of a light-emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the cathode, a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the electron transport materials, a hole transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the anode, and a mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer comprising a mixture of the host material and the hole transport material {Fig. 22 as described in paragraph [0069]}.
Seo et al. teaches that introducing mixed layers between the light-emitting layer and the hole-transport layer as well as between the light-emitting layer and the electron-transport layer lowers energy barriers between organic layers, lowering driving voltage and increase device lifetime {paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], [0054] describing Figs. 1A to 1D}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic light emitting device taught by Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 by including a mixed layer comprising each of the host material compounds and the electron transport material between the light-emitting layer and the electron transporting layer as well as a mixed layer comprising each of the host material compounds and the hole transport material between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer, based on the teachings of Seo et al.. The motivation for doing so would have been to lower energy barriers between sub-layers of each organic layer, lowering driving voltage, and increasing device lifetime, as taught by Seo et al.
The mixed layer between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer can be equated with a hole transport layer, because it must necessarily transport holes. The stack of the hole transport layer of Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 and the mixed layer taught by Seo between the anode and the light-emitting layer can be equated with the instant hole transport band layer. In the resultant device the mixed layer that can be equated with a hole transport layer of the hole transport band layer would comprise the compound having the structure of the instant Formula 1.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061074—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee “074”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0007789—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘789”) and Moon et al. (WO 2020/009398 A1) (hereafter “Moon”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2005/0110400 A1) (hereafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claims 12: Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device further comprises a layer for improving luminous efficiency on one side of the first electrode that is than anode and/or the second electrode that is the cathode, wherein the one side is not facing the organic material layer.
Nakamura teaches a capping layer on the cathode of an organic electroluminescent device on the side not facing the organic material layer {paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and Fig. 1}. The capping layer increase the light extraction efficiency {paragraph [0047]}.
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 Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 by including the capping layer taught by Nakamura on the cathode and the side of the cathode not facing the organic material layer, based on the teaching of Nakamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the light extraction efficiency of the device, as taught by Nakamura.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7: as outlined above, Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 is the closest prior art. However, neither Lee ‘074 nor Lee ‘789 teach that the 2nd host of Lee ‘789 can have the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 7. Furthermore, the prior art does not provide teaching or motivation to modify the compounds of Lee ‘789 to have the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 7.
Regarding claim 15: as outlined above, Lee ‘074 as modified by Lee ‘789 is the closest prior art. While as outlined in paragraphs 27-30 of the Office action of 12 May 2025, the compounds of claim 15 alone are obvious over the teachings of Lee ‘789, the combination of compounds of the instant Formula 1 and the instant Formula 2-A as currently claimed is not obvious. Specifically, it would not be obvious to modify the device taught by Lee ‘074 by incorporating an additional host material of Lee ‘789 while also modifying said additional host material of Lee ‘789. Such a modification would not represent selecting a compound of Lee ‘789 as the 2nd host material taught by Lee ‘789 from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Similarly, from the perspective of paragraphs 27-30 of the Office action of 12 May 2025, it would not be obvious to use select a compound from Lee ‘074 as the second host taught by Lee ‘789 and to then further modify the compound of Lee ‘074. Such an additional modification would not represent selecting a compound of Lee ‘074 as the 2nd host material taught by Lee ‘789 from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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