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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (A1) (M is Ir or Os) and (B1) (ligand LA is Formula I, IV, V, VII, or IX) in the reply filed on 08/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
With respect to the instant claim 29, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to applicant's elected species in combination with the limitations of claim 15 in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claim written in independent form which requires all the limitations of claim 29 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitation of claim 29 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claim 29 is 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 as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to Applicant’s elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claim 29 has not be determined with respect to species beyond Applicant's elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond Applicant's elected species.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-3, 5, 11, 15, 18-19 and 21-26 have been canceled.
Claims 27-33 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, and 27-33 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 15 and 21-26 obviates the rejections of claims 15 and 21-26 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14, 17, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2020/0358010 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang), Lecloux et al. (US 20110260140 A1, hereafter Lecloux) and Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1, hereafter Kamatani),
the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo at al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 54-56 of the reply filed 06/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang) set forth in the Office Action of 03/13/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claims are patentable over the combination of Zhang and Hwang.
The rejections refer to Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (see section 47 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claims.
However, Zhang in view of Hwang is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
Zhang teaches a compound ([0123], Ir(La3)2(Lb31), hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Zhang does not have two deuterium substituents at the positions corresponding to X1 and X3 of Formula 1 of Zhang; however, Zhang does teach that X1 and X3 can be each CR1, wherein R1 can be a combination of deuterium ([0026]). Zhang exemplifies a ligand wherein X1 and X3 are substituted by deuterium (La35 in claim 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Zhang by substituting the methyl group at the positions corresponding to X1 and X3 of Formula 1 of Zhang with deuterium, as taught by Zhang.
The Compound 1 of Zhang has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Zhang does teach that Y1 can be N ([0025]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Zhang by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The modification provides Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (2), which reads on all the limitations of Formula I of the amended claims.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejections are made.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 56-57 of the reply filed 06/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu/Hwang/Lecloux/Kamatani set forth in the Office Action of 03/13/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claims are patentable over the combination of Lu, Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani.
The rejections refer to Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani (see section 84 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 57-58 of the reply filed 06/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault at al. (US 2020/0098999 A1, hereafter Boudreault) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim) set forth in the Office Action of 03/13/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claims are patentable over the combination of Zhang and Hwang.
The rejections refer to Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim (see section 120 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of the Formula IX of the amended claims.
However, Boudreault in view of Kim is still applicable to make new grounds of rejections.
Boudreault ‘999 teaches Compound 1 ([0078], the first compound of paragraph 78, hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
319
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1 of Boudreault ‘999, the substituent at the positions corresponding to R2 are not deuterium; however, Boudreault ‘999 does teach that R2 can be each a general substituent ([0065]), and the general substituent can be deuterium ([0054]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the phenyl ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand are substituted by deuterium ([0037]).
PNG
media_image4.png
172
205
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Boudreault ‘999 by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R2 of Formula I of Boudreault ‘999 with deuterium, as taught by Boudreault ‘999 and Kim.
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IX of the amended claims.
PNG
media_image5.png
268
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments see page 58 of the reply filed 06/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo at al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 03/13/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 111303213 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables, and the English version is referred to for remainder body of the patent, hereafter Wang ‘213).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 28, Wang ‘213 discloses a compound (Formula 1 on page 1) used for an organic light emitting device and exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emission layer (Compound L-037), and a cathode ([0083], [0123], and Table 2 of the original document; and page 12-13 of the English translation).
PNG
media_image6.png
235
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound L-037 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula V.
The Compound L-037 of Wang ‘213 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound L-037 of Wang ‘213.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula V of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound L-037 of Wang ‘213 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IV and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0080]).
Therefore, the Compound L-037 of Wang ‘213 is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 28.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 112679550 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables, and the English version is referred to for remainder body of the patent, hereafter Wang ‘550).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, and 27, Wang ‘550 discloses a compound (Formula 1 on page 1) used for an organic light emitting device (page 1) and exemplifies a compound ([0017])
PNG
media_image7.png
268
555
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound A of Wang ‘550 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IV.
The Compound A of Wang ‘550 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound A of Wang ‘550.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula IV of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound A of Wang ‘550 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IV and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0080]).
Therefore, the Compound A of Wang ‘550 is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, and 27.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 17, 20, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 17, 20, and 32, Zhang discloses a complex compound comprising a first ligand La of Formula 1 ([0023]) used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0018]). Zhang exemplifies a compound ([0123], Ir(La3)2(Lb31), hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Zhang does not have two deuterium substituents at the positions corresponding to X1 and X3 of Formula 1 of Zhang; however, Zhang does teach that X1 and X3 can be each CR1, wherein R1 can be a combination of deuterium ([0026]). Zhang exemplifies a ligand wherein X1 and X3 are substituted by deuterium (La35 in claim 9).
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 1 of Zhang by substituting the methyl group at the positions corresponding to X1 and X3 of Formula 1 of Zhang with deuterium, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the position X1 and X3 of Formula 1 of Zhang would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The Compound 1 of Zhang has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Zhang does teach that Y1 can be N ([0025]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
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 1 of Zhang by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to red-shift the emission color of the compound based on the teaching of Hwang.
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). Substitution of carbon with nitrogen at the position Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang 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 Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0080]).
Therefore, the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, and 32.
Zhang does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1); however, Zhang does teach that the compound of Zhang can be used as the light emitting material ([0034]). Zhang teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising a dopant and a host (carbazole compound RH), and a cathode ([0162]).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a carbazole host compound, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) as an emitter, carbazole compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1); however, Zhang does teach that the organic light emitting device of Zhang can be incorporated in a consumer product ([0042]).
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 device of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1) by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang (1), meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353) and Boudreault et al. (US 2018/0097187 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘187).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, 20, and 31, Zhang discloses a complex compound comprising a first ligand La of Formula 1 ([0023]) used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0018]). Zhang exemplifies a compound ([0123], Ir(La3)2(Lb31), hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
387
782
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Zhang does not have a CF3 group at the position corresponding to Y3 of Formula 1 of Zhang; however, Zhang does teach that Y3 can be CR2, wherein R2 can be a combination of halogen and alkyl groups ([0026]). Zhang exemplifies CF3 substituted ligand (La821 in claim 9).
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 1 of Zhang by substituting the hydrogen substituent at the position corresponding to Y3 of Formula 1 of Zhang with a CF3 group, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the position Y3 of Formula 1 of Zhang would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The Compound 1 of Zhang has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Zhang does teach that Y1 can be N ([0025]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
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 1 of Zhang by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to red-shift the emission color of the compound based on the teaching of Hwang.
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). Substitution of carbon with nitrogen at the position Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang 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 Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (2).
PNG
media_image9.png
274
760
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang (2) does not have a t-butyl naphthyl group at the position corresponding to the ring containing X1 to X4 of Formula 1 of Zhang; however, Zhang does teach that X1 to X4 can be CR1, wherein R1 can be a combination of alkyl and alkenyl groups, and adjacent R1 groups can be joined to form a ring ([0026]-[0027]).
Boudreault ‘187 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0015]) and used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]).
Boudreault ‘187 exemplifies t-butyl substituted naphthalene as the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187 (Compound 3393 in [0197]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image10.png
387
586
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘187 teaches the ligand including a t-butyl naphthalene ring allows to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provides better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission ([0054]-[0055], Table 2).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang (2) by substituting the dimethyl phenyl group with a t-butyl naphthyl group at the position corresponding to the ring containing X1 to X4 of Formula 1 of Zhang, as taught by Zhang and Boudreault ‘187.
The motivation of doing so would have been to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provide better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission, based on the teaching of Boudreault ‘187.
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 substitution of the substituents of the ring containing X1 to X4 of Formula 1 of Zhang 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 Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187.
PNG
media_image11.png
253
720
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0080]).
Therefore, the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, and 31.
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 Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 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.
Zhang does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187; however, Zhang does teach that the compound of Zhang can be used as the light emitting material ([0034]). Zhang teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising a dopant and a host (carbazole compound RH), and a cathode ([0162]).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a carbazole host compound, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 as an emitter, carbazole compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187; however, Zhang does teach that the organic light emitting device of Zhang can be incorporated in a consumer product ([0042]).
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 device of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang and Boudreault ‘187, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault at al. (US 2020/0098999 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘999) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17, 20, and 31, Boudreault ‘999 discloses an Ir complex compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I used as the emissive dopant of an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0064]-[0065]). Boudreault ‘999 exemplifies Compound 1 ([0078], the first compound of paragraph 78, hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
319
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1 of Boudreault ‘999, the substituent at the positions corresponding to R2 are not deuterium; however, Boudreault ‘999 does teach that R2 can be each a general substituent ([0065]), and the general substituent can be deuterium ([0054]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the phenyl ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand are substituted by deuterium ([0037]).
PNG
media_image4.png
172
205
media_image4.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 1 of Boudreault ‘999 by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R2 of Formula I of Boudreault ‘999 with deuterium, as taught by Boudreault ‘999 and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration, based on the teaching of Kim.
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 substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the positions corresponding to R2 of Formula I of Boudreault ‘999 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
268
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IX.
The Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula IX of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IX and has substantially similar structure as the specific embodiment of instant disclosure ([0081]).
Furthermore, Boudreault ‘999 teaches the compound of Boudreault ‘999 emits red to near infrared (NIR) light ([0064]).
Therefore, the Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, and 31.
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 Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim 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.
Boudreault ‘999 in view of Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim; however, Boudreault ‘999 does teach that the emissive layer comprises the compound of Boudreault ‘999 can be used as the emitter with a host ([0092], [0095]) and exemplifies dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host ([0090]), which has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 19.
Boudreault ‘999 teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode ([0024]).
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 Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a host dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene, as taught by Boudreault ‘999.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim as an emitter, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Boudreault ‘999 in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim; however, Boudreault ‘999 does teach that the organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘999 can be incorporated in a consumer product including a lighting panel ([0088]).
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 device of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Boudreault ‘999.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘999 as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboyama et al. (“Homoleptic Cyclometalated Iridium Complexes with Highly Efficient Red Phosphorescence and Application to Organic Light-Emitting Diode”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, vol. 125, page 12971-12979, hereafter Tsuboyama) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1) and Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, and 30, Tsuboyama discloses Ir complexes used for an organic light emitting device (Fig. 1, Fig. 7a).
PNG
media_image12.png
153
397
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In the compound 8 of Tsuboyama, the carbon atom at the position 3 of the isoquinoline ring is not substituted by deuterium.
Zhang discloses an Ir complex comprising 3-deuterium-substituted isoquinoline ligand and used for an organic light emitting device ([0018], [0023]).
Zhang teaches that the deuterium at the position 3 of isoquinoline ring provides greatly prolong device lifetime as compared to hydrogen ([0018], [0034], compare Embodiment 1 with Comparative Example 1 in Table 1).
In the Compound 8 of Tsuboyama, the carbon at the position 4 (see annotated number in the figure above) is not nitrogen.
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that substitution of carbon with nitrogen at the position 4 of the isoquinoline ring of the Ir complex provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
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 8 of Tsuboyama by substituting 1) the hydrogen atom at the position 3 of the isoquinoline ring with deuterium, and 2) the carbon atom at the position 4 of the isoquinoline ring with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide 1) greatly prolong device lifetime of the device comprising the compound based on the teaching of Zhang, and 2) provide red-shift in the emission color of the compound based on the teaching of Hwang.
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 Compound of Tsuboyama as modified by Kim and Hwang.
PNG
media_image13.png
228
618
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20, 31, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 16, and 20 of US Patent No. 12,077,550 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘550). 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20, 31, and 33, Patent ‘550 discloses a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I, wherein two adjacent X1 and X2 can be fused to form a structure of Formula II (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound (claim 20, the second compound in column 519, hereafter Compound B).
PNG
media_image14.png
370
675
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound B of Patent ‘550 has similar structure as the first specific embodiment of the instant claim 33,
PNG
media_image15.png
175
227
media_image15.png
Greyscale
. The only difference is that the hydrogen substituent at the position X4 of Formula I of Patent ‘550 is required to be deuterium; however, Patent ‘550 does teach X4 can be CR, wherein R can be deuterium (claim 1).
Zhang discloses an Ir complex comprising 3-deuterium-substituted isoquinoline ligand and used for an organic light emitting device ([0018], [0023]).
Zhang teaches that the deuterium at the position 3 of isoquinoline ring provides greatly prolong device lifetime as compared to hydrogen ([0018], [0034], compare Embodiment 1 with Comparative Example 1 in Table 1).
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 B of Patent ‘550 by substituting the hydrogen substituent at the position corresponding to X4 of Formula I of Patent ‘550 with deuterium, as taught by Patent ‘550 and Zhang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greatly prolong device lifetime of the device comprising the compound based on the teaching of Zhang.
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). Substitution of the substituent R from H to D at the position corresponding to X4 of Formula I of Patent ‘550 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 Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang.
The Compound of Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and the specific embodiment of instant disclosure ([0081]).
Therefore, the Compound of Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 31, and 33.
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 Compound of Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang 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.
Patent ‘550 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang; however, Patent ‘550 does teach the compound of Patent ‘550 can be incorporated in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode (claim 13).
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 Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘550.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution 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 Organic light emitting device of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang comprising an anode, an organic layer (Compound of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Patent ‘550 in view of Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang; however, Patent ‘550 does teach that the organic light emitting device of Patent ‘550 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 16).
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 device of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘550.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Patent ‘550 as modified by Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20, 31, and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/884,823 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘823). 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, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20, 31, and 33, Application ‘823 discloses a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound (the first compound of claim 15, hereafter Compound C).
PNG
media_image16.png
175
229
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The Compound C of Application ‘823 has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 33.
The Compound C of Application ‘823 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound C of Application ‘823.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound C of Application ‘823 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and the specific embodiment of instant disclosure ([0081]).
Therefore, the Compound C of Application ‘823 is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 31, and 33.
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 Compound C of Application ‘823 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.
Application ‘823 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound C of Application ‘823; however, Application ‘823 does teach the compound of Application ‘823 can be incorporated in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 17).
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 C of Application ‘823 by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘823.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution 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 organic light emitting device of Application ‘823 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound C of Application ‘823), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Application ‘’823 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘823; however, Application ‘823 does teach that the organic light emitting device of Application ‘823 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 20).
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 organic light emitting device of Application ‘823 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘823.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘823, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
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