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 1 January 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 14-16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 14 and 15 have overcome the rejections of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the revision of the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, 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 The rejections have been withdrawn.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, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection based upon the same cited references have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection based upon the same cited references have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan et al. (US 2021/0122765 A1) (hereafter “Wolohan”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection based upon the same cited references have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 1 January 2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments distinguish the claims from the disclosure and teachings of Eum. No further arguments are provided.
As outlined below, the amended claims are obvious over the teachings of Eum.
Applicant's arguments, filed 1 January 2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan et al. (US 2021/0122765 A1) (hereafter “Wolohan”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments distinguish the claims from the disclosure and teachings of Wolohan. No further arguments are provided.
As outlined below, the amended claims are obvious over the teachings of Wolohan.
Applicant's arguments, filed 1 January 2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments distinguish the claims from the disclosure and teachings of Fleetham. No further arguments are provided.
As outlined below, the amended claims are obvious over the teachings of Fleetham.
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) 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”).
Regarding claims 1-13: Eum discloses the compounds shown below {(paragraphs [0018]-[0019]: The compounds of the disclosure of Eum have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Eum.), (paragraph [0068]: The compounds of the disclosure of Eum are exemplified by compounds 1 to 1528.), (p. 52, Compounds 833, 835, and 840)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
334
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
276
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Eum does not exemplify a specific compound in which one or more of the methyl substituents in the compounds shown above are an alkyl having more than one carbon.
However, Eum teaches that the compounds of Eum have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Eum, shown below {paragraphs [0018]-[0019]: The compounds of the disclosure of Eum have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Eum.}.
PNG
media_image4.png
516
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where X and Y can each be CR31R32 of Eum, where R31 and R32 can be C1 to C60 alkyl {paragraphs [0029]-[0030]}. Thus, alkyl groups having 2 to 60 carbon atoms were known alternatives for the compounds of Eum.
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 Eum described above by substituting one or more of the methyl groups with a C2 to C60 alkyl group, based on the teaching of Eum. 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 a C2 to C60 alkyl group would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described possibilities for R31 and R32 of Eum), 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.
Regarding claim 12: Eum teaches of the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Neither claim 1 nor claim 12 requires the presence of the instant Formula III. Therefore, the compounds shown above meet the claim limitations in the case where a moiety having the structure of Formula III is not present.
Regarding claims 16-17: Eum teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 16 differs from claim 1 in that the claimed compound is comprised in an organic light emitting device (OLED).
Eum does not disclose a specific device comprise any one of the modified compounds of Eum described above.
However, Eum teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum are useful as host materials in the light emitting layer of an OLED for a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0001], [0015], [0137], and [0247]}.
Eum teaches that the compounds of Eum enable devices having good lifetime and efficiency {paragraphs [0015] and [0247]}.
Eum teaches that the OLED of Eum can have the structure of a first electrode that is an anode, a hole injecting layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injecting layer, and a second electrode that is a cathode {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0248]-[0257]}.
The light emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0001], [0015], [0137]-[0152], [0247], and [0364]-[0380]}.
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 Eum shown above by using the compound as a host material for the light emitting device of Eum described above, based on the teaching of Eum. 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 mean selecting compounds from the disclosure of Eum in order to provide devices having good lifetime and efficiency, as taught by Eum.
Regarding claim 18: Eum teaches all of the features with respect to claims 16-17, as outlined above.
Eum does not disclose a specific device comprising the compounds of Eum described above with a specific phosphorescent dopant.
However, Eum, describes the compounds shown below as an option {paragraphs [0151], and [0364]-[0380] as well as p. 85, Compound D-4}.
PNG
media_image5.png
316
420
media_image5.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 further modified the device of Eum such that the iridium complex shown above was used as the phosphorescent light-emitting material of the device of Eum, based on the teaching of Eum. 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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1) (hereafter “Eum”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claims 19-20: Eum teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 16 in that the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Eum does not exemplify a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device device of Eum 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 light-emitting device of Eum 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2021/0122765 A1) (hereafter “Wolohan”).
Regarding claims 1-13: Wolohan discloses the compound shown below {p. 9}.
PNG
media_image6.png
656
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wolohan does not exemplify a specific compound in which one of the oxygen atoms in the above compound is instead sulfur.
Wolohan teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Wolohan have the structure of Formula I of Wolohan, shown below {paragraph [0053]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
530
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where L1 to L3 can optionally be S in addition O, among other options {paragraph [0053]}.
Wolohan teaches that the compound can comprise the moiety shown below as an alternative to the oxygen and boron containing fused ring structure {paragraph [0066]}.
PNG
media_image8.png
436
454
media_image8.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 one or more of the compound of Wolohan described above by using the oxygen, sulfur, and boron containing fused ring structure in place of the oxygen and boron containing fused ring structure, based on the teaching of Wolohan. 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 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the moieties listed in paragraph [0066] of Wolohan), 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.
Regarding claim 11: Wolohan teaches all of the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 requires the presence of the instant Formula II. Therefore, the compounds shown above meet the claim limitations in the case where a moiety having the structure of Formula II is not present.
Regarding claims 16-17: Wolohan teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 16 differs from claim 1 in that the claimed compound is comprised in an organic light emitting device (OLED).
Wolohan does not disclose a specific device comprise any one of the modified compounds of Wolohan described above.
However, Wolohan teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Eum are useful as host materials in the light emitting layer of an OLED for a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0002], [0072]-[0073], and [0204]}.
Wolohan teaches that the OLED of Eum can have the structure of a first electrode that is an anode, a hole injecting layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injecting layer, and a second electrode that is a cathode {paragraphs [0069]-[0079]}.
The light emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0078]-[0083]}.
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 Wolohan shown above by using the compound as a host material for the light emitting device of Wolohan described above, based on the teaching of Wolohan. 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.
Regarding claim 18: Wolohan teaches all of the features with respect to claims 16-17, as outlined above.
Wolohan does not disclose a specific device comprising the compounds of Wolohan described above with a specific phosphorescent dopant.
However, Wolohan, describes the compound shown below as an option {paragraphs [0079]-[0083] and [0204]-[0206]}.
PNG
media_image9.png
622
640
media_image9.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 further modified the device of Wolohan such that the iridium complex shown above was used as the phosphorescent light-emitting material of the device of Wolohan, based on the teaching of Wolohan. 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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2021/0122765 A1) (hereafter “Wolohan”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claims 19-20: Wolohan teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 16 in that the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Wolohan does not exemplify a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device device of Wolohan 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 light-emitting device of Wolohan 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) (hereafter “Fleetham”).
Regarding claims 1-13: Fleetham discloses the compounds shown below {p. 26}.
PNG
media_image10.png
360
390
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
402
398
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fleetham does not exemplify a specific compound in which one of the oxygen atoms in the above compound is instead sulfur.
However, Fleetham teaches that the compounds of Fleetham may comprise the structure of Formula III, shown below, as in the compounds shown above {paragraph [0085]}.
PNG
media_image12.png
344
614
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Where Y1 to Y3 can optionally be S in addition O, among other options {paragraph [0086]}.
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 described above by substituting a S atom in place of one of the O atoms, based on the teaching of Fleetham. 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 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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.
Regarding claim 11: Fleetham teaches all of the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 requires the presence of the instant Formula II. Therefore, the compounds shown above meet the claim limitations in the case where a moiety having the structure of Formula II is not present.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-13: Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2 discloses the compound shown below {col. 308}.
PNG
media_image6.png
656
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2 does not exemplify a specific compound in which one of the oxygen atoms in the above compound is instead sulfur.
However, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2 teaches that the compounds of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2 have the structure of Formula I, shown below {col. 280, lines 26-42}.
PNG
media_image7.png
530
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where L1 to L3 can optionally be S in addition O, among other options {col. 280, lines 44-46}.
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 described above by substituting a S atom in place of one of the O atoms, based on the teaching of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2. 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 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,914 B2 teaches all of the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 requires the presence of the instant Formula II. Therefore, the compounds shown above meet the claim limitations in the case where a moiety having the structure of Formula II is not present.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-13: Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 discloses the compounds shown below {col. 240-241}.
PNG
media_image10.png
360
390
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
402
398
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 does not exemplify a specific compound in which one of the oxygen atoms in the above compound is instead sulfur.
However, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 teaches that the compounds of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 may comprise the structure of Formula III, shown below, as in the compounds shown above {col. 204, lines 22-40}.
PNG
media_image12.png
344
614
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Where Y1 to Y3 can optionally be S in addition O, among other options {col. 205, lines 32-34}.
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 described above by substituting a S atom in place of one of the O atoms, based on the teaching of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738. 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 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,738 teaches all of the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 requires the presence of the instant Formula II. Therefore, the compounds shown above meet the claim limitations in the case where a moiety having the structure of Formula II is not present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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: As outlined above, Wolohan is a representation of the closest prior art. However, Wolohan does not teach compounds having the specific substitution patterns of the current claims 14-15. Additionally, neither Wolohan nor the prior art provide sufficient teachings or motivation to modify the compounds of Wolohan to have the substitution pattern of one of the compounds of the current claims 14-15.
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