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 .
Examiner’s Note
The instant Office Action is the second Final Office Action. The previous Final Rejection Office Action of 02/26/2026 did not include a rejection to the claim 22 filed on 01/05/2026 which has a new matter. The new matter has been incorporated into all the claims recently filed on 05/26/2026. The latest claims of 05/26/2026 are considered in this Office Action. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent no. 12,497,420 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-3, 7, 13-15, 19, and 21-22 have been canceled.
Claims 25-29 have been added.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 23-29 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13-14, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 obviates the rejections of claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 set forth in the last Office Action.
The approved Terminal Disclaimer overcomes the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, and 18-19 of the US Patent no. 12,497,420. The rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 6, 9, 13-14, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1, hereafter Chen),
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1, hereafter Kim ‘208) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1, hereafter Kottas ‘600) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1, hereafter Kottas ‘245),
the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0228583 A1, hereafter Wu),
the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0209142 A1, hereafter Kim ‘142),
the rejections of claims 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1), and
the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0228583 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 8 of the reply filed 05/26/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen and the rejections of claims 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen/Wu set forth in the Office Action of 02/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the cited references.
The rejections refer to the Compound 84106493 of Chen (see sections 30 and 78 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitations of Formula II of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 8-9 of the reply filed 05/26/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Kottas ‘600/Kottas ‘245, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Kottas ‘600/Kottas ‘245/Wu, and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Kottas ‘600/Kottas ‘245Kim ‘142 set forth in the Office Action of 02/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the cited references.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 (see section 46 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitations of Formula II of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Applicant claims “A compound of Formula II, … wherein R1 is joined or fused with an RE’ to form a ring, …”
It appears that there is no description to support the subject matter of R1 and RE’ of Formula II being joined to form a ring in anywhere of the instant specification including paragraph [0055]. The only description related to this subject matter is found from the limitation of R1 and RE of Formula I. The instant specification recites “In Formula I, any two of R, R’, R1, R2, R3, R4, RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE can be joined or fused to form a ring” ([0053], page 9, line 1). However, this statement is not enough to support the joining or fusion of substituents R1 and RE’ in the Formula II. There is no clear description to describe the joining or fusion of R1 and RE’ of Formula II. Additionally, there is no structural formula or specific embodiment to describe the joining or fusion of RE’ and R1 of Formula II (see embodiments in [0077], [0078], and [0079]). Thus, the descriptions of instant specification do not provide sufficient support for the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4-6, 8-12, 16, 18, and 23-29, claims 4-6, 8-12, 16, 18, and 23-29 are rejected due to the dependency from claims 1, 17 and 20.
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, 8-12, 16-17, 20, and 23-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 20 of the US Patent no. 12,643,920 B2 (No publication is available. Please refer to the claims filed on 01/07/2026 of Application 17/742,556, hereafter Patent ‘920). 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, 8, 10-12, and 23-29, Patent ‘920 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound (claim 16, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the Compound A and Applicant’s Formula II is that a phenyl group is substituted to the position 3 of the carbazole moiety in the Compound A (see the annotated numbers in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula II requires the phenyl is substituted to any one of positions 1, 2, and 4; however, Patent ‘920 does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to RC of Formula I can be substituted to any substitutable position of the carbazole moiety of the ring C of Formula I (claim 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 A of Patent ‘920 by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to RC of Formula I of Patent ‘920 to any one of positions 1, 2, and 4, as taught by Patent ‘920.
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 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitutable positions of RC in the ring C of Formula I. The selection of position 1, 2, or 4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Additionally, the compound A is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the phenyl group of RC is substituted any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the carbazole moiety of ring C of Formula I of Patent ‘920.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compound A of Patent ‘920 shown above such that the phenyl group of RC is substituted any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the carbazole moiety of ring C of Formula I of Patent ‘920. A compound in which the phenyl group of RC is substituted any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the carbazole moiety of ring C of Formula I of Patent ‘920 would represent a position isomer of the Compound A of Patent ‘920. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
244
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
340
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1), (2) and (3), each of which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I.
Regarding claim 9, the Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) read on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound does not have nitrogen in the benzene ring of the benzimidazole at the position corresponding to ring A of Formula I; however, Patent ‘920 does teach that ring A of Formula I can be a multicyclic fused ring (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound wherein the ring A is pyridino imidazole (see examples in claim 16 including at least the following compound).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
235
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 Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) by substituting the benzene ring of the benzimidazole at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I with pyridino imidazole, as taught by Patent ‘920.
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 structures at position ring A 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 compound of Patent ‘920 (4) which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) except the benzene ring of the benzimidazole is replace with pyridine ring.
Regarding claim 16, the Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) read on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound is not at least 30% deuterated; however, Patent ‘920 does teach that RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE can be deuterium (claim 1).
It is known in the art that deuterium has heavier than hydrogen and shorter bond length with carbon than hydrogen such that a C-D bond lowers the zero point energy making the C-D bond more stable than the C-H bond.
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 compound d of Patent ‘920 by substituting the hydrogen atom at the positions corresponding to RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE with deuterium, as taught by Patent ‘920.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, and more stable bond with carbon.
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 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 compound of Patent ‘920 (5), which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) except the hydrogen at the positions corresponding to RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE are each deuterium (i.e. fully deuterated).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the Modified compound of Patent ‘920 (1) to (3) read on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
Patent ‘920 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Patent ‘920; however, Patent ‘920 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound of Patent ‘920 (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 Modified compound of Patent ‘920 by incorporating it into the organic layer, as taught by Patent ‘920.
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 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 Patent ‘920 comprising an anode, an organic layer (Modified compound of Patent ‘920), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Patent ‘920 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘920; however, Patent ‘920 does teach a consumer product comprising the OLED of Patent ‘920 (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 OLED of Patent ‘920 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘920.
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 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 Patent ‘920, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 23-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 17-18 of the US Patent no. 12,577,202 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘202). 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, 8, 10-12, 16, and 23-29, Patent ‘202 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant and a first host comprising carbazole or indolocarbazole (claim 5). Patent ‘202 teaches the phosphorescent dopant can be represented by the following formula (claim 17, hereafter Formula B) and exemplifies a compound as shown below (claim 18, hereafter Compound B).
PNG
media_image5.png
343
706
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the Compound B and Applicant’s Formula II is that a phenyl group is substituted to the position 3 of the carbazole moiety in the Compound B (see the annotated numbers in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula II requires the phenyl is substituted to any one of positions 1, 2, and 4; however, Patent ‘202 does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to RE” of Formula B can be substituted to any substitutable position of the terminal benzene of the carbazole moiety of Formula B (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 B of Patent ‘202 by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to RE” of Formula B of Patent ‘202 to any one of positions 1, 2, and 4, as taught by Patent ‘202.
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 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitutable positions of RE” in the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole moiety of Formula B. The selection of position 1, 2, or 4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Additionally, the compound B is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the phenyl group of RE” is substituted any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole moiety of Formula B of Patent ‘202.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compound B of Patent ‘202 shown above such that the phenyl group of RE” is substituted to any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole moiety of Formula B of Patent ‘202. A compound in which the phenyl group of RE” is substituted any one of 1, 2, or 4 positions of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole moiety of Formula B of Patent ‘202 would represent a position isomer of the Compound A of Patent ‘202. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
PNG
media_image6.png
304
631
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
406
694
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1), (2) and (3), each of which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I.
Regarding claim 9, the Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) read on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound does not have nitrogen in the benzene ring bonded to the central Pt, the oxygen bridge, and the benzimidazole; however, Patent ‘202 does teach that the phosphorescent dopant can be represented by a formula
PNG
media_image8.png
189
160
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y5 can be C or N (claim 15). Patent ‘202 exemplifies the following compound wherein the Y5 is N (claim 18).
PNG
media_image9.png
447
553
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 modified the Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y5 of formula
PNG
media_image8.png
189
160
media_image8.png
Greyscale
with nitrogen, as taught by Patent ‘202.
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 carbon to nitrogen at Y5 of the formula 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 compound of Patent ‘202 (4) which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) except the carbon at the position corresponding to Y5 of
PNG
media_image8.png
189
160
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is nitrogen.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, the Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) read on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
Patent ‘202 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant and a first host comprising carbazole or indolocarbazole (claim 5).
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 compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) by incorporating it into the emissive layer, as taught by Patent ‘202.
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 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 Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Modified compound of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) and a compound comprising carbazole or indolocarbazole), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Patent ‘202 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3); however, Patent ‘202 does teach a consumer product comprising the OLED of Patent ‘202 (claim 19).
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 OLED of Patent ‘202 (1) to (3) by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘202.
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 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 Patent ‘202 (1) to (3), meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
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 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