DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/27/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/27/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) in view of Parham et al (US 2009/0295275).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode (Abstract), a second electrode (Abstract) facing the first electrode (Figure 1), and an intermediate layer, i.e. an interlayer (Abstract), found between the first electrode and second electrode (Abstract). The intermediate layer comprises an organic emission layer (Abstract), as well as hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]), i.e. a hole transport region, where the hole transport and hole injection layers are between the light emitting layer and the first electrode ([0050]). The first electrode is a transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx ([0010]). Accordingly, the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprising a metal oxide, where the metal is W or Mo as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting device comprises a hole transport layer, the reference does not disclose that the hole transport layer comprises the cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract), where the hole transport layer of the device comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0015]-[0016], and Page 9 – Structure 27):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY1, CY2, and CY3 are each C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y1 is N;
a1, a2, and a3 are each one (1);
Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
b1, b2, and b3 are each one (1);
n1, n2, and n3 are one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 = 3; and
R1, R3, and R3 are hydrogen.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, X1 and X2 are N, L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds, and therefore, X1 and X2 are not O or S, and at least one of L1 to L3 is not phenylene as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R is disclosed as an aromatic ring system having 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms ([0020] and [0019]). Such ring systems include biphenyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
112
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where at least one of L1 to L3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a phenylene group. Furthermore, in the above formula Y can be O or S ([0018]), i.e. in Formula 1 of the claims X1 and X2 can be O or S.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the compound disclosed by the reference Ar1 to Ar3 are all benzene groups which are excluded from the as-amended claim. However, attention is directed to the following compounds (Page 6 – Structure 13 and Page 12 – Structure 33):
PNG
media_image5.png
210
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the groups corresponding to Ar1 to Ar3 in Formula 1 of the claims can be thiophene, i.e. C5 heterocyclic groups, or naphthyl groups, i.e. C10 carbocyclic groups. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where Ar1 to Ar3 are C5 heterocyclic groups or C10 carbocyclic groups.
The reference discloses that the compound has excellent hole conducting properties in organic light emitting device ([0011]), high temperature stability ([0014]), and a positive effect on the operating lifetime of the device ([0014]).
Given that both Kim ‘523 and Parham et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport regions, and given that Kim ‘523 does not explicitly prohibit other compounds in the hole transport region, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Parham et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the hole transport region of the device disclosed by Kim ‘523 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the light emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an intermediate layer comprising an organic emission layer and hole transport and hole injection layers ([0050]). The device further comprises electron transport and electron injection layer between the emission layer and the second electrode ([0050]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a device with the layers:
first electrode / [hole transport and hole injection layers ] / emission layer /
[electron injection and electron transport layers ] / second electrode.
Accordingly, it is clear that the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode. Furthermore, the device comprises an electron transport region, i.e. electron transport and electron injection layers, between the emission layer and the second electrode as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that Kim ‘523 does not require the presence of p-dopants in the hole transport layer, it is clear that the hole transport layer does not comprise a p-dopant as required by the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Parham et al, Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are benzene groups.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Parham et al, Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are naphthyl groups, corresponding to Formula (2-2) of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
58
142
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al discloses a compound encompassed by Formula (1-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
298
390
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R11, R13, R21, R23, R24, R31, R33, and R34 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first electrode comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer ([0018]), where the third layer is between the second layer and the emission layer ([0018]), i.e. the reference discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
as recited in the present claims. The first layer comprises MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx ([0116]), i.e. the first layer comprises a first material. The second layer is a reflective layer and comprises Li and Ca ([0116] and [0081]), i.e. the second layer comprises a second material. The third layer comprises a material such as MoOx or WOx, i.e. the recited inorganic material ([0116]). Accordingly, the first material, i.e. MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx is different from the second material, i.e. Li or Ca; and the second material, i.e. Li or Ca is different from the inorganic material, i.e. MoOx or WOx as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523l and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the first layer is in direct contact with the second layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer / interlayer,
and therefore, the second layer is in direct contact with the third layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, i e. a conductive oxide.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the second material is Li or Ca, i.e. the second material comprises a metal material.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first material is MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, or GeOx, and the second material is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the first and second material can be different.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses that the third layer is MoOx or WOx. Accordingly, the third layer consists of the inorganic material as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses a display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor ([0011]), where the thin film transistor comprises an active layer ([0091]), i.e. an activation layer, a source region ([0091]), i.e. a source electrode, and a drain region ([0091]), i.e. a drain electrode. The first electrode of the organic light emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode ([0096]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al does not disclose Compound 85 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
152
174
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Y is O ([0018]; the integer is two (2) ([0024]); and (2) R-group can correspond to the biphenyl group discussed above, and the remaining R-groups can be hydrogen ([0019]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 85 of the claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523 and Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 above, and in view of Yasumoto et al (US 2016/0028034).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Parham et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses WOx. However, the reference does not disclose that x is 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.0 as recited in the present claims.
Yasumoto et al discloses that tungsten oxide is generally represented by WOx (2 ≤ x < 3) and can exist as a non-stoichiometric compound which can have a variety of compositions, typically WO3, W2O5, W4O11, and WO2 ([0104]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the typical compositions of tungsten oxide, including WO3 in the electrode disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known tungsten oxide for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) and Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555, hereafter Kim ‘555).
The discussion with respect to Kim ‘523 and Parham et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Kim ‘523 and Parham et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting display device. However, the reference does not disclose a color filter as recited in the present claims
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al (US 2009/0295275) in view of Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523).
Regarding claim 1, Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract), comprising an anode, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, and a layer, i.e. interlayer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0052]). The layer comprises a light emitting layer ([0052]) and a hole transport layer, i.e. a hole transport region, between the anode, and light emitting layer ([0052] and [0084]). The hole transport layer of the device comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0015]-[0016], and Page 9 – Structure 27):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY1, CY2, and CY3 are each C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y1 is N;
a1, a2, and a3 are each one (1);
Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
b1, b2, and b3 are each one (1);
n1, n2, and n3 are one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 = 3; and
R1, R3, and R3 and H.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, X1 and X2 are N, and L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds, and therefore, and X1 and X2 are not O or S, and at least one of L1 to L3 is not phenylene as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R is disclosed as an aromatic ring system having 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms ([0020] and [0019]). Such ring systems include biphenyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
112
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where at least one of L1 to L3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a phenylene group. Furthermore, in the above formula Y can be O or S ([0018]), i.e. in Formula 1 of the claims X1 and X2 can be O or S.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the compound disclosed by the reference Ar1 to Ar3 are all benzene groups which is now excluded from the as-amended claim. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following compounds (Page 6 – Structure 13 and Page 12 – Structure 33):
PNG
media_image5.png
210
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the groups corresponding to Ar1 to Ar3 in Formula 1 of the claims can be thiophene, i.e. C5 heterocyclic groups, or naphthyl groups, i.e. C10 carbocyclic groups. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where Ar1 to Ar3 are C5 heterocyclic groups or C10 carbocyclic groups
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the first electrode comprises an inorganic material comprises a metal oxide as recited in the present claims.
Kim ‘523 discloses an organic light emitting device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode (Abstract), a second electrode (Abstract), an intermediate layer, i.e. interlayer, (Abstract) formed been the first electrode and second electrode formed on the intermediate layer (Abstract). The first electrode is a transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx ([0010]). Accordingly, the first electrode comprises an inorganic material, where the inorganic material comprises a metal oxide, where the metal is W or Mo as recited in the present claims. The transparent electrode comprising MoOx or WOx has improved performance, as well as a switching effect and driving voltage superior to a conventional organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0055]).
Given that both Parham et al and Kim ‘523 drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising electrode and given that Kim ‘523 does not explicitly prohibit other compounds for the first electrode, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of MoOx or WOx as taught by Kim ‘523, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such compounds in the first electrode disclosed by Parham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device where a hole injection layer is not required ([0084] and Table 2). Accordingly, the first electrode is necessarily in direct contact with the hole transport layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim ‘523 discloses that the first electrode comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer ([0018]), where the third layer is between the second layer and the emission layer ([0018]), i.e. the reference discloses in order of stacking:
first layer / second layer / third layer,
as recited in the present claims. The first layer comprises MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx ([0116]), i.e. the first layer comprises a first material. The second layer is a reflective layer and comprises Li and Ca ([0116] and [0081]), i.e. the second layer comprises a second material. The third layer comprises a material such as MoOx or WOx, i.e. the recited inorganic material ([0116]). Accordingly, the first material, i.e. MoOx, WOx, YbOx, ReOx, GeOx is different from the second material, i.e. Li or Ca; and the second material, i.e. Li or Ca is different from the inorganic material, i.e. MoOx or WOx as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that Parham et al discloses an organic light emitting device where a hole injection layer is not required ([0084] and Table 2). Accordingly, combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 disclose an organic light emitting device where the third layer is necessarily in direct contact with the hole transport layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Parham et al and Kim ‘523 teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Parham et al does not disclose Compound 85 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
152
174
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0016] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
328
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Y is O ([0018]; the integer is two (2) ([0024]); and (2) R-group can correspond to the biphenyl group discussed above, and the remaining R-groups can be hydrogen ([0019]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 85 of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Kim et al (US 2010/0052523, hereafter Kim ‘523) in view of Itoi et al (US 2016/0099416) are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that the combination of Kim ‘523 and Parham fails to disclose to teach all the limitations of the amended claim. However, as discussed in the rejections above, while in the compound disclosed by Parham Ar1 to Ar3 are all benzene groups, which is now excluded from the as-amended claim, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following compounds (Page 6 – Structure 13 and Page 12 – Structure 33):
PNG
media_image5.png
210
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the groups corresponding to Ar1 to Ar3 in Formula 1 of the claims can be thiophene, i.e. C5 heterocyclic groups, or naphthyl groups, i.e. C10 carbocyclic groups. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where Ar1 to Ar3 are C5 heterocyclic groups or C10 carbocyclic groups.
Applicants argue that the Office Action has not established that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed subgenus from the broader genus of Parham. However, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a subgenus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the reference explicitly discloses the claimed compound, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants further point to MPEP 2144.08(II)(A)(4), which states that "Office personnel should determine whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to make the claimed invention as a whole, i.e., to select the claimed species or subgenus from the disclosed prior art genus." And "[w]hen a single prior art reference which discloses a genus encompassing the claimed species or subgenus but does not expressly disclose the particular claimed species or subgenus, Office personnel should attempt to find additional prior art to show that the differences between the prior art primary reference and the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious”. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a subgenus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the reference explicitly discloses the claimed compound, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that the generic formula of Parham encompasses a vast number of compounds, e.g. the reference discloses a large number of different polycyclic compounds at Paragraph [0040], and therefore, the size of the genus is extremely large. However, while Paragraph [0040] discloses a number of compounds, the fact remains that the disclosure of the reference, taken a whole, explicitly discloses claimed compound.
Applicants argue that the express teachings of Parham do not provide a particular reason to select the claimed subgenus of claim 1. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a subgenus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the reference explicitly discloses the claimed compound, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that the "typical," "preferred," and "optimum" species within the disclosed genus of Parham provide no direction to derive the subject matter of amended claim 1. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a subgenus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the reference explicitly discloses the claimed compound, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argue that nothing in Parham would have motivated the person having ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed species/subgenus of claim 1, and therefore, based on this fact, there is no support for a prima facie case for obviousness based on the genus of Parham. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a subgenus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the reference explicitly discloses the claimed compound, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Applicants argue that Examples 7 and 8 in Table 2 of Parham only include compound HI or compound DI in the emission layer and the reference does not disclose or teach an organic light emitting device where a hole injection layer is not required except for when the corresponding polycyclic compound of Parham is used in the emission layer. (See, e.g., Table 2 of Parham). However, attention is directed to Paragraph [0052] of the reference which discloses that the device can comprise other layers including hole injection, hole transport, electron transport and/or electron injection layers and that each of these layers does not necessarily have to be present. Thus, it is clear that the reference discloses an organic light emitting device in which the hole injection layer is not necessarily present, and therefore, the first electrode is necessarily in direct contact with the first electrode as recited in claim 5.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights