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 .
The amendment of 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 21, 23, and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, 13, 26, and 30–31 have been amended.
Claims 32–39 have been newly added.
Claims 1–9, 11–20, 22, and 24–39 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 16, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimoi et al. (US 2013/0074929 A1, hereafter “Shimoi”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 16, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shimoi set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shimoi in view of Wang et al. (CN 110627822 A, hereafter “Wang”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–16, 22, 24, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shimoi in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111018921 A, hereafter “Zhang”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–18 and 22–30 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 2018/0208838 A1, hereafter “Sakaino”) in view of Zhang set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 12 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–18 and 22–30 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109575083 A, hereafter “Zhang2”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1, 26, 30 have been amended to preclude copper rendering the rejections moot.
In regarding Applicant’s argument of Shimoi teaching away the use of copper as a singlet oxygen quencher (see page 13 of the reply filed 04/01/2026), although the Examiner acknowledges that Shimoi teaches that the use of various metal complexes other than nickel(II) dialkyldithiocarbamate cannot function effectively as a singlet oxygen quencher since they have inferior dispersibility in the thermoplastic resin, Shimoi discloses Example 9 which is an embodiment wherein copper (II) dialkyldithiocarbamate is used [0134]. Therefore, Applicant’s claims were anticipated by Example 9. From there, other references were brought in to build upon the anticipated Example 9 to meet Applicant’s claim limitations.
Additionally, Example 9, comprising copper instead of nickel, fares similarly to the other Examples from the measured parameters [Table 1]. That being said, the dispersibility of the singlet oxygen quenchers was not measured, and therefore copper might in fact be inferior to nickel. Therefore, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s point, and will not use Shimoi as a primary teaching reference in the forthcoming rejections, especially since the claims have been amended to preclude copper. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments, as discussed above.
Therefore, a new round of rejections has been necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 39 recites “The color conversion composition according to claim 30”, however a color conversion composition is not mentioned in claim 30. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3, 9, 14, 22, 24, 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2019/0006563 A1, hereafter “Sato”).
Regarding Claims 1, 24, and 26, Sato discloses a white light source device including Example A1 comprising hydrogenated styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer as a resin, SrGa2S4:Eu as a green sulfide-based phosphor, CaS:Eu as a red sulfide-based phosphor, and tetra-t-butyl-tetraazaporphine vandyl complex (hereafter “PD-320”, shown below [0131]) as a coloring material ([0170] and Table 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, PD-320 has an alkyl group having a carbon number of 4 (tert-butyl).
Regarding Claim 9, PD-320 comprises V.
Regarding Claim 14, Example A1 comprises 97 parts by mass of the resin paste and 0.0022 parts by mass of PD-320 [0170].
Regarding Claim 22, Sato discloses the blue light is emitted from a blue LED at 450 nm, SrGa2S4:Eu has a maximum wavelength of 540 nm, and CaS:Eu has a maximum wavelength of 653 nm [0107]. The phosphor sheet converts light from an LED into white light [0019].
Regarding Claim 27, the blue LED of Example A1 has a maximum light emission of 450 nm [Table 2].
Regarding Claim 28, Sato discloses the white light source device may be used in a television, a commercial monitor, a liquid crystal display of a personal computer, or the like [0197].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 9, 14, 16–18, 22, 24–29, 35–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 2018/0208838 A1) in view of Maeda et al. (JP 2008177318 A, hereafter “Maeda”).
Regarding Claim 1, 5, 9, 14, 16–18, 22, 24, 26–29, 35–36, Sakaino teaches a color conversion composition comprising:
at least one luminescent material,
a binder resin, and
at least one of a tertiary amine, a catechol derivative, and a nickel compound,
in which the tertiary amine, catechol derivative, and nickel compound have a molar extinction coefficient ε of 100 or less in the whole wavelength region from 400 nm to 800 nm [0017] – [0021]. Sakaino further defines the luminescent material as a material capable of, when irradiated with some kind of light, emitting light having a wavelength different from that of the irradiation light [0031]. Specifically, Sakaino teaches Example 11 wherein the singlet oxygen quencher is Q-9 (shown below) [Table 3].
PNG
media_image2.png
229
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
181
235
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, claim 1 does not list Ni as a transition metal for Component (C).
Maeda teaches singlet oxygen quenchers may be diffused onto a color filter layer to increase its lightfastness [0027]. Specifically, Maeda teaches nickel, copper, or cobalt are good metals for singlet oxygen quenchers, exemplified by Maeda’s Formula (2), hereafter “Q-Co” (shown above) [0023]. Note that Q-Co and Q-9 are identical aside from the metal. Ni and Co both have a +2 oxidation state, and both have the same ligand. Additionally, Maeda teaches that the singlet oxygen quenchers taught by Maeda, including Co Quencher, have no or almost no absorption in the visible region [0023]. Therefore, Q-Co and Q-9 are functionally the same.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Maeda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Q-Co for Q-9, because Maeda teaches they are suitable equivalents. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that Q-Co would be useful as singlet oxygen quencher in the color conversion composition of Sakaino and possess the benefits taught by Maeda. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of Example 11 as described above (hereafter “Modified Example 11”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a luminescent material G-1, a resin, and Q-Co.
Per Claim 5, Q-Co comprises a β-diketone.
Per Claim 9, Q-Co comprises Co.
Per Claim 14, Sakaino teaches component (C) are preferably from 1.0 x 10-1 to 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the component (B) [0179]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per Claim 16, Modified Example 11 comprises G-1, which is an organic luminescent material.
Per Claim 17, Modified Example 11 comprises G-1 which reads on Applicant’s Formula (1) (Shown below), wherein R1, R3, R4, R6 are each an alkyl group (methyl), R2 and R5 are each a hydrogen atom, X is C-R7 wherein R7 is an aryl group (phenyl) substituted by two aryl groups (phenyls) which are further substituted by an alkyl group (tert-butyl).
PNG
media_image4.png
220
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
284
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 18 and 35, X is C-R7 in G-1 and R7 is represented by Formula (2) (shown below), wherein r is an aryl group (phenyl) substituted with an alkyl group (tert-butyl), and k is 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
220
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
204
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
284
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 22, Modified Example 11 has a peak wavelength of 526 nm [Table 3] and is excited by a blue LED having a wavelength range of 430 nm to 500 nm [0201].
Per Claim 24, Modified Example 11 is a color conversion film [0225] – [0228].
Per Claim 26, Sakaino teaches a light source unit which comprises a light source and a color conversion composition [0203]. Modified Example 11 comprises a light source, blue LED, and a color conversion composition [Table 3]. Therefore, Modified Example 11 is a light source unit.
Per Claim 27, the blue LED of Modified Example 11 has a wavelength range of 430 nm to 500 nm [0201].
Per Claims 28 and 29, Sakaino teaches the light source unit of present invention may be used in display or lighting applications [0205].
Per Claim 36, Modified Example 11 includes Q-Co which comprises Co.
Regarding Claim 25, Sakaino teaches a color conversion composition of the present invention may contain a solvent. The solvent is not particularly limited as long as it can adjust the viscosity of the resin in the flowing state and does not excessively affect the emission from luminescent substance and the durability [0186]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to optimize solvent amount of the cured product of Composition 1 to arrive at the range of 0.01% by weight to 3.0% by weight. The motivation for doing so would been to optimize the viscosity of the resin in the flowing state as taught by Sakaino.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 2018/0208838 A1) and Maeda et al. (JP 2008177318 A) as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 16–18, 22, 24–29, 35–36 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 110627822 A, hereafter “Wang”)
Regarding Claims 19, and 20, Modified Example 11 comprises G-1 as the luminescent material [Table 3]. Sakaino teaches that compounds with high color purity are preferred for the luminescent material [0138].
However, Sakaino does not teach a compound with delayed fluorescence and a structure that reads on Applicant’s Formula (11).
Wang teaches high color purity and narrow-spectrum green thermally activated delayed fluorescence luminescent materials [0013] exemplified by Green 1 [pg. 3] that reads on Applicant’s Formula (11) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
201
273
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
273
240
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
E is a boron atom,
Za is an aryl ring with a carbon number of 6, Zb and Zc are each an aryl ring with a carbon number of 6, substituted with a 4-tertbutylphenyl.
Z1 and Z2 are each NRa,
Ra is a phenyl that is linked to either Zb and Zc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a luminescent material taught by Wang as a green wavelength converting material in the wavelength conversion film taught by Sakaino, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Wang and Sakaino according to known methods to yield predictable results of a wavelength conversion film with green emission from delayed fluorescence with high color purity, as taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 2–4, 6–7, 11–13, 15, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 2018/0208838 A1) and Maeda et al. (JP 2008177318 A) as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 16–18, 22, 24–29, 35–36 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111018921 A, hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 6–7, 11–13, 34, Modified Example 11 does not comprise a first component (C) and a second component (C) wherein the metal of second component (C) is a lanthanoid.
Zhang teaches complexes comprising a ligand represented by Formula 1 (shown below), wherein the metal is selected from Fe, Sc, Cr, Mn, Y, Zr, Nb, Rh, Pd, Cd, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, and Tb. Zhang teaches these complexes when used in an electroluminescent device can effectively improve device lifespan while enhancing performance. Zhang further teaches that the metal and ligands may be modified to tune the thermodynamic properties, electrochemical properties, and HOMO/LUMO energy levels [pg. 3 of the English translation]. Specifically, Zhang teaches the ligand Lz10.
PNG
media_image9.png
193
143
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
179
93
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a Sm complex with Lz10 as the ligand, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Zhang and Sakaino according to known methods to yield predictable results of an electroluminescent device with the improved device lifespan and enhanced performance, as taught by Zhang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose Sm with Lz10 as the ligand, because it would have been choosing between Fe, Sc, Cr, Mn, Y, Zr, Nb, Rh, Pd, Cd, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb as the metal and the exemplified ligands, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in an electroluminescent device with the device lifespan and enhanced performance benefits, taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Zhang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claims 6 and 7, Modified Example 11 comprising Q-Co and the Sm with La10 complex (hereafter “Q-Sm”) reads on Applicant’s limitations since Q-Sm has two cycloalkyl groups (cyclohexane).
Per Claim 11, Q-Sm comprises Sm, which forms a stable 3+ oxidation state.
Per Claim 12, 13, and 34, Modified Example 11, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Q-Co and Q-Sm, wherein Q-Co comprises Co and Q-Sm comprises a lanthanoid.
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Example 11 does not have a specified amount of Q-Co and Q-Sm in relation to each other.
However, the amount Q-Co must either be greater than or equal to the amount of Q-Sm or less than or equal to the amount of Q-Sm. This is a choice between two distinct options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of Q-Co be less than or equal to the amount of Q-Sm, because it would have been choosing between the amount Q-Co being greater than or equal to the amount of Q-Sm or less than or equal to the amount of Q-Sm, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a color conversion composition of the electroluminescent device of Sakaino and possessing the benefits taught by Sakaino and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the composition of Q-Co and Q-Sm in a color conversion composition having the benefits taught by Sakaino and Zhang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 4, 32 and 37, Q-Sm does not comprise an ethylhexyl group. Zhang teaches the ligand La10 of Q-Sm is represented by Zhang Formula 1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
193
143
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
179
93
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Zhang teaches Ra1 to Ra3 may be an alkyl group [pg. 3] wherein the alkyl group may be a branched alkyl group. Specifically, Zhang teaches n-octyl which is a structural isomer of ethylhexyl. Additionally, Zhang teaches methylpentyl groups, which are nearly identical to ethylhexyl aside from two carbons [pg. 6 of the English translation]. Zhang further teaches that the metal and ligands may be modified to tune the thermodynamic properties, electrochemical properties, and HOMO/LUMO energy levels [pg. 3 of the English translation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change one of Ra1 to Ra3 of Lz10 in Q-Sm to be an ethylhexyl group, as taught by Zhang. One would be motivated to do this to optimize the thermodynamic properties, electrochemical properties, and HOMO/LUMO energy levels of Q-Sm, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claims 30 and 39, Modified Example 11, as described above, does not comprise a compound which reads on Applicant’s Formula (3).
Zhang teaches complexes comprising a ligand represented by Formula 1 (shown below), wherein the metal is selected from Fe, Sc, Cr, Mn, Y, Zr, Nb, Rh, Pd, Cd, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, and Tb. Zhang teaches these complexes when used in an electroluminescent device can effectively improve device lifespan while enhancing performance. Zhang further teaches that the metal and ligands may be modified to tune the thermodynamic properties, electrochemical properties, and HOMO/LUMO energy levels [pg. 3 of the English translation]. Specifically, Zhang teaches ligand La10 [pg. 4].
PNG
media_image9.png
193
143
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
179
93
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose Mn with Lz10 as the ligand, because it would have been choosing between Fe, Sc, Cr, Mn, Y, Zr, Nb, Rh, Pd, Cd, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb as the metal and the exemplified ligands, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in an electroluminescent device with the device lifespan and enhanced performance benefits, taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Zhang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting complex (hereafter “Q-Mn” reads on Applicant’s limitation since Complex 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below), wherein M is Mn, R102 is hydrogen, while R101 and R103 are each a cycloalkyl group having a carbon number of 6 (cyclohexane) reading on Condition (A) and Condition (B).
PNG
media_image11.png
190
177
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
381
221
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 2018/0208838 A1), Maeda et al. (JP 2008177318 A), and Zhang et al. (CN 111018921) as applied to claim 1–7, 9, 11–18, 22, 24–30, 32, 34–37, 39 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2020/0308202 A1, hereafter “Cho”).
Regarding Claims 8, 33, and 38, Modified Example 1, as described above, does not read on Applicant’s limitation because Q-Mn does not comprise an adamantyl group.
Zhang teaches a cycloalkyl may be 1-adamantyl [pg. 7 of the English translation].
Cho teaches Formula 1 (shown below) comprising Ligand 2, which are similar to the ligands taught by Zhang. Cho teaches Ligand 2 being bulky results in reduced non-radiative decay of the organometallic compound, leading to an organic light emitting device with high luminance efficiency and long lifespan [0190].
PNG
media_image13.png
433
495
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Q-Mn wherein the cyclohexane groups are substituted for adamantyl groups, based on the teaching of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the non-radiative decay of Q-Mn, as taught by Cho.
Modified Example 11 comprising the modified version of Q-Mn as described above (hereafter “Modified Q-Mn”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a β-diketone with two cycloalkyl groups which are adamantyl groups.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of Sato, Saikano, Maeda, Zhang, and Wang do not teach a compound represented by Formula (3) with Condition (A) and Condition (B) comprising one of V, V=O, and O=Mo=O.
Galindo et al. (Dalton Trans. 2018, 47, 197) teaches [Mo(O)(O2)(QCy)2] (shown below) wherein R is cyclohexane [pg. 198], which appears to read on Applicant’s limitations of Claim 31. However, ultimately [Mo(O)(O2)(QCy)2] is drawn to a different field of endeavor and therefore there is no motivation to include it in a color conversion composition.
PNG
media_image14.png
191
207
media_image14.png
Greyscale
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights