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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 03/12/2026, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification, the objection to claim 21 and the specification are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1-24 as failing to comply with the written description requirement, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-24 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 8 and 9 as being of improper dependent form, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-12 and 24 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1), of claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama above and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2020/0203627 A1), of claims 15-20 and 22-23 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama above and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0052226 A1), and of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama above and Seo et al. (US 2020/0052226 A1) above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2016), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2015).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama 2016 teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraph 0236), and an emissive layer between the two electrodes wherein the emissive layer comprises a compound of the invention (paragraph 0237), such as Compound 1-1 (paragraph 0296), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
166
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from General formula (1) (paragraph 0020), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
216
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama 2016 also teaches that m is 1 (paragraph 0021, line 9), and Ra is an substituted heteroaryl group (paragraph 0021, line 7), and particularly preferred examples of the heteroaryl group include carbazolyl (paragraph 0088, lines 26-29), and examples of the substituent on the carbazolyl include an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (paragraph 0088, lines 31-32).
Such a modification produces a first compound of instant Formula 1 wherein X1 and X2 and oxygen atoms, R1 through R5 and R7 through R11 are hydrogen atoms, and R6 represents a bond to Formula 2. In Formula 2, R12 and R13 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group and m and n are each 1.
However, while Hatakeyama 2016 teaches that the emitting layer may comprise an additional compound (paragraph 0237), Hatakeyama 2016 neither teaches nor suggest that the emitting material layer also includes an organic compound of Formula 6.
In analogous art, Hatakeyama 2015 teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds for use in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0331) of an organic electroluminescent element (paragraph 0001) which have a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0035) and display thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (paragraph 0035).
Hatakeyama 2015 gives an example of the inventive compound in Compound (1-401) (paragraph 0016), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
222
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 6 when q, r, s, and t are 0 so that R25, R26, R27, and R28 are not present, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Hatakeyama 2015 teaches that the compounds of the invention provide an excellent organic EL device when a layer comprises the compound.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material of Hatakeyama 2015 as a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material in the emission layer of Hatakeyama 2016 in order to obtain a compound with a large HOMO-LUMO gap, high triplet excitation energy, TADF emission, and which provides an excellent EL device (paragraph 0046), as taught by Hatakeyama 2015.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two compounds of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 in the light emitting layer of a device with the claimed device structure in order to obtain a compound with excellent hole mobility and electron mobility which is also useful in an electronic device such as organic light-emitting elements and organic TFTs, as taught by Hatakeyama 2016.
With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the combination of compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compound 1-39) and page 41 (compound 2-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 read on the claims.
Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 are silent to the HOMO energy level of the first and second compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the combination of compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compound 1-39) and page 41 (compound 2-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 read on the claims.
Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 are silent to the difference in bandgap of the excited singlet and excited triplet energy levels of the first and second compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound of Hatakeyama 2016, pictured and discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compound 1-39) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama 2016 reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama 2016 is silent to the energy bandgap between the HOMO and LUMO levels of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama 2016, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama 2016 was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound of Hatakeyama 2016, pictured and discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compound 1-39) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama 2016 reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama 2016 is silent to the onset wavelength of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama 2016, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama 2016 was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound has the structure of Formula 3 when p is 1, R15 is represented by Formula 4, m and n are 1, and R17 and R18 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound is represented by Formula 7A when all R groups are a hydrogen atom (compound 2-1), as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claims 10 through 12, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama 2016 also teaches that the device may have a single layer (“the light-emitting layer”, paragraph 0237), and may also comprise a host compound (paragraph 0237). Hatakeyama 2016 also teaches that when the compound is used as a guest, the amount of the guest is preferably 0.1 to 15% (paragraph 0239).
Similarly, Hatakeyama 2015 teaches that when the compound is used as a dopant in the light emitting layer, the amount is preferably 0.1 to 10% (paragraph 0119).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the amount of dopants and host material overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 11, as discussed above.
However, while Hatakeyama 2016 teaches the emission layer may further comprise a host compound (paragraph 0237), Hatakeyama 2016 does not teach an example of a suitable host material.
Hatakeyama 2015 teaches an example of an organic electroluminescence device comprising the boron-comprising polycyclic compound as a guest material which uses the compound CBP (4,4’-di(9H-carbazolyl-9-yl)-1,1’-biphenyl, paragraph 0556) as a host material (Table 2 on page 181).
Examiner notes that the instant claimed invention uses mCBP as a host material, which is a meta-bonded, positional isomer of CBP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make and use the positional isomer of CBP in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compound to be useful as a host material for a polycyclic boron-containing compound in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 and be useful as a host material. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the positional isomer of CBP as a host material in the light emitting layer of Hatakeyama 2016, as Hatakeyama 2015 demonstrates this was a known, suitable host material for a boron-containing polycyclic guest material which was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner is interpreting mCBP to meet the requirements of the instant third compound through its use as a host of the claimed invention, as given on page 78 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the isomeric compound of Hatakeyama 2015 reads on the claims.
Further, Examiner is also interpreting the combination of compounds of Formulae 1 and 6, discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compound 1-39) and page 41 (compound 2-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112).
Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 are silent to the excited triplet energy levels and excited singlet energy levels of the first, second, and third compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when these compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 24, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama 2016 also teaches a substrate (paragraph 0247).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diode on a substrate, as taught by Hatakeyama 2016.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2016), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2015) as applied above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2010/045281 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama 2016 nor Hatakeyama 2015 teach any of the compounds of the instant claim.
In analogous art, Tanaka teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0028) with a light emitting layer comprising a compound with five fused aromatic rings, one of which is an aromatic heterocycle containing a chalcogen atom (paragraph 0066).
Tanaka teaches that to date, condensed rings, such as carbazole, have been used as organic EL materials but both the lifespan and luminous efficiency have not been satisfactory (paragraph 0009). However, when a large compound with five fused rings as a substructure is used wherein at least one ring is an aromatic heterocycle containing a chalcogen atom is used, the extent of the molecular conjugation increases, which results in increased carrier mobility, and significantly improved lifespan (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Hatakeyama 2016 to comprise a ring system comprising five fused rings as a substructure in place of the carbazole moiety in order to increase the molecular conjugation of the compound, resulting in increased carrier mobility, and significantly improved lifespan, as taught by Tanaka.
Such a modification produces instant compound 1-3.
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2016), and Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1, using the previously provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2015) as applied above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0052226 A1).
With respect to claims 15-20, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama 2016 nor Hatakeyama 2015 teach the multilayer structure and energy level relationships of claims 15-20.
In analogous art, Seo teaches an organic electroluminescent device with a multilayer structure, comprising compounds with specific energy level relationships (abstract).
Seo teaches the energy diagram in Figure 8, which is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image4.png
562
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This energy level diagram describes the instantly claimed invention when EML1 of Seo is the instant first emitting material layer, EML2 of Seo is the instant second emitting material layer, EML3 of Seo is the instant third emitting material layer, Comp. 2 of Seo is the instant first compound, Comp. 4 of Seo is the instant second compound, Comp. 1 of Seo is the instant third compound, Comp. 3 of Seo is the instant fourth compound.
With respect to claim 15 specifically, the diagram describes a device wherein the first emitting layer (EML1 of Seo) comprises a first compound (Comp. 2 of Seo), and the second emitting layer (EML2 of Seo) comprises the second compound (Comp. 4 of Seo).
With respect to claim 16 specifically, the first emitting layer (EML1 of Seo) includes a third compound (Comp. 1 of Seo) and the second emitting layer (EML2 of Seo) further includes a fourth compound (Comp. 3 of Seo).
With respect to claim 17 specifically, the excited triplet energy level of the third compound (Comp. 1) is higher than the excited triplet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2), and the excited triplet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2) is higher than the excited triplet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 18 specifically, the excited singlet energy level of the third compound (Comp. 1) is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2) and the excited singlet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2) is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 19 specifically, the excited singlet energy level of the fourth compound (Comp. 3) is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 20 specifically, the third emitting layer (EML3 of Seo) is disposed on the opposite side of the first emitting layer (EML1 of Seo) from the second emitting layer (EML2 of Seo).
Seo teaches that these energy level relationships are essential to efficient energy transfer and implementing efficient light emission (paragraph 0097), and that efficient luminescence can be achieved by considering the energy levels of the luminescent materials in each emission layer (paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the claimed layer order and select compounds with the claimed energy level relationships in order to achieve efficient luminescence and efficient energy transfer, as taught by Seo.
With respect to claim 21, Hatakeyama 2016, Hatakeyama 2015, and Seo teach the diode of claim 20, and Hatakeyama 2015 teaches a compound of instant Formula 6, as discussed above. Hatakeyama 2015 teaches use of the polycyclic aromatic compound of instant Formula 6 in a light emitting layer (paragraph 0331) of an organic electroluminescent element (paragraph 0001) because the compounds have a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0035) and display thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (paragraph 0035). Hatakeyama 2015 teaches that the compounds of the invention provide an excellent organic EL device when a layer comprises the compound.
Examiner would like to note that Seo teaches that the third emission layer should comprise a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material as the seventh compound (paragraph 0132), which is analogous to the instant fifth compound.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material of Hatakeyama 2015 as a host material in any of the light emitting layers of Seo, but especially obvious to use it as the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material in the third emission layer of Seo as Hatakeyama 2015 teaches that the compounds possess a large HOMO-LUMO gap, high triplet excitation energy, TADF emission, and can provide an excellent EL device.
With respect to claim 22, Hatakeyama 2016 and Hatakeyama 2015 teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama 2016 nor Hatakeyama 2015 teach nor fairly suggest a second emitting part between the first emitting part and second electrode, and a charge generation layer between the two emitting layers.
In analogous art, Seo teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising multiple layers with specific energy level relationships which results in excellent luminous efficiency (abstract).
Seo teaches Figure 9, with a first emitting unit (430), a second emitting unit (530), and a charge generation layer (600) disposed between the first and second emitting units (paragraph 0168).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device structure taught by Seo and include a charge generation layer between a first and second light emitting units with a reasonable expectation of forming a device with excellent luminous efficiency, as taught by Seo.
With respect to claim 23, Hatakeyama 2016, Hatakeyama 2015, and Seo teach the diode of claim 22, and Seo also teaches that the device may comprise a color filter to adjust the color emitted from the diode. In this respect, the diode is able to emit any wavelength of light, including red or green.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a color filter into the diode of Hatakeyama 2016, Hatakeyama 2015, and Seo in order to adjust the wavelength of emitted light, as taught by Seo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights