DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 31 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 7-11, 17, and 20
Claim 19 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending.
The cancellation of claim 19 has rendered moot the objection of claim 19 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claim 19 has rendered moot the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 13-14, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davidson et al. (“Highly Linearized Twisted Iridium(III) Complexes”, Inorganic Chemistry (2018) vol. 57, pp. 14450-14462.) (hereafter “Davidson”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan Davidson et al. (“Highly Linearized Twisted Iridium(III) Complexes”, Inorganic Chemistry (2018) vol. 57, pp. 14450-14462.) (hereafter “Davidson”) in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made. Thus, it is noted that this rejections of claims 9, 10, and 20 are overcome by amendment. Therefore, new grounds of rejection for claims 9,10, and 20 are necessitated by amendment.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of 1-3, 5, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pretot et al. (WO 2006/067074 A1) (hereafter “Pretot”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 8, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagayama et al. (JP 2015-189688 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nagayama”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not meet the limitation “if one of ring A and ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.”
Applicant asserts that the provisos of Claims 1, 17, and 20 require that “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” However, this is not a full recitation of the claim limitation. The full claim limitation is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, and if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” Thus, the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect. Interpreting the if statements “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” to be alternatives to invoke the then statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” would require the claim limitation to read is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, or if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.”
In summary, the claim is being interpreted such that the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect.
In the rejection L is a linker comprising a linear alkyl and a bivalent benzene, thus the linker is not simply a linear alkyl linker and the proviso is not in effect.
It is noted however, that Applicant’s arguments are correct in the context of the rejection of claims 9 and 10, which would require an interpretation of the instant L being simply a linear alkyl.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-10 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0047519 A1) (hereafter “Wang”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not meet the limitation “if one of ring A and ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.”
Applicant asserts that the provisos of Claims 1, 17, and 20 require that “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” However, this is not a full recitation of the claim limitation. The full claim limitation is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, and if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” Thus, the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect. Interpreting the if statements “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” to be alternatives to invoke the then statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” would require the claim limitation to read is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, or if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.”
In summary, the claim is being interpreted such that the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect.
In the rejection L is a branched alkyl linker, thus the linker is not a linear alkyl linker and the proviso is not in effect.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 regarding each of the provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting described in paragraphs 33 to 73 of the last office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the provisional rejections. No further argument is provided.
Respectfully, the claim amendments do not appear to overcome the rejections. Each of the linking groups L in the provisional rejections appear to meet the amended claim limitations.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant asserts that the provisos of Claims 1, 17, and 20 require that “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” However, this is not a full recitation of the claim limitation. The full claim limitation is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, and if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.” Thus, the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect. Interpreting the if statements “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” to be alternatives to invoke the then statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” would require the claim limitation to read is “and if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker, or if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine, then L is linked to the pyridine ring.”
In summary, the claim is being interpreted such that the “then” statement of “L is linked to the pyridine ring” requires that both “if Z is Si and L is a linear alkyl linker” and “if one of ring A and Ring B is benzene and the other is pyridine” for the proviso to be in effect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 12-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagayama et al. (JP 2015-189688 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nagayama”).
Regarding claims 1-5, 8, 12-13, and 21: Nagayama discloses the compound shown below {p. 9}.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where L can be interpreted as being a combination of a linear alkyl group and a divalent benzene ring.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-10, 16, and 21: Lee discloses the compound shown below {p. 52}.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where TMS is trimethylsilyl.
Where the instant L is bivalent benzene (aryl).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0047519 A1) (hereafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 17-18, and 21: Wang discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {Device Example 1 as described in Table 1 and paragraph [0250]}.
The organic layer comprises the compound shown below {(Device Example 1 as described in Table 1 and paragraph [0250]: Metal complex 43 is the light-emitting dopant of the light-emitting layer.), (p. 26, Metal Complex 43)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The organic layer further comprises two host materials having the structures shown below {(Device Example 1 as described in Table 1 and paragraph [0250]: The host materials are H1 and H2.), (pp. 25-26, the structures of H1 and H2)}.
PNG
media_image4.png
416
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
636
868
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where Compound H1 is described in the HOST group defined in the specification.
The metal complex of Wang shown above does not comprise a silyl group.
However, Wang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Wang are metal complexes a ligand comprising a ligand La having the structure of Formula 1A shown below and a ligand Lb having the structure of Formula 1B of Wang {paragraphs [0011]-[0017] and [0086]-[0091]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
540
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where R2 of Wang has the structure of Formula 2 of Wang {paragraphs [0032] and [0106]}.
Where Formula 2 can have the structure of the silyl groups shown below {paragraph [0149]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
272
550
media_image7.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 substituted one of the silyl groups shown above in place of the tertiary butyl group of the metal complex of Wang shown above, based on the teaching of Wang. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of one of the silyl groups shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups of Formula 2 of Wang), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Where the instant L is branched alkyl.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan Wang et al. (US 2023/0047519 A1) (hereafter “Wang”), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Wang teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 17 in the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Wang does not teach a specific consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Wang described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Wang to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2013-0110934 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 13-14, and 21: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 13, Compound 169; p. 27, Synthesis of Compound 169}.
PNG
media_image8.png
906
808
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Where TMS is trimethylsilyl.
Park does not teach a compound similar to the compound shown above except for having an acetylacetonate ligand in place of the phenylpyridine ligand lacking a trimethylsilyl substituent.
However, Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Park, shown below {p. 4, lines 1-4}.
PNG
media_image9.png
318
196
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Where the ligand L can be optionally acetylacetonate as well as optionally phenyl pyridine {p. 5, lines 8 through p. 6, line 4; pp. 6-14: Compounds 11, 24, 26, 72, 80-83, 89, 91, and 156}.
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 of Park such that an acetylacetonate ligand is used in place of the methyl substituted phenylpyridine ligand as the ligand L of Park, based on the teaching of Park. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of acetylacetonate would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups ligands L of Park), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Where the instant L is aryl.
Regarding claim 13: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Park meets the limitations of claim 13 where the ligand LB is not present.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13, 14-15, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/054,702 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-13, 14-15, and 21: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/054,702 discloses the compounds shown below {lines 2 and 11 of claim 15}.
PNG
media_image10.png
402
674
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
406
568
media_image11.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/959,328 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 13: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/959,328 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image12.png
236
404
media_image12.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/959,326 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8, 13, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/959,326 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image13.png
238
366
media_image13.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/181,378 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/181,378 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image14.png
232
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/345,036 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/345,036 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image15.png
290
386
media_image15.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 98 of copending Application No. 17959324 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 16: Claim 98 of copending Application No. 17959324 discloses the compound shown below {claim 98}.
PNG
media_image16.png
404
730
media_image16.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18329912 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18329912 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image17.png
430
746
media_image17.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17745939 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17745939 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image18.png
246
450
media_image18.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7, 16, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17743561 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 16, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17743561 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image19.png
306
374
media_image19.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18630113 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-13: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18630113 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image20.png
120
228
media_image20.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 17959323 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 21: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 17959323 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image21.png
382
780
media_image21.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18239358 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18239358 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image22.png
464
818
media_image22.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7, 16, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18303707 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 16, and 21: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18303707 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image23.png
290
340
media_image23.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights