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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 4, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 14, 16, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed May 4, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 17 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin as set forth in the office action filed February 3, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 4, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye as set forth in the office action filed February 3, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 4, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as set forth in the office action filed February 3, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not specifically teach or disclosure that X11 is N, and simply generally defines X11 to X13 as being selected from C or N. Applicant notes that no working Example of Chen includes nitrogen at the X11 position and that Chen merely includes nitrogen as one of several theoretical possibilities, which is insufficient to constitute a specific teaching of the claimed structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ring of Chen provides exactly 2 options for 3 different X variables. This would at most result in 8 possible selections of ring arrangements. This would appear to be a reasonable number of finite options, well within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill. Applicant similarly sets forth a chemical formula which encompasses a large number of compounds where each variable is selected from many defined possibilities. Chen’s teachings suggest that each derivative disclosed within the expressly defined formula is predictably functional for use in an EL device as there is no teaching away from any of the compounds within the defined formula. “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Also, “"[t]he prior art' s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed...." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” Also, “The fact that many groups are disclosed would not have made any of them less obvious. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lemin, 332 F.2d 839, 841 (CCPA 1964).”
Applicant argues that the presently claimed compounds show unexpected results as shown in the data presented in Table 2 of the instant specification. Applicant notes that Comparative Examples 5 and 6, which contain nitrogen atoms in different locations than required by the claims, show significantly worse efficiency and device life compared to the Inventive Examples. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). Regarding requirement (ii), Examiner notes that the claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that Claim 14 is directed to a compound, whereas the results shown in the Table are properties that result from using the compound in an OLED with particular layer compositions. Examiner notes that while Claim 1 is directed to the use of the compound in a device, claim 1 does not require the specific compositions of the layer of the device in the Examples. Therefore, it is unclear if the experimental data can truly be assigned only to the compound, or the use of the compound as part of a device with a particular composition. Examiner also notes that the compounds of Formula 1 are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because the data is all directed to a particular species of organometallic compound, wherein the metal is Pt, C1 ring is a benzene ring, which forms a benzimidazole group, ring C2 is a benzene ring that is joined with L3 to form a carbazole group, and ring C3 is a pyridine ring. The claims allow for a much large range of ring groups, substituents and metals. Therefore, Applicant has not persuasively proven that the unexpected results in the table of the instant specification are representative of the entire genus of compounds claimed.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 17, 2026, April 28, 2026 and June 23, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘744 patent as evidenced by compound BD124 in claim 20 of the ‘744 patent.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/107,609 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘609 application as evidenced by compound 38 in claim 20 of the ‘609 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/045,766 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘766 application as evidenced by compound 74 in claim 20 of the ‘766 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/328,151 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘151 application as evidenced by compound 55 in claim 20 of the ‘151 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko (US20220173338A1).
As per claims 14 – 19, Ko teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
324
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ko teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
202
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Ko is compound BD136
PNG
media_image3.png
288
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; rings C1 and C2 are each hydrocarbon rings of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 5 ring-forming carbon atoms; L1 is a direct linkage; L2 is *-O-*; L3 is *-N(R18)-*; R1 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R2 is hydrogen; R18 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms combined with an adjacent group to form a ring; n1 to n3 are each independently an integer of 1; n4 is an integer of 2. This compound reads on Formula 2 in claim 15, Formula 3 in claim 6, Formula 4 in claim 17, Formula 5-2 in claim 18, and Formula 6-1 in claim 19.)
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Ko has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20220173338A1) as applied to claims 14 – 19 above.
As per claims 1, 4 and 6 – 10, the teachings of Ko with respect to Compound BD136 are incorporated below. While Ko teaches compounds of Formula 1, Ko does not specifically reach the use of compound BD136 in a device. Ko does teach:
A light emitting device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode oppositely disposed to the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound (Abstract: “A light-emitting device includes: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the interlayer including an emission layer.” & [0160]: “In one or more embodiments, the organometallic compound may be included in an interlayer, e.g., an emission layer, of the light-emitting device.”)
Ko teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Ko as Ko demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 2, Ko teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is configured to emit phosphorescence ([0301]: “The phosphorescent dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 described herein.”)
As per claim 3, Ko teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, the dopant comprises the organometallic compound ([0161]: “In one or more embodiments, the emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound.”)
As per claims 12 and 13, Ko teaches:
Wherein the host comprises a first host and a second host ([0163]: “In one or more embodiments, the host may include different types (or kinds) of hosts. In some embodiments, the host may include a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host.”)
The first host is represented by Formula HT-1
PNG
media_image4.png
222
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(In [0191], Ko teaches that the hole transporting host may be selected from compounds including
PNG
media_image5.png
188
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Lg is a direct linkage; Ar1 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R62 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms. This compound is the same as compound H8 in claim 13.)
The second host is represented by Formula ET-1 or ET-2
PNG
media_image6.png
276
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
202
342
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(In [0191], Ko teaches that the electron transporting host may be selected from compounds including
PNG
media_image8.png
222
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on Formula ET-1 wherein Y1 to Y3 are each independently N; b1 to b3 are all 0 so that the corresponding L groups do not exist; Ar2 and Ar3 are both unsusbtituted heteroaryl groups of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms and Ar1 is a susbtituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms. This compound is the same as compound E1 in claim 13.)
Claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200411775A1).
As per claims 1, Chen teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
324
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Chen teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image9.png
184
328
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Chen is
PNG
media_image10.png
190
212
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the nitrogen atom in the bottom left ring as claimed. However, in Formula I, Chen defines X11 to X13 as being selected from C or N ([0055]) and Chen teaches an embodiment in which X11 is N and the remaining X11 to X13 are C. When X11 in the above compound is modified to be a nitrogen atom, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; C1 is an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms; ring C2 is a unsubstituted heterocycle of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; ring C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 5 ring-forming carbon atoms; L1 is a direct linkage, L2 is *-O-*, L3 is *-N(R18)-*; R1 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R2 is hydrogen; R18 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms combined with an adjacent group to form a ring; n1 to n3 are each independently an integer of 1; n4 is an integer of 2. The compound reads on Formula 2 in claims 4 and 15, Formula 4 in claims 6 and 17, and Formula 5-1 in claims 7 and 18 wherein X1 to X4 are CR3 and A1 to A3 are CR3, the R3 for A3 is combined with an adjacent group to form a ring and the remaining R3 groups are hydrogen. The compound reads on Formula 3 in claims 5 and 16 wherein A4 to A7 are each independently CR4 wherein R4 is a hydrogen atom. The compound reads on Formula 6-1 in claims 8 and 19 and Formula 7-1 in claim 9, wherein Z1 is N and R5 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms. Since claim 10 defines Formula 6-2 but does not require that the compound is represented by Formula 6-2, Chen renders claim 10 obvious.)
A light emitting device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode oppositely disposed to the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound ([0077]: “In some embodiments, the OLED comprises an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode.” & [0078]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may be an emissive layer and the compound as described herein may be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([0144]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 2, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is configured to emit phosphorescence ([0107]: “In some embodiments, the compound can bean emissive dopant. In some embodiments, the compound can produce emissions via phosphorescence.”)
As per claim 3, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises the organometallic compound ([0086]: “In some embodiments of the emissive region, the compound can be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant. In some embodiments, the emissive region further comprises a host.”)
As per claims 11 and 20, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound 3
PNG
media_image11.png
188
204
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is the deuterium atoms. However, Chen teaches that the substituents off of the benzimidazole group can be selected from R5
PNG
media_image12.png
154
294
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, as in the compound shown above and can also be selected from the undeuterated R2
PNG
media_image13.png
130
280
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0072]), which is the same as in claimed compound 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the deuterated substituent of modified compound above with the undeuterated substituent and arrive at claimed compound 3.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([0144]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200411775A1) as applied to claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 20 above, and further in view of Yun (Yun et al. "Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors." Chemistry- A European Journal. 2021 (27): 12642 -12648).
As per claim 12, Chen does not limit the host material ([0113]). Chen does not teach:
The host comprises a first host and a second host, wherein the first host is represented by Formula HT-1
PNG
media_image14.png
258
388
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The second host is represented by Formula ET-1
PNG
media_image15.png
246
368
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Yun teaches a novel host materials that can be used with blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([Abstract]). This is similar to the structure and composition of Chen. Yun teaches that the host material is mSiTrzCzCN
PNG
media_image16.png
216
210
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(Scheme 1) and that the material forms an exciplex with mCBP hosts to form high efficiency and improved lifetime as compared with a single host system (Page 12642, Right Column, Paragraph 2). mCBP reads on compounds of Formula HT-1 wherein Lg is an arylene group of 12 ring forming carbon atoms, Ar1 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; and R61 and R62 are hydrogen. mSiTrzCzCN reads on Formula ET-2 wherein Ln is a direct linkage; Ar2 is a substituted heteroaryl group of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms; R63 and R64 are both hydrogen. It is the same as compound E3
PNG
media_image17.png
132
176
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in claim 13.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host materials of Yun in the device of Chen because Chen does not limit the host materials used and Yun teaches that that combination of host materials extends the lifespan and improves efficiency of devices using the host materials with deep blue phosphorescent dopants (Page 12642, Right Column, Paragraph 2).
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Because Applicant has not provided a certified English language translation of the foreign priority document, CN114933616A is eligible as prior art and could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. US20230301170A1, US20230329085, US20230354694 and US20240164200 could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. However, the four US references have a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, they constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights