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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on July 11, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 9, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 19, 2024 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has 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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,821. 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 ‘821 patent as evidenced by at least compound 16 in claim 20 of the ‘821 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,597. 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 ‘597 patent as evidenced by at least compound 1 in claim 10 of the ‘597 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,593,606. 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 4 in claim 14 of the ‘606 patent as evidenced by at least compound D17 in claim 15 of the ‘606 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/311,575 (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 4 in claim 19 of the ‘575 application as evidenced by at least compound D14 in claim 20 of the ‘575 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/815,120 (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 ‘120 application as evidenced by at least compound 105 in claim 13 of the ‘120 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/541,784 (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 ‘784 application as evidenced by at least compound 139 in claim 9 of the ‘784 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/463,115 (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 ‘115 application as evidenced by at least compound 128 in claim 10 of the ‘115 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 24 of copending Application No. 18/350,883 (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 ‘883 application as evidenced by at least compound 172 in claim 13 of the ‘883 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/456,826(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 ‘826 application as evidenced by at least compound 321 in claim 12 of the ‘826 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/311,575 (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 4 in claim 19 of the ‘575 application as evidenced by at least compound D14 in claim 20 of the ‘575 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 1/103,751 (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 ‘751 application as evidenced by at least compound 124 in claim 20 of the ‘751 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 8, and 10 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/889,217 (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 ‘217 application as evidenced by at least compound 17 in claim 8 of the ‘217 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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 1 provides definitions for b11 to b16. However, the corresponding variables are not shown in the Formula or in the claimed substituents. Therefore, it is unclear what variables, if any, the b11 to b16 variables are intending to define.
For examination purposes, the Formula is interpreted as not requiring the b11 to b16 variables.
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rota Matir (WO2021014001A1).
As per claims 1 – 5, and 7 – 12, Rota Matir teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
322
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Rota Matir teaches compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image2.png
214
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Page 2, Paragraph 2). A particular compound within the scope of Formula (I) taught by Rota Matir is
PNG
media_image3.png
248
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on Page 123. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Y1 is B; CY1 to CY4 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claims 4 and 5; X1 is N(R11); n1 is 1; n2 is 0 so that CY1 and CY2 are not connected; T1 to T3 are each a group represented by Formula 2; a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1; in Formula 2, CY5 and CY6 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claims 7 and 8 so that the entire group is represented by Formula 2-5 in claim 9; X3 is a single bond and n3 is 1, meeting condition (A) in claim 10; b1 to b3, b5, and b6, and are integers of 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; R11 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, R4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a group represented by Formula 10-12 in claim 12; b4 is an integer of 1.)
Claims 1 – 5, and 7, 8, 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (WO2022145775A1, using US20230406867A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 5, and 7, 8, 10 – 12, Kim teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
322
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds of Formula (1)
PNG
media_image4.png
282
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0010]). A particular compound taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image5.png
378
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 6. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Y1 is B; CY1 to CY4 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claims 4 and 5; X1 is N(R11) and n1 is an integer of 1; n2 is an integer of 0 so that CY1 and CY2 are not directly connected; T1 to T3 are each independently a group represented by Formula 2; a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1; in Formula 2 for T1 and T2, CY5 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 7 and 8 and CY6 is a C10 carbocyclic group, namely a naphthalene group as required by claim 7 and 8; for T3, CY5 and CY6 are both a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene ring as required by claims 7 and 8; n3 is 0 in all cases so that CY5 and CY6 are not directly connected, meeting condition (C) of claim 10; b1 to b3 and b5 are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; R11 is a substituted C6 aryl group, wherein the substituents are two C1 alkyl groups; b4 is an integer of 2 and R4 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b6 is an integer of 0 for T3 and an integer of 1 for T1 and T2 wherein R6 is a C8 heteroaryl group, namely a benzofuranyl group as required by claim 11.)
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 6, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir (WO2021014001), as applied to claims 1 – 5, and 7 – 12 above.
As per claim 6, while the compound above shows a symmetrical substitution of the N-R groups, in Formula (I), Rota Matir does not require that the N-R groups are symmetrically substituted. 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 substitute the phenyl groups in an asymmetrical fashion and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention.
Rota Matir includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota Matir 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 organic electroluminescent devices with higher efficiencies, higher color purity, and higher stability than other emitters with comparable color (Page 1, Paragraph 5), 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 claims 13 and 14, Rota Matir teaches sub-formulae of Formula (I) include Formula If-9
PNG
media_image6.png
320
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and Formula Ig-7
PNG
media_image7.png
282
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. 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 phenyl substituents off of the N-Phenyl group in the compound above with two tert-butyl substituents. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on claim 13 wherein b4 is 2 and each occurrence of R4 is represented by Formula 9-7. The modified compound is the same as claimed compound 2
PNG
media_image8.png
202
198
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 14.
Rota Matir includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota Matir being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicity 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 organic electroluminescent devices with higher efficiencies, higher color purity, and higher stability than other emitters with comparable color (Page 1, Paragraph 5), 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 claims 15 – 20, Rota Matir does not specifically teach the use of the compound above in a device. Rota Matir teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof (Page 77, Paragraph 2: “When the optoelectronic device is an OLED, it may, for example, having the following layer structure: 1. Substrate 2. Anode layer A, 3. Hole injection layer HIL, 4. Hole transport layer HTL, 5. Electron blocking layer EBL, 6. Emitting layer, EML, 7. Hole blocking layer HBL, 8. Electron transport layer ETL, 9. Electron injection layer, EIL, 10. Cathode layer.” As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus, Rota Matir meets the limitations of claim 20.)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the condensed cyclic compound (Page 73, Paragraph 3: “A preferred embodiment relates to the use of an organic molecule according to the invention as a luminescent emitter in an optoelectronic device.”)
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host, and the content of the host is greater than a content of the condensed cyclic compound (Page 74, Paragraph 5: “In a particular embodiment, the light-emitting layer EML comprises (or essentially consists of) a composition comprising or consisting of: (i) 0.1 to 10% by weight… of one or more organic molecules according to the invention; (ii) 5 – 99% by weight… of at least one host compound H.”)
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 400 nm to about 490 nm (Page 1, Paragraph 5: “According to the present invention… the organic molecules exhibit in particular emission maxima between 420nm and 520 nm, preferably between 440nm and 495nm.”)
Rota Matir teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and 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 Rota Matir as Rota Matir demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2022145775A1, using US20230406867A1 as the official English language translation), as applied to claims 1 – 5, and 7, 8, 10 – 12 above.
As per claim 6, while the compound above shows a symmetrical substitution of the N-R groups, in Chemical Formula 1, Kim does not require that the N-R groups are symmetrically substituted. Kim also teaches compounds such as
PNG
media_image9.png
262
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, wherein the N-R groups are asymmetrically substituted. 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 substitute the phenyl groups in an asymmetrical fashion and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 organic electroluminescent devices with improved efficiency, lowered driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime characteristics ([0015]), 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 13, Kim teaches compounds with tert-butyl substituents off of the N-Phenyl group, such as in compound
PNG
media_image10.png
294
378
media_image10.png
Greyscale
on Page 23. 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 methyl substituents off of the N-Phenyl group in the compound above with tert-butyl substituents. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on claim 13 wherein b4 is 2 and each occurrence of R4 is represented by Formula 9-7.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 organic electroluminescent devices with improved efficiency, lowered driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime characteristics ([0015]), 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 claims 15 – 17, 19 and 20, Kim does not specifically teach the use of the compound above in a device. Kim teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0017]: “Fig. 2 shows an example of an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a hole injection layer 5, a hole transport layer 6, a light emitting layer 7, an electron injection and transport layer 8, and a cathode 4.” As an organic electronic device is an electronic apparatus, Kim meets the limitations of claim 20.)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the condensed cyclic compound ([0059]: “Further, the organic material layer may include a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer may include the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1.”)
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host, and the content of the host is greater than a content of the condensed cyclic compound (In Example 1, as described in [0132], Kim teaches a device where the inventive compound and a second compound, which is interpreted as the claimed host material, is provided in a weight ratio of 2:98.)
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and 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 Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, Kim is silent with respect to the maximum emission wavelength. However, since the prior art teaches substantially the same dopant as disclosed by Applicant, the property of maximum emission wavelength is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claim properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bear responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2020200884 and WO2023128521 teach polycyclic compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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