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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, and 20 are amended. Claims 1–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11–14 and 16–19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Application No. 18/093,410 is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is revised.
The rejection of claims 1–7, 11–13, and 19–19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1, hereinafter “Ko”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11–14 and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2015/0349279 A1, hereinafter “Li”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in further view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1, hereinafter “Jin”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ko is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ko and further in view of Jin is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/26/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 32–35 of the reply dated 06/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–19 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to recite “wherein when R5a and R5b are bonded to each other to form a C5-C30 carbocyclic group, then the C5-C30 carbocyclic group is not a benzene.” Applicant argues that this amendment overcomes the rejections relying on Ko and/or Li.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejections relying on Ko and/or Li are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are outlined below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 31–32 of the reply dated 06/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 11–14 and 16–19 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The Applicant argues that the amendment of independent claims 1 and 11 overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claim 20 of Application No. 18/093,410.
Examiner's response – The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the amendment overcomes the example compound shown in the previous Office Action, claim 20 of 18/093,410 recites other compounds which read on amended claims 1 and 11, as outlined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0008524, filed on 01/20/2022.
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 11–13 and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0045531 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses Compound 28 [pg. 41] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
497
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is Pt,
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY4 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzoxazole),
Y4 is N, while Y1, Y2, and Y3 are each C,
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond,
X5 is C(R5a)(R5b) and n5 is 2,
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, T2 is *-O-*’,
a1 to a3 are each 1,
R1 is a C18 carbocyclic group (terphenyl) which is further substituted with R10a which is deuterium, R2 to R4 are each a hydrogen,
d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 4,
R5a and R5b are each a hydrogen in one instance, and in another instance R5a and R5b are each a C1 alkyl group (methyl) substituted with R10a which is deuterium.
Regarding Claim 12, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation since M is platinum (Pt).
Regarding Claim 13, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY1 is represented by CY1-15, CY2 is represented by CY2-1, and CY4 is represented by CY4-40 (shown below),
PNG
media_image3.png
139
137
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
181
109
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
192
100
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X15 to X18 are C(R15) to C(R18), R15 to R18 are each a hydrogen, while R14 is a C18 carbocyclic group (terphenyl) substituted with R10a which is deuterium,
Y2 is C, X21 to X23 are C(R21) to C(R23), R21 to R23 are each a hydrogen,
Y4 is N, X45 to X48 are C(R45) to C(R48), R45 to R48 are each a hydrogen, while X49 is O.
Regarding Claim 16, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation as Y1 is C, and A1 is a coordinate bond.
Regarding Claim 17, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y2 and Y3 are each C, and Y4 is N.
Regarding Claim 18, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T2 is *-O-*, and a2 is 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Compound 28 reads on Applicant’s limitation since one d1 R1 is a C18 carbocyclic group (terphenyl) which is further substituted with R10a which is deuterium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1–4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0045531 A1) as applied to claim 11–13 and 16–19 above.
Regarding Claims 1–4 and 7, Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light emitting layer comprising a host and a compound of present disclosure as a dopant [0111], such as Compound 28 [pg. 41]. Lee further teaches the compounds of present disclosure can ensure blue photoluminescence with improved color purity [0234].
However, Lee does not disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Compound 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 28 in the organic light emitting device taught by Lee, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with an improved color purity, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 1, the organic light emitting device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 1”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Compound 28 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
497
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is Pt,
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY4 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzoxazole),
Y4 is N, while Y1, Y2, and Y3 are each C,
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond,
X5 is C(R5a)(R5b) and n5 is 2,
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, T2 is *-O-*’,
a1 to a3 are each 1,
R1 is a C18 carbocyclic group (terphenyl) which is further substituted with R10a which is deuterium, R2 to R4 are each a hydrogen,
d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 4,
R5a and R5b are each a hydrogen in one instance, and in another instance R5a and R5b are each an C1 alkyl group (methyl) substituted with R10a which is deuterium.
Per Claim 2, Lee teaches the organic light emitting device according to present disclosure may include at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron barrier layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a hole barrier layer [0110].
However, Device 1, as described above, does not specify the other layers which comprise the organic light emitting device aside from the light emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron barrier layer, a hole barrier layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with improved color purity, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 3, the light emitting layer of Device 1 comprises Compound 28.
Per Claim 4, Lee teaches the dopant may have a range of 0.01 to 20 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the host [0117]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per Claim 7, Compound 28 has a maximum emission wavelength of 451 nm [Table 1].
Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0045531 A1) as applied to claim 1–4, 7, 11–13, 16–19 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1, hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding Claims 8–10, Lee teaches the Device 1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, as described above. The light emitting layer of Device 1 comprises Compound 28. Lee further teaches the compounds of present disclosure can ensure blue photoluminescence with improved color purity [0234].
However, Lee does not teach an embodiment of a device apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Additionally, Lee does not teach a touch screen layer or a polarizing layer.
Jin teaches a display device comprising an organic light-emitting device wherein the
anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061]. Jin further
teaches the display device is integrated with a touch screen in an exemplary embodiment [0016].
Additionally, Jin teaches the use of a polarizing film disposed on the cover substrate to prevent
reflection of external light. By doing so, the visibility of the organic light-emitting device can be further improved [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Device 1 taught by Lee in the display device taught by Jin, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee and Jin according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with improved color purity, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polarization film taught by Jin to the display device from the combination of Lee in view of Jin, based on the teaching of Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the visibility of the emitting device, as taught by Jin.
Per Claim 8–9, the display device from the combination of Lee in view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is an electronic apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Per Claim 10, the display device from the combination of Lee in view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a touch screen and a polarizing film.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0045531 A1) as applied to claim 1–4, 7, 11–13 and 16–19 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1, hereinafter “Ko”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Lee teaches Device 1, as described above, comprising Compound 28 [pg. 41] and a host in the light emitting layer. Lee teaches Lee further teaches the compounds of present disclosure can ensure blue photoluminescence with improved color purity [0234].
However, Lee does not teach a device embodiment including Compound 28, a first compound comprising at least one electron donating group, and a second compound comprising at least one electron withdrawing group.
Ko teaches the organic light emitting devices including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer between the two electrodes, wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound, a second compound and a third compound [0062] – [0063]. The first compound is represented by Ko’s Formula 1, the second compound is represented by Ko’s Formula 2, and the third compound is represented by Ko’s Formula 3 [0063]. Specifically, Ko teaches Example 1 comprising Compound H2-2 as the second compound and Compound H3-2 as the third compound [0465]. Ko further teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound results in a high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan since an exciplex is effectively formed between the first compound and the second compound [0261].
Compound 1 taught by Lee reads on Ko’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image6.png
289
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is platinum (Pt),
X1–X3 are C, while X4 is N,
T1 and T3 are a single bond, while T2 is *–O–*’,
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole),
CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
CY3 is a C13 heterocyclic group (indoline),
CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group (benzoxazole),
R1 is a C18 carbocyclic group (terphenyl) which is further substituted with deuterium, a1 is 1,
R2 is hydrogen, a2 is 3,
R3 is a C1 alkyl (methyl) substituted with deuterium, a3 is 2,
R4 is hydrogen, a4 is 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Compound H2-2 and Compound H3-2, taught by Ko, to the light emitting layer of Device 1 comprising Compound 28, taught by Lee, based on the teachings of Ko. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan organic light emitting device, as taught by Ko, with an increased color purity, as taught by Lee.
Per Claim 5, Device 1, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the emission layer comprises Compound H2-2 and Compound H3-2 (see [0465] of Ko).
Per Claim 6, Device 1, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since H2-2 comprises an electron withdrawing group (triazine), while Compound H3-2 comprises an electron donating group (carbazole). Additionally, Compound H2-2 is identical to Applicant’s ETH2 [00145] while Compound H3-2 is identical to Applicant’s HTH2 [00144] of the instant specification.
PNG
media_image7.png
250
360
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
298
159
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 11–14, 16–19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/093,410 (hereafter “Shin”) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Shin teaches compounds which read on the instant application’s Formula 1, such as Compound 8.
Regarding Claim 11, Compound 8 [pg. 169] reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
497
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
268
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is Pt,
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine),
Y4 is N, while Y1, Y2, and Y3 are each C,
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond,
X5 is C(R5a)(R5b) and n5 is 3,
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, T2 is *-O-*’,
a1 to a3 are each 1,
R1 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl), R2 to R3 are each a hydrogen, R4 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl),
d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 1,
R5a and R5b are hydrogen in one instance, and in another instance R5a and R5b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (cyclohexane).
Regarding Claim 12, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since M is platinum (Pt).
Regarding Claim 13, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY1 is represented by CY1-15, CY2 is represented by CY2-1, CY4 is represented by CY4-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
160
158
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
242
142
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
228
161
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
268
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X15 to X18 are C(R15) to C(R18), R15 and R18 are each a hydrogen, while R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl),
Y2 is C, X21 to X23 are C(R21) to C(R23), R21 to R23 are each a hydrogen,
Y4 is N, X41 to X44 are C(R41) to C(R44), R41, R42, and R44 are each a hydrogen, while R43 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl).
Regarding Claim 14, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image13.png
509
694
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
268
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M, CY1 to CY4, Y1 to Y4, A1 to A4, T1 to T3, a1 to a3, R1 to R4, and d1 to d4 are each independently the same as described above,
X51 to X53 is C(R51a)(R51b) to C(R53a)(R53b),
R52a R52b and R53a R53b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (cyclohexane).
Regarding Claim 16, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y1 is C, and A1 is a coordinate bond.
Regarding Claim 17, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y2 and Y3 are each C, and Y4 is N.
Regarding Claim 18, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T2 is *-O-*’, and a2 is 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since d1 R1(s) is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Claim 15 recites an organometallic compound wherein the moiety represented by
PNG
media_image14.png
229
215
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in Formula 1 is represented by one of groups represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. However, the closet prior art (Li, Ko, and Lee) does not teach compounds with a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Additionally, Li, Ko, and Lee do not give motivation to modify any of the compounds taught to include a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Therefore, Li, Ko, and Lee, the closest prior art on record, neither anticipate nor render obvious the limitation of a compound including a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9.
Claim 20 recites organometallic compounds selected from Compounds 1 to 120. These compounds contain a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Therefore, as discussed above, Li, Ko and Lee, the closest prior art on record, neither anticipate nor render obvious the limitation of a compound including a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights