DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 12 has been canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9-11, 13, and 19-20 have been amended.
The cancelation of claim 12 obviates the objection and the rejections of claim 12 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 9 has overcome the objection of claim 9 set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 9-11, 13, and 19-20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 110034234 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wu),
the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 110034234 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Zhang et al. (“Sterically shielded blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitters with improved efficiency and stability”, Mater. Hori. 2016, vol. 3, page 145-151, hereafter Zhang),
the rejections of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 110034234 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue) and Lee et al. (US 2005/0057460 A1, hereafter Lee),
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 110034234 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo),
the rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1, hereafter Adamovich) in view of Lin et al. (US 2005/0260448, hereafter Lin),
the rejections of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2005/0260448) as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-17 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2005/0057460 A1),
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2005/0260448) as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-17 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 32 of the reply filed 06/24/2026 regarding the objection of the specification set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the Substitute Specification replaces the structural formulas in Group IV with larger, higher quality image.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The images of the structural formulas became larger than the previous ones; however, the resolution of the images has not been improved. There are still some images having poor quality such that it is difficult to resolve double bonds and single bonds. Additionally, for some images, some of the letters representing elements are illegible. For instance, parts of nitrogen atoms in DA-02, DA-04, DA-12 to DA-19, DA-26, etc. are illegible. The phosphorus atoms in DA-16 to DA-19 are illegible. The double bonds between P and S in DA-16 through DA-19 are illegible.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 33-35 of the reply filed 06/24/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Zhang, the rejections of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Inoue/Lee, and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Seo set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claim overcome the rejections.
The rejections have been withdrawn. The arguments are moot.
Applicant’s arguments see page 34-37 of the reply filed 06/24/2026 regarding
the rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich/Lin, the rejections of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich/Lin/Inoue/Lee, and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich/Lin/Seo set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcome the rejection (page 34).
The rejections refer to Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Lin (see section 69 of the last Office Action), wherein the third compound is an Ir complex comprising no carbene. The amended claims required the third compound to be a metal complex containing Pt and carbene moiety. The Ir complex in the device of Adamovich as modified by Lin does not read on the limitation of the third compound of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Adamovich is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
As applied in the previous Office Action (see section 69 of the last Office Action), Adamovich teaches Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C and a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C is a first compound, Compound B is a second compound, and Compound A is a fourth compound.
The only difference between the Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich and the claimed device is the third compound which is a Pt phosphorescent dopant; however, Adamovich teaches that any suitable phosphorescent dopant can be used in the emissive layer including the examples in Table 3 ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that a blue Pt complex can be used as the emitter of the device of Adamovich (page 27, Table 3).
Fleetham discloses a Pt complex PtON7-dtb which is used as a blue emitter of an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Figs. 1d and 2, and Table 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
198
231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound PtON7-dtb has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound.
Fleetham teaches the organic light emitting device comprising the PtON7-dtb as the emitter provides pure blue emission with high efficiency and long operation time (page 7119, col. 2, last paragraph). Fleetham further teaches that the device comprising PtON7-dtb provides a peak emission wavelength of 451-454 nm (Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich by substituting the phosphorescent emitter with the compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham, as taught by Adamovich and Fleetham.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound, which reads on the limitation of the amended claims.
New grounds of rejection are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant further argues that the rejection depends on multiple selections from among Adamovich’s disclosed host and dopant materials (page 36).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Adamovich discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, a hole transporting host, and a phosphorescent dopant ([0011]).
Adamovich discloses compounds used as a wide band gap host ([0038], the 9th compound on page 5, hereafter Compound A), an electron transporting host ([0042], the 7th compound on page 7, hereafter Compound B), a hole transporting host ([0046], the 2nd compound in paragraph [0046], hereafter Compound C).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich are specific examples used as the wide band gap host, the electron transporting host, and the hole transporting host of the device of Adamovich. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified an organic light emitting device by incorporating the Compounds A, B, and C as the wide band gap host, the electron transporting host, and the hole transporting host in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device as taught by Adamovich.
The Compounds A, B, and C are each finite number of specific examples in the disclosure of Adamovich. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, each substitution of the exemplified wide band gap hosts, electron transporting hosts, and hole transporting hosts in the organic light emitting device of Adamovich would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 37 of the reply filed 06/24/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 19-20 of US Patent No. 11,605,786 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘786), and the provisional rejections of claims 1-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 14-17 of Application 16/906,991 (hereafter Application ‘991) set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that pending independent claims have been amended to recite additional limitation that further distinguish from the cited claims.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The amendments of the instant claims are directed to an updated third compound. The cited rejections refer to Compound PD1 of Patent ‘786 and Compound AD1-1 of Application ‘991 (sections 107 and 142 of the last Office Action), each of which still reads on the limitation of the third compound of the amended claims. The rejections are maintained.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The structural formulas in the Group IV on page 61-62 have poor quality. The elements/variables in the structural formulas are illegible. It is suggested to replace with higher quality images.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1, hereafter Adamovich) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121, hereafter Fleetham).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-14, and 16-17, Adamovich discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, a hole transporting host, and a phosphorescent dopant ([0011]).
Adamovich teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0050]).
Adamovich teaches the following compounds as a wide band gap host ([0038], the 9th compound on page 5, hereafter Compound A), an electron transporting host ([0042], the 7th compound on page 7, hereafter Compound B), a hole transporting host ([0046], the 2nd compound in paragraph [0046], hereafter Compound C).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound A has identical structure as the fourth compound of the instant claims because D41 is a C(=O)-containing group substituted with at least one of a pi electron-depleted nitrogen free cyclic group (i.e. the phenyl of the spirofluorene); and A41 is a pi electron-depleted nitrogen free cyclic group (i.e. biphenyl) substituted with a C1-C60 alkyl group (i.e. methyl).
Compounds B and C are each the second and the first compounds of the instant claims.
Adamovich does not exemplifies a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compounds A, B, and C; however, Adamovich does teach the device comprises an emission layer containing a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, a hole transporting host, and a phosphorescent dopant ([0011]), and teaches the specific embodiments of Compound A as the a wide band gap host ([0038]), Compound B as an electron transporting host ([0042]), and Compound C as a hole transporting host ([0046]).
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 Adamovich by incorporating the Compounds A, B, and C with a phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device as taught by Adamovich.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified wide band gap hosts, electron transporting hosts, and hole transporting hosts in the device of Adamovich would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C and a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C is a first compound, Compound B is a second compound, and Compound A is a fourth compound.
The emissive layer of the Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich does not comprise a specific phosphorescent dopant comprising a Pt complex with a carbene ligand; however, Adamovich does teach that any suitable phosphorescent dopant can be used in the emissive layer including the examples in Table 3 ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that a blue Pt complex can be used as the emitter of the device of Adamovich (page 27, Table 3).
Fleetham discloses a Pt complex PtON7-dtb which is used as a blue emitter of an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Figs. 1d and 2, and Table 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
221
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound PtON7-dtb has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound.
Fleetham teaches the organic light emitting device comprising the PtON7-dtb as the emitter provides pure blue emission with high efficiency and long operation time (page 7119, col. 2, last paragraph). Fleetham further teaches that the device comprising PtON7-dtb provides a peak emission wavelength of 451-454 nm (Table 1).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich by substituting the phosphorescent emitter with the compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham, as taught by Adamovich and Fleetham.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide pure blue emission with high efficiency and long operation time, based on the teaching of Fleetham.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of known phosphorescent emitters would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound; and the emission wavelength of the device is 451-454 nm, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-14, and 16-17.
Regarding claim 3, the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound.
The first compound (i.e. hole transporting host Compound C of Adamovich) does not have two carbazole groups directly linked to each other; however, Adamovich does teach the following compound can be used as the hole transporting host material in the emission layer (the second compound in [0046], hereafter Compound E).
PNG
media_image4.png
262
356
media_image4.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 modified the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham by substituting the hole transporting cohost Compound C with Compound E, as taught by Adamovich.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified hole transporting host compounds would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham (2) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and E of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound E of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121) as applied to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue) and Lee et al. (US 2005/0057460 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 18-19, the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound.
Adamovich in view of Fleetham does not disclose a specific apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and a thin film transistor; however, Adamovich does teach the device of Adamovich can be used for a personal computer (“laptop computer in [0031]).
Inoue discloses an apparatus (personal computer in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of the apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of the thin film transistor. Inoue teaches the thin film transistor comprises an activation layer (i.e. the layer comprising the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the active region disposed in-between the source and drain electrodes in Fig. 3A and 3B) and a sealing part (1020 in Fig. 3A and 3B). Lee also teaches the structure of a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode (121), a drain electrode (125), an activation layer (120) and a sealing part (150in Fig. 1 and [0004]-[0007]).
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 Adamovich as modified by Fleetham by incorporating it into the display part of a personal computer comprises the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or the drain of the thin film transistor, as taught by Adamovich, Inoue, and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a personal computing device, based on the teaching of Inoue and Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in a personal computer would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a personal computer comprises the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or the drain of the thin film transistor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121), as applied to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound.
The device does not comprise a mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered, and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Adamovich as modified by Fleetham by incorporating a mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and Seo comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compounds A, B, and C of Adamovich, and PtON7-dtb of Fleetham), a mixed layer containing Compound B, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein Compound C of Adamovich is a first compound, Compound B of Adamovich is a second compound, PtON7-dtb of Fleetham is a third compound, and Compound A of Adamovich is a fourth compound.
The Organic light emitting device reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the mixed layer has a capability of blocking holes.
It is reasonable to presume that the compound B has a capability of blocking holes.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound of Formula 2 is a hole blocking material ([00309]).
The compound B of Adamovich has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 ([0014]).
Therefore, the compound B of Adamovich has a capability of hole blocking such that the mixed layer of the device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and Seo is equated with a hole blocking layer.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and Seo product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada et al. (US 2018/0138420 A1, hereafter Tada) in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Modern Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 12451293, hereafter Reineke) and Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121) as evidenced by Uoyama et al. (“Highly efficient organic light-emitting diodes from delayed fluorescence”, Nature, 2012, vol. 492, page 234-239, hereafter Uoyama).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-17, Tada discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing a first host of Formula (1) and a second host of Formula (2) and a light emitting dopant material ([0022]).
Tada exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound 1-8 as a first host, Compound 2-10 as a second host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode) (Example 1 in [0099] and Table 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
652
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 2-10 and 1-8 of Tada have identical structure as the first and the second compounds of the instant claims, respectively.
The emission layer of the device does not comprise multiple dopants including a Pt complex and a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound to emit white light; however, Tada does teach that a mixture of TADF material and a phosphorescent complex can be used as the dopant of the device ([0075]) and teaches that a Pt complex can be used as the phosphorescent dopant of the device of Tada ([0068]).
Tada exemplifies a TADF dopant ([0074], the 1st compound on page 35, hereafter Compound p35-1). The Compound p35-1 of Tada has identical structure as the fourth compound of the instant claims. Uoyama evidences that the Compound p35-1 of Tada is a green emitter (4CzIPN in Figs. 1 and page 237, col. 1, par. 2).
It is known in the art that a white light emitting device can be prepared by using a mixture of red, green, and blue emitters in the emission layer of the device as taught by Reineke (Title, Fig. 1e, and page 1247, col. 2, lines 30-31).
Fleetham discloses a Pt complex PtON7-dtb which is used as a blue emitter of an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Figs. 1d and 2, and Table 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
221
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound PtON7-dtb has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound.
Fleetham teaches the organic light emitting device comprising the PtON7-dtb as the emitter provides pure blue emission with high efficiency and long operation time (page 7119, col. 2, last paragraph). Fleetham further teaches that the device comprising PtON7-dtb provides a peak emission wavelength of 451-454 nm (Table 1).
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 Tada by incorporating a red emitter, Compound p35-1 of Tada as a green emitter, the compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham as a blue emitter, as taught by Tada, Reineke and Fleetham.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device based on the teaching of Reineke, and to provide high efficiency and long operation time based on the teaching of Fleetham.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound 2-10 of Tada as a first compound, Compound 1-8 of Tada as a second compound, Compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham as a third compound, Compound p35-1 of Tada as a fourth compound, and a red emitter), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the emission light contains a blue portion of light having emission wavelength of 451-454 nm.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada et al. (US 2018/0138420 A1) in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Modern Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 12451293) and Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-17 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2005/0057460 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, the Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound 2-10 of Tada as a first compound, Compound 1-8 of Tada as a second compound, Compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham as a third compound, Compound p35-1 of Tada as a fourth compound, and a red emitter), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Tada in view of Reineke and Fleetham does not disclose a specific apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Fleetham and a thin film transistor.
Inoue discloses an apparatus (personal computer in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of the apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of the thin film transistor. Inoue teaches the thin film transistor comprises an activation layer (i.e. the layer comprising the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the active region disposed in-between the source and drain electrodes in Fig. 3A and 3B) and a sealing part (1020 in Fig. 3A and 3B). Lee also teaches the structure of a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode (121), a drain electrode (125), an activation layer (120) and a sealing part (150in Fig. 1 and [0004]-[0007]).
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 Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham by incorporating it into the display part of a personal computer comprising the organic light emitting device and a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or the drain of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue, and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a personal computing device, based on the teaching of Inoue and Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in a personal computer would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a personal computer comprises the Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham and a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or the drain of the thin film transistor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada et al. (US 2018/0138420 A1) in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Modern Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 12451293) and Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth”, Adv. Mater. 2014, vol. 26, page 7116-7121) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-17 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound 2-10 of Tada as a first compound, Compound 1-8 of Tada as a second compound, Compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham as a third compound, Compound p35-1 of Tada as a fourth compound, and a red emitter), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device does not comprise a mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “mixed region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered, and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Tada as modified by Reineke and Fleetham by incorporating a mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke, Fleetham and Seo comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound 2-10 of Tada as a first compound, Compound 1-8 of Tada as a second compound, Compound PtON7-dtb of Fleetham as a third compound, Compound p35-1 of Tada as a fourth compound, and a red emitter), a mixed layer containing Compound 1-8 of Tada, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The Organic light emitting device reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the mixed layer has a capability of blocking holes.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound 1-8 of Tada has a capability of blocking holes.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound of Formula 2 is a hole blocking material ([00309]).
The Compound 1-8 of Tada has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 ([0014]).
Therefore, the Compound 1-8 of Tada has a capability of hole blocking such that the mixed layer of the device of Tada as modified by Reineke, Fleetham and Seo is equated with a hole blocking layer.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of Tada as modified by Reineke, Fleetham and Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
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 1-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 19-20 of US Patent No. 11,605,786 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘786). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-17, Patent ‘786 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprising a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound (claim 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
510
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Patent ‘786 exemplifies HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound (claim 17).
Patent ‘786 teaches that the first electrode can be an anode, the second electrode can be a cathode, the organic layer can further comprise a hole injection layer and an electron injection layer (claim 18).
Patent ‘786 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the compounds HT-01, ET01, PD1, and DA-02; however, Patent ‘786 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprising a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound (claim 1) and teaches HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound (claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified an organic light emitting device by incorporating HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device having structure of a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), as taught by Patent ‘786.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified first, second, third, and fourth compounds used for the device of Patent ‘786 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of patent ‘786 comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-17.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the organic light emitting device emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm.
It is reasonable to presume that the organic light emitting device emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 has identical compounds in the emission layer as the emission layer of Applicant’s exemplified device (Example 1-1 in Table 1) having emission wavelength of 456 nm.
Therefore, the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm, meeting all the limitations of claim 7.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 3, the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The first compound has two carbazole groups, but they are not directly linked to each other; however, Patent ‘786 teach HT-10 as the first compound (claim 17).
PNG
media_image7.png
278
332
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 modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 by substituting the first compound with HT-10, as taught by Patent ‘786.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified first compounds used for the device of Patent ‘786 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-10 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
Regarding claim 18, the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
Patent ‘786 does not disclose a specific apparatus comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786; however, Patent ‘786 does teach an apparatus comprising a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, and the organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786, wherein the first electrode of the device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor (claim 20).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 by incorporating it into an apparatus, as taught by Patent ‘786.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides an apparatus comprising a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, an activation layer, and a sealing part, and the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786, wherein the first electrode of the device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor.
Regarding claim 20, the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
Patent ‘786 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device further comprising a hole blocking layer containing a compound of Formula 2 and disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode; however, Patent ‘786 does teach a hole blocking layer comprising a compound of Formula 2 and disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode (claim 19).
It is known in the art that a hole blocking layer is disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode while the hole blocking layer is directly contacting the emission layer.
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 by incorporating a hole blocking layer comprising a compound of formula 2 and disposed between the emission layer and the electron injection layer, as taught by patent ‘786.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘786 (3) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-10 as the first compound, ET01 as the second compound, PD1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, a hole blocking layer containing a compound of Formula 2, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
Claims 1-11, and 13-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 14-17 of Application 16/906,991 (hereafter Application ‘991). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-17, Application ‘991 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprising a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant (claim 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
509
668
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Application ‘991 exemplifies HT-01 as the first host (claim 14), ET1-1 as the second host (claim 15), AD1-1 as the first dopant (claim 16), and DA-02 as the second dopant (claim 17).
Application ‘991 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the compounds HT-01, ET1-1, AD1-1, and DA-02; however, Application ‘991 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprising a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant and teaches HT-01 as the first host, ET1-1 as the second host, AD1-1 as the first dopant, and DA-02 as the second dopant.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified an organic light emitting device by incorporating HT-01 as the first host, ET1-1 as the second host, AD1-1 as the first dopant, and DA-02 as the second dopant in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified compounds used for the device of Application ‘991 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET1-1 as the second compound, AD1-1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-17.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the organic light emitting device emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm.
It is reasonable to presume that the organic light emitting device emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 has identical compounds in the emission layer as the emission layer of Applicant’s exemplified device (Example 1-1 in Table 1) having emission wavelength of 456 nm.
Therefore, the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 emits light having emission wavelength of about 450 nm to about 490 nm, meeting all the limitations of claim 7.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 3, the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-01 as the first compound, ET1-1 as the second compound, AD1-1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The first compound has two carbazole groups, but they are not directly linked to each other; however, Application ‘991 teach HT-10 as the first compound (claim 14).
PNG
media_image7.png
278
332
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 modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 by substituting the first compound with HT-10, as taught by Application ‘991.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified first compounds used for the device of Application ‘991 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘991 (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer containing HT-10 as the first compound, ET1-1 as the second compound, AD1-1 as the third compound, and DA-02 as the fourth compound, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights