LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT

§102 §103

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 In the response filed 5/11/2026, no amendments were made. The remarks are hereby entered. Claims 1-20 were originally filed. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that Yang does not teach a light emitting element of instant claim 1, Examiner disagrees. While examiner agrees that the definitions of Ra and R1 do not specifically disclose bonding of adjacent groups, the definitions of Ra and R1 also do not exclude bonding of adjacent groups. The definitions of Ra and R1 include a “substituted” alkyl group, and the scope of “substituted” does not preclude a divalent alkyl group which bridges the area between two carbon atoms of the same molecule. Further, regarding Applicant’s assertion that joining of adjacent substituents is not desirable given the data presented for Comparative Example Compound C4, Examiner notes that Comparative Compound C4 and compound 152 of Yang bear two very different bonding patterns. Comparative Compound C4 has a direct linkage between the carbon atoms of a first set of adjacent rings, whereas compound 152 of Yang has a divalent isopropyl linking group between two carbon atoms of a different set of rings. The chemical and physical properties that would arise as a result of the differences in these bonding patterns and groups could be expected to be different enough to not exclude a compound such as Yang’s compound 152 just based on comparison to Comparative Compound C4. With respect to Applicant’s argument that Geum should not be applied in the rejection of record because Geum because compound P25 differs in the presence of substituents at instant A1 and A2, Examiner disagrees. At the outset, Examiner objects to Applicant’s reliance on a comparison to the compound on page 30 of Geum as this compound is not relied upon in the rejection of record. The office has held that it is not persuasive to argue nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Geum teaches a polycyclic condensed boron-containing compound of instant Formula 1 comprising nitrogen atoms at instant Y1 and Y2 which are further substituted by an ortho-substituted phenyl group, but does not teach the substituents at instant A1 and A2. Instead, Geum is modified by the teachings of Yang to comprise substituents at instant A1 and A2. Yang teaches compounds with these substituents are able to produce circularly polarized light. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Geum to comprise the phenyl substituents taught by Yang in order to obtain a compound with circularly polarized light. With respect to Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not expect the combination of Geum and Yang would result in improved photophysical properties, examiner disagrees. In fact, the improvements noted by applicant, namely improved efficiency, lifetime (paragraph 00298 of the instant specification), and narrow FWHM (paragraph 00299 of the instant specification) are contemplated by the prior art (last paragraph on page 26 of the previously provided translation of Yang). Even if the work of Yang did not contemplate improved external quantum efficiency and narrow full width at half maximum, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). For at least these reasons, the rejections of record are respectfully maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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, 7, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 112480154 A, using the previously provided translation for references). Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (ITO), a second electrode disposed on the first electrode (Al), and an emission layer disposed between the first and second electrodes wherein the emission layer includes a first compound (Compound 152) and at least one of second compound (mCP, mCBP, or mCBPCN) with the following structures outlined below (pgs. 25 and 26 of Description, see also entry 14 of Table 1). PNG media_image1.png 263 525 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 244 875 media_image2.png Greyscale Compound 152 reads on Formula 1 wherein: X1 and X2 are C(R7) wherein R-7 is a hydrogen atom, and X3 is C(R7) wherein R7 is a substituted alkyl group; and Y1 and Y2 are N(Ra) wherein Ra is an ortho-substituted (with respect to N) phenyl group; and A1 and A2 are phenyl groups; and R2 and R3 are phenyl groups; and R4 and R6 are hydrogen atoms; and R5 is a substituted alkyl group. mCP, mCBP, and mCBPCN all read on Formula HT-1 wherein a4 is an integer equal to 8 and R10 is represented by hydrogen atoms R9 is represented by a substituted aryl group Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the first compound is represented by Compound 152 (vide supra, regarding claim 1). Compound 152 reads on Formula 1-1 wherein X1 to X3, Y1, Y2, and R1 to R7 are the same as previously defined. Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the first compound is represented by Compound 152 (vide supra, regarding claim 1). The substituents R2 and R3 are each independently represented by a phenyl group, which corresponds to the group defined as R-1. Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (ITO), a second electrode disposed on the first electrode (Al), and at least one functional layer disposed between the first and second electrodes wherein the functional layer includes a polycyclic compound (Compound 152; pgs. 25 and 26 of Description, see also entry 14 of Table 1). Compound 152 reads on Formula 1 wherein: X1 and X2 are C(R7) wherein R-7 is a hydrogen atom, and X3 is C(R7) wherein R7 is a substituted alkyl group; and Y1 and Y2 are N(Ra) wherein Ra is an ortho-substituted (with respect to N) phenyl group; and A1 and A2 are phenyl groups; and R2 and R3 are phenyl groups; and R4 and R6 are hydrogen atoms; and R5 is a substituted alkyl group. Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the at least one functional layer comprises: an emission layer including the polycyclic compound (Compound 152, see pgs. 25 and 26 of Description); and a hole transport region (TAPC) disposed between the first electrode (ITO) and the emission layer (pgs. 25 and 26 of Description); and an electron transport region (TmPyPB) disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode (Al, see pgs. 25 and 26 of Description). Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the emission layer is a delayed fluorescence emission layer including a host (mCP, mCBP, or mCBPCN) and a dopant, wherein the dopant includes the polycyclic compound (Compound 152, see pgs. 25 and 26 of Description). Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the polycyclic compound of Formula 1 is represented by Compound 152 (vide supra, regarding claim 15) wherein A1 and A2 are each independently an unsubstituted phenyl group. Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches a light emitting element wherein the polycyclic compound is represented by Compound 152 (vide supra, regarding claim 15), which is symmetric with respect to a boron atom. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Claims 1-8, 10-11,14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 112480154 A, English translation obtained from WIPO). 21. Regarding claim 1, Geum teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (¶ [0203]-[0210]). 22. Geum teaches that the emission layer can comprise a host and a dopant (¶ [0210]), and that the dopant represented by Formula 1 (see below, ¶ [0037]) has structural features, such as the substituents ortho to the N atom of the polycycle (circled below), that confer increased steric encumbrance and thereby improve service lifetimes of devices by minimizing intermolecular interactions (¶ [0038]-[0039]). PNG media_image3.png 236 714 media_image3.png Greyscale 23. Geum discloses the compound shown below as an example of a dopant represented by Formula 1 (see below, [0188], pg 25). PNG media_image4.png 250 418 media_image4.png Greyscale 24. While Geum teaches the disclosed compound above and generally teaches uses of disclosed compounds in a light emitting element of the claim, Geum does not specifically teach the particular compound in a light emitting element, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound shown above by using the compound in a light emitting element of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 25. The compound of Geum shown above does not teach all of the structural features of Formula 1 as per claim 1, specifically that A1 and A2 are not H atoms. 26. Geum does not teach an emission layer than includes at least one of a second compound represented by Formula HT-1, a third compound represented by Formula ET-1, or a fourth compound represented by Formula M-b. 27. Yang teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first and second electrodes (pgs. 25 and 26 of Description) wherein the emission layer includes a first compound represented by Formula 1 (pg. 2 of Description) and at least one of second compound (mCP, mCBP, or mCBPCN; pgs. 25 and 26 of Description) with the following structures outlined below. PNG media_image5.png 223 604 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 244 875 media_image2.png Greyscale 28. Yang teaches that compounds represented by Formula 1 are useful as chiral thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) materials with circularly polarized luminescent properties (pg. 1 of Description) and can be used as a dopant in combination with one of the second compounds outlined above (pg. 26 of Description). 29. Yang discloses the following compound 3 as an example representing Formula 1 (pg. 3 of Description) wherein the phenyl substituents that render the compound chiral are circled below. PNG media_image6.png 254 606 media_image6.png Greyscale 30. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Geum shown above by substituting the H atoms in positions of A1 and A2 (per claim 1) with phenyl substituents, based on the teachings of Yang with the motivation to provide a light emitting element with circularly polarized luminescent properties. This substitution provides the following modified compound (see below). PNG media_image7.png 378 625 media_image7.png Greyscale 31. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting element of Geum by including one of the 2nd compounds of Yang as a host material in the emission layer given the teaching of Yang (improved external quantum efficiency, narrow full width at half maximum; see pg 26 of Description). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make a light emitting element in order to produce optimal light emitting elements. 32. The modified light emitting element of Geum comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound (Formula 1) and one of the 2nd compounds (Formula HT-1) of Yang reads on claim 1 wherein all the limitations are met. 33. Regarding claim 2, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 2 wherein the limitation of Ra represented by Formula 2 is met. 34. Regarding claim 5, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 5 wherein the limitation of Formula 1 represented by Formula 1-1 is met. 35. Regarding claim 6, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 6 wherein the limitation of Formula 1-1 represented by Formula 1-1A is met. 36. Regarding claim 8, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 8 wherein the limitation of R6 is a t-butyl group is met. 37. Regarding claim 10, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 5 wherein the limitation of Formula 1 represented by Formula 1-1 is met. 38. Regarding claim 15, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification) in the functional layer disposed between the first and second electrodes reads on claim 15 wherein all of the limitations are met. 39. Regarding claim 11, Geum as modified by Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. 40. Geum as modified by Yang does not teach a structure represented by Formula 1 wherein at least one of Y1, Y2, and R-1 to R7, each independently includes a deuterium atom or a substituent including a deuterium atom. 41. Geum also discloses the compound shown below as an example of a dopant represented by Formula 1 (see below, [0188], pg 22) containing a Y1 substituent including deuterium atoms (highlighted with a box). PNG media_image8.png 267 347 media_image8.png Greyscale 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the di-ortho substituted phenyl substituent of Geum (Yang Modification) with the deuterated substituent shown above, because Geum teaches the variable may be selected with deuterium incorporation. This substitution is depicted below with Geum (Deuterio Modification). PNG media_image9.png 451 704 media_image9.png Greyscale 43. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the emission layer of the light emitting element of Geum modified by Yang and possess the benefits taught by Geum (increased steric encumbrance and improved service lifetimes of devices by minimizing intermolecular interactions (¶ [0038]-[0039])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B). 44. Regarding claim 7, Geum as modified by Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. 45. Geum as modified by Yang does not teach a structure represented by Formula 1 wherein R-2 and R3 are independently represented by a substituent of R-1 to R-6. 46. Geum does teach that the emission layer can comprise a dopant and that the dopant can be represented by Formula 2 (see below, ¶ [0077]) wherein R10 and R11 are the same as or different from each other (¶ [0080]); and R10 and R11 can be substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups (¶ [0080]). PNG media_image10.png 174 453 media_image10.png Greyscale 47. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Geum (Yang Modification) shown above by substituting phenyl groups in place of H atoms at the position equivalent to the instant R2 and R3 of Formula 1, based on the teaching of Geum. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(1)(8). This substitution is depicted below with Geum (Yang Modification)’. PNG media_image11.png 383 624 media_image11.png Greyscale 48. The selection of phenyl substituents would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent options for R10 and R11 of Geum), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in a light emitting element in order to produce optimal light emitting elements. 49. Regarding claim 3, 4, 14, and 20, Geum as modified by Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1, 2, and 15, as outlined above. 50. Geum as modified by Yang does not teach a structure wherein Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1 as per claim 3, nor any of the exemplified compounds disclosed in claims 14 and 20. 51. Geum does teach that the emission layer can comprise a dopant and that the dopant can be represented by Formula 2 (see above, ¶ [0077]) wherein when Z1 to Z4 are each C-H, n1+n2 is an integer from 2 to 4 52. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Geum (Yang Modification)’ shown above by substituting a phenyl group in place of an H atom such that the sum of n1+n2 is 4 instead of 3, based on the teaching of Geum. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(1)(8). This substitution is depicted below with Geum (Yang Modification)’’. PNG media_image12.png 380 584 media_image12.png Greyscale 53. The selection of a phenyl substituent would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent options for Z1 and Z2 Geum), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in a light emitting element in order to produce optimal light emitting elements. 54. The compound Geum (Yang Modification)’’ reads on claims 3 and 4, meeting all of the limitations therein. 55. Regarding claims 14 and 20, the modified light emitting element comprising Geum (Yang Modification)’’ as a first compound and one of the 2nd compounds of Yang reads on claim 14 and 20 wherein Geum (Yang Modification)’’ is identical to exemplified compound 1. 56. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 112480154 A, English translation obtained from WIPO) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2020147563 A, English translation obtained from WIPO). 57. Regarding claim 9, Geum as modified by Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. 58. Geum as modified by Yang does not teach a structure wherein in Formula 1 at least one of X1 to X3 is a nitrogen atom. 59. Hatakeyama teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds useful as thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials in light emitting elements represented by General Formula 1 (shown below, ¶ [0039]) wherein: PNG media_image13.png 254 281 media_image13.png Greyscale R3 and R5 may be aryl substituents; and R1 may be alkyl; and X1 and X2 may be N(R) wherein R is a substituted aryl substituent; and at least one of Y-1 to Y6 is a nitrogen atom. 60. Hatakeyama also discloses the particular compound 1-389 (also shown below, ¶ [0136]) PNG media_image14.png 184 222 media_image14.png Greyscale 61. Additionally, Hatakeyama teaches that selecting Y1 to Y6 as N has the effect of strengthening the electron accepting property of the boron and enhancing the multiple resonance effect (¶ [0047]). The enhanced multiple resonance effect results in higher efficiency, longer lifetimes, and emission spectra with narrower full widths at half maximum (¶ [0047]). 62. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Geum (Yang Modification) shown above (see regarding claim 1) by substituting the C-H moiety in the position of X3 (per claim 1) for a nitrogen atom, based on the teachings of Hatakeyama with the motivation to provide a light emitting element with enhanced multiple resonance effects {higher efficiency, longer lifetimes, and narrower full widths at half maximum (¶ [0047])}. This substitution provides the following modified compound (see below). PNG media_image15.png 377 618 media_image15.png Greyscale 63. The compound Geum (Yang and Hatakeyama Modification) reads on claim 9 meeting all of the limitations therein. 64. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 112480154 A, English translation obtained from WIPO) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0235303 A1), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1), and Li et al. (US 2012/0302753 A1). 65. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Geum as modified by Yang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. 66. Geum as modified by Yang does not teach a third compound represented by Formula ET-1 in the emission later as required by claim 12 nor a fourth compound represented by Formula M-b in the emission layer as required by claim 13. 67. Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer (¶ [0395]-[0397], see also Table 1: Example 9). 68. The emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, and a dopant (¶ [0395]-[0397], see also Table 1: Example 9), wherein the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of 1:1 (¶ [0395]-[0397], see also Table 1: Example 9). 69. The dopant is a condensed polycyclic compound having a similar structure to the compounds of Geum (¶ [0201] and [0395]-[0397]; Table 1: Example 9). The dopant of Geum has the structure that is encompassed by the structural formula of the light-emitting dopant of Kim (¶ [0066]). 70. The first host comprises a hole-transporting host having the structure shown below (¶ [0199] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9), which is also an option for the 2nd compound represented by Formula HT-1 as taught by Yang. PNG media_image16.png 434 332 media_image16.png Greyscale 71. The second host comprises an electron-transporting host having the structure shown below {¶ [0200] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9), which reads on Formula ET-1 and is required in the emission layer as per claim 12. PNG media_image17.png 376 636 media_image17.png Greyscale 72. Kim teaches that light emitting elements using the combination of the compounds above taught by Kim possess high efficiency and long lifespan (¶ [0403]). 73. 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 device taught by Geum and modified by Yang by using the compounds of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make a light emitting elements in order to produce optimal light emitting elements, which in this case means using the combination of materials taught by Kim in order to provide devices with high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Kim. 74. Regarding claim 13, So teaches light emitting elements in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material (abstract; Fig. 4 as described in ¶ [0016], [0039], and [0045]). 75. So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provides sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {¶ [0035] and [0038]-[0039]). 76. 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 device taught by Geum as modified by Yang and Kim such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So. 77. Geum as modified by Yang, Kim, and So do not exemplify a fourth compound in the emission that has a structure satisfying Formula M-b. 78. Li teaches the compound shown below (¶ [0112]). Li teaches that the compounds of Li are phosphorescent materials for use in light emitting elements (¶ [0090] and [0100]-[0101]) and reads on Formula M-b as per claim 1. PNG media_image18.png 473 428 media_image18.png Greyscale 79. At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Geum, Yang, Kim and So by using the compound of Li shown above as the fourth compound represented by Formula M-b in the emission layer, based on the teaching of Li. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make a light emitting element in order to produce an optimal light emitting element. Conclusion 80. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.. 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. /RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786