DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims
Claims 21-22, 24-28, and 32-37 have been amended.
Claims 1-20, 23 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 and 24-39 are pending.
The cancellation of claims 1-20 and the amendments of claims 21, 25, 32, 34, and 36-37 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 25 has overcome the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claims 1-20 and the amendments of claims 21-22, 24-28, and 32-37 has required the revision of the rejections of claims 1-15, 17-19, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 20-25, 28-34, and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”), and further as evidenced by Duan et al. (US 2020/0203652 A1) (hereafter "Duan"); and the rejection of claims 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”), and further as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. ("Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect" Advanced Materials (2016) vol. 28, pp. 2777-2781.) (hereafter "Hatakeyama") set forth in the last Office action. The rejections are revised as outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-15, 17-19, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 20-25, 28-34, and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”), and further as evidenced by Duan et al. (US 2020/0203652 A1) (hereafter "Duan"); and the rejection of claims 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”), and further as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. ("Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect" Advanced Materials (2016) vol. 28, pp. 2777-2781.) (hereafter "Hatakeyama") set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended are nonobvious over the teachings of Hamze. Applicant alleges that the teachings of Hamze require too many selections to read on the current claims and such choices would not represent a finite number of options.
However, for the reasons outlined below, the claims remain obvious over Hamze. Specifically, Hamze discloses a series of exemplified compounds. In modifying the compound described below, only a single modification is made by making a single selection. Hamze is clear that any of Au, Ag, or Cu can be the metal center of the compounds of Hamze. Selecting Cu from this list represents a choice from a finite number of choices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-34, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”).
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24-27: Hamze discloses the compound shown below {p. 22}.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the C-Au bonds are carbene bonds paragraphs {[0007]-[0008], [0046], [0066], [0089], and [0097]}. Thus, the bonding in the imidazole ring and in the C-Au bond is a resonance structure of the bonding showed in the instant Formula I and Formula I’.
Hamze does not disclose a compound similar to the compound above in which the instant M is Cu.
However, Hamze teaches that the compounds of Hamze have the structure shown below {[0007]-[0008], [0046], [0048], [0059], [0066], [0089], and [0097]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
142
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where the variable M can be Au, Ag, or Cu {paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0046], and [0048]}.
Hamze teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Hamze when used as sensitizers for fluorescent or delayed fluorescence emitters provide efficient energy transfer, allowing for effective emission at higher energies {paragraph [0157]}.
Therefore, 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 Hamze shown above, such that M is Cu, based on the teaching of Hamze. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of M as Cu would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (one of two options for X of Hamze), 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 materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means producing additional sensitizers that allow for devices having effective emission at higher energies, as taught by Hamze.
Regarding claims 28-31, 33, and 38: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
Hamze does not exemplify an organic light emitting device comprising one of the compounds of Hamze shown above.
However, Hamze teaches an organic light-emitting diode comprising an anode, a hole transport region, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode {paragraphs [0007], [0066], and [0153] as well as Fig. 1 as described in paragraph [0104]}.
The light-emitting layer comprises the compound of the disclosure of Hamze as a sensitizer for a light-emitting material that can be a fluorescent light emitting material or a delayed fluorescent light emitting material {paragraphs [0007], [0066], and [0153]}.
The sensitizer transfers energy to the emitting material {paragraph [0006]}.
The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer {paragraphs [0007], [0066], and [0153] as well as Fig. 1 as described in paragraph [0104]}.
The electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer {paragraphs [0007], [0066], and [0153] as well as Fig. 1 as described in paragraph [0104]}.
The light emitting layer is located between the anode and the cathode; the hole transport region is located between the anode and the light emitting layer; the electron transport region is located between the light emitting layer and the cathode {paragraphs [0007], [0066], and [0153] as well as Fig. 1 as described in paragraph [0104]}.
Hamze teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Hamze when used as sensitizers for fluorescent or delayed fluorescence emitters provide efficient energy transfer, allowing for effective emission at higher energies {paragraph [0157]}.
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 compound of Hamze by using it as the sensitizer for a light-emitting material that can be a fluorescent light emitting material or a delayed fluorescent light emitting material in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Hamze described above, based on the teaching of Hamze. 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 an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means selecting a sensitizer that provides a device having effective emission at higher energies, as taught by Hamze.
Regarding claim 32: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claim 29, as outlined above.
Hamze does not exemplify that the device taught by Hamze, as outlined above, is fabricated by vacuum deposition.
Hamze teaches that the devices of Hamze can be fabricated by vacuum deposition {paragraph [0153]}.
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 Hamze, as outlined above, by fabricating the device by vacuum deposition, based on the teaching of Hamze. 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 use known methods in order to produce the devices taught by Hamze.
Regarding claim 34: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claims 21 and 38, as outlined above.
Hamze does not exemplify a specific emitting material.
However, Hamze teaches specific emitting materials in paragraph [0072] of Hamze, each of which is a pure organic emitter.
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 Hamze, as outlined above, by using one of the emitters of paragraph [0072] of Hamze, based on the teaching of Hamze. 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 an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 39: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claim 38, as outlined above.
Hamze does not teach a specific consumer product device comprising the organic light emitting device of Hamze described above.
However, Hamze teaches that the organic light emitting device of Hamze can be incorporated into a consumer device {paragraphs [0012], [0074]-[0075], [0096]-[0099], and [0111]}.
The consumer device can be a tablet or a laptop {paragraphs [0075], [0099], and [0111]}.
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 taught by Hamze, as outlined above, by including it in a consumer device that is a tablet or a laptop, based on the teaching of Hamze. 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 an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal tablets or laptops.
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) as applied to claims 21, 34, and 38 above, and further as evidenced by Duan et al. (US 2020/0203652 A1) (hereafter "Duan").
Regarding claim 35: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claims 21, 34, and 38, as outlined above.
Hamze teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the compound of Hamze has a higher singlet energy than the emitting material of Hamze. It is reasonable to presume that the compound of Hamze shown above having a higher singlet energy than the emitting material of Hamze is inherent to Hamze. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Duan teaches that sensitizers have higher singlet energy levels than the emitting materials to which they transfer energy {paragraphs [0006], [0027], [0035], and [0039]}.
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 the [prior art] 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.
Claim(s) 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “Hamze”) as applied to claims 21, 34, and 38 above, and further as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. ("Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect" Advanced Materials (2016) vol. 28, pp. 2777-2781.) (hereafter "Hatakeyama").
Regarding claims 36-37: Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claims 21, 34, and 38, as outlined above.
Hamze does not exemplify that the emitting material is a thermally activated delayed fluorescent emitter that is boron based.
However, Hamze teaches specific emitting materials in paragraph [0072] of Hamze, including the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
268
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama evidences that the compound shown above is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitter {p. 2777, 1st col., 1st paragraph through p. 2778, 1st col., 1st paragraph; p. 2778, 1st col., 1st paragraph and Figure 2: DABNA-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 device taught by Hamze, as outlined above, by using the emitter of Hamze shown above, based on the teaching of Hamze. 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 an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights