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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “M is copper, silver, or gold with an oxidation state of 0, +1, +2, or +3, preferably +1” . A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “an oxidation state of 0, +1, +2, or +3”, and the claim also recites “preferably +1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Regarding claims 2-39: Claims 2-39 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1. Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 recites “n1 and n2 are independently integers between 0 and 5; between 1 and 5; between 3 and 5, such as 3; or between 2 and 5, such as 2”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “ n1 and n2 are independently integers between 0 and 5 ”, and the claim also recites “ between 3 and 5, such as 3; or between 2 and 5, such as 2 ” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 recites “n1 and n2 are independently integers between 1 and 5; between 2 and 5; or between 3 and 5”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “ n1 and n2 are independently integers between 1 and 5 ”, and the claim also recites “ between 2 and 5; or between 3 and 5 ” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites that structure Z has the structural formula shown below. However, claim 16 depends from claim 1, and neither claim 1 nor claim 16 define any of the variables in the structural formula shown above. Therefore, the scope of the structural formula shown above is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variables of the structural formula shown above have the definitions set forth in the instant specification. Additionally, regarding claim 16, even reading in the limitations from the specification, the definition of X 4 in the structural formula shown above is unclear. Page 54, line 7 defines X4 as being carbon or nitrogen. It is unclear how X4 could be nitrogen because L’ could not be bonded L’. For the purposes of examination, X4 is being interpreted as only optionally being carbon. Regarding claim 2 0 : Claim 2 0 recites Formula VI’ and Formula VI. Formula VI differs from Formula VI’ in that there are fewer variables U, V, and V”. The claim recites that Formula VI is preferable. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation Formula VI’, and the claim also recites the Formula VI which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation as described above. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Regarding claim 2 1 : Claim 2 1 recites Formula V I I’ and Formula V I I. Formula V I I differs from Formula V I I’ in that there are fewer variables U, V, and V”. The claim recites that Formula V I I is preferable. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation Formula VI I ’, and the claim also recites the Formula V I I which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation as described above. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Regarding claim 25: Claim 25 recites Formula VIII’ and Formula VIII. Formula VIII differs from Formula VIII’ in that there are fewer variables U, V, and V”. The claim recites that Formula VIII is preferable. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation Formula VIII’, and the claim also recites the Formula VIII which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation as described above. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims . For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the claim limitations are met by the broader range. Additionally, options (i) to (iv), (vi) to (xiii) , (xv), and (xvii) to (xxiii) require U and V to be carbon while claim 20 requires that “U is carbon and V is nitrogen, or U is nitrogen and V is carbon”. Thus, it is unclear if both U and V can be carbon, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that for claim 25, both of U and V can be carbon. Regarding claim 32, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted such that any ink printing method would meet the claim limitations. Regarding claim 34, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted such that any energy transfer process would meet the claim limitations. Regarding claim 36, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted such that any energy transfer process would meet the claim limitations. Regarding claim 37, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted such that any energy transfer process would meet the claim limitations. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 25: Options (i) to (iv), (vi) to (xiii), (xv), and (xvii) to (xxiii) require U and V to be carbon while claim 20 requires that “U is carbon and V is nitrogen, or U is nitrogen and V is carbon”. Thus, these options fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-15, 17-19, and 25-27 are rejected 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 ”). Regarding claims 1- 15, 17-19, and 25-27 : Hamze discloses the compounds shown below {p. 22} . 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’. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1) (hereafter “ Hamze ”). Regarding claims 20-25 : Hamze teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Hamze does not disclose a compound in which the instant V” is carbon, the instant U is carbon, and the instant V is nitrogen. However, Hamze teaches that the compounds of Hamze have the structure shown below {[0007]-[0008], [0046], [0048], [0059], [0066], [0089], and [0097]} . Where the fraction of the formula shown above can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0057]} . Where each X can be carbon or nitrogen {paragraph [0057]} . 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 compounds of Hamze shown above, such that on one of the six-membered rings of the moiety being equated with the instant structure Z of the instant Formula VI, the instant U is carbon, the instant V is nitrogen, and the instant V” is carbon, 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 the instant U as carbon, the instant V as nitrogen, and the instant V” as carbon would have each 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 1, 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 1 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 1, 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 1, 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 1, 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 1, 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. Hatakeyama evidences that the compound shown above is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitter {p. 2777, 1 st col., 1 st paragraph through p. 2778, 1 st col., 1 st paragraph; p. 2778, 1 st col., 1 st 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4257 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Boyd can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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