DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is responsive to applicant’s response to the election of species requirement received on December 30, 2025. The election of species requirement is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2023/0102974 A1). Regarding a device of claim 1 , Kang et al. teaches light emitting devices with first and second emission layers where each of the emission layer s contains a mixture of a hole transporting host, an electron transporting host , and a phosphorescent dopant (see abstract). Materials for the hole transporting hosts (HH) are according to formulas 311-1 to 311-6 and electron transporting hosts (EH) are according to formulas 312-1 to 312-4 and 313 (see par. 68 -93 ) , which are the same compound formulas recited in instant dependent claim 6 for hole transporting hosts and electron transporting hosts , respectively . As taught materials are the same as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected hole transport host and electron transport host for each host of the first and second layers wherein resulting layers comprised of materials expressly taught by Kang et al. are composed the same as claimed layers. While Kang et al. does not explici t ly state the electron mobility and hole mobility property values of the host materials (per instant claims 1 , 2, 4, and 5 property limitations) , these properties are considered inherent to the materials themselves and are expected to meet the claim limitations as they meet all structural requirements of the claims. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co. , 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner , 227 USPQ 772. Per MPEP 2112.01, “ ‘ Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. ’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” Regarding claim 3 , the two hole transporting hosts may be selected among formulas 311-1 to 311-6 as different compounds and the two electron transporting host may be selected among formulas 312-1 to 312-4 and 313 as different compounds (see par. 68 -93 ). Regarding claim 7 , as stated above, materials for the hole transporting hosts (HH) are formulas 311-1 to 311-6 (see par. 68 -93 ), which are the same compound formulas recited in instant dependent claim 6 for hole transporting hosts. Specific compounds of at least formula 311-2 encompass instant compounds HH-1 (selecting phenyl as R301and X301 as N-R304 with R304 as phenyl; par. 68, 72, 86) and HH-19 of claim 7: Instant HH-1: Instant HH-19: . Regarding claim 8 , e xample electron transporting hosts include at least below compound 2-1, which is identical to instant compound EH-1 of instant claim 8, and below compound 2-6, which is identical to instant compound EH-4 of instant claim 8, below compound 2-11 is identical to instant compound EH-12 of claim 8, below compound 2-13 is identical to compound EH-10 of instant claim 8 , below compound 2-4 is identical to compound EH-13 of claim 8, below 2-3 is identical to instant compound EH-3 (see par. 97): . Regarding claim 9 , Kang et al. refers to phosphorescent dopants of the two emission layers as G1 and G2 (see par. 12-13). Par. 98 teaches the dopants G1 and G2 may be identical or different from one another. Regarding claim 10 , Kang et al. teaches the dopants may have a maxi m um wavelength in a range of 490 nm to about 560 nm (see par. 99). Regarding claims 11 and 12 , the properties for phosphorescent dopants are taught (see par. 101-103). Regarding claim 13 , Formulas 411 and 412 are taught, which encompass identical compound formulas of claim 13 (see par. 104-123). Regarding claim 14 , identical compounds to instant compounds are disclosed (see par. 124). Regarding claim 15 , green light may be obtained from a device (see par. 273), which is the recited wavelength range (and see also par. 99 about selection of dopants in this emitting range). Regarding claim 16 , the functional layers for a device structure are taught (see par. 133-256). Regarding claim 17 , a device structure may include a first emission layer may be adjacent a hole transport region (see par. 137-139, 141-167) and the second emission layer is immediately upon the first emission layer (see par. 8-13). Regarding claim 18 , the device may have a multiple layered emission layer stacked structure (see par. 189). Regarding claim 19 , the device may be part of an apparatus (see par. 2, 125). Regarding claim 20 , a device may have a thin-film transistor with connections to a source or drain electrode (see par. 126-128). Given the teachings of Kang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected materials for forming layers of a n organic light emitting device structure as described above wherein the resultant materials and layers would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional device within the disclosure of Kang et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 1 4 , 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 5, 6, 1 2 -18, and 20 of co - pending Application No. 17/645,942 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘942 does not explicitly contain words stating the hole mobility properties and electron mobility properties of host materials, ‘942 also recites in claim 1 a device with a first emission layer and a second emission layer each comprised of a combination of electron transporting host and hole transporting host and recited formulas 311-1 to 311-6 and 312-1 to 312-4 and 313 are identical to host formulas recited in the instant claims. Because the exact same compounds are recited for the layers, ‘942 is considered to inherently encompass layers having properties as instantly claimed. Accordingly , ‘942 recited layers contain materials encompassing properties of instant claims 1, 2, 4 and 5. Regarding claim 3, hosts different from one another are among recited host materials of ‘942. Regarding claim 6, ‘942 current claim 1 recites the same formulas as instant claim 6. Regarding claim 7, compounds are within ‘942 recited hole transport host formulas of current claim 1. Regarding claim 8, compounds are within ‘942 recited electron transport host formulas of current claim 1. Regarding claim 9, the ‘942 claim 12 limitations meet the claim requirement. Regarding claims 10- 1 4 , ‘942 claims 13-17 recite the limitations and same formulas 411 and 412 and compounds G-1 to G-12. Regarding claim 19, ‘942 claim 18 recites the limitation. Regarding claim 20, ‘942 claim 20 recites the limitation. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select compounds for a device which are both disclosed by co-pending application no. 17/645,942 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kondakova , Marina E., et al. "High-efficiency, low-voltage phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode devices with mixed host." Journal of Applied Physics 104.9 (2008). The reference discusses selecting mixed host materials based upon properties for use with phosphorescent emitters in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device. The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art. US 2014/0042469 A1 The reference discusses light emitting devices with mixed host light emitting layers , but t he reference does not appear specifically to discuss select ing the host materials based on the relationships of the hole transport mobility to electron transport mobility among materials of the host mixture s . The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1523 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time) . 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. /DAWN L GARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786