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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0084933 , filed on FILLIN "Enter the date filing of the parent application." 07/09/2020 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 01/06/2023 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment In the response filed 01/06/2023 , the claims were amended. These amendments are hereby entered. Claims 7 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Monochromic” is not a term in the art of organic electroluminescent devices which is recognized by Examiner. To avoid confusion, Examiner suggests using the word “monochromatic” instead. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Monochromic” is not a term in the art of organic electroluminescent devices which is recognized by Examiner. To avoid confusion, Examiner suggests using the word “monochromatic” instead. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit for driving the display device” in claim 14 and there is no corresponding structure disclosed or clearly linked with the term in the originally filed disclosure. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the claimed function of “a control unit for driving the display device”. This limitation also lacks adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation could cover all the ways of performing this function and indicates that Applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention (See MPEP 2163.03 and MPEP 2181(IV)). 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. Claim s 1-1 5 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. With respect to independent claim 1, Formula 1 contains the proviso that when X is NR, then i is 0 and j is 1. However, the rings, to which the amino group defined by variable i are bound, can also comprise substituents R 1 and/or R 2 , which may be defined as -L’- NR a R b , which contradicts the proviso. Thus, the metes and bounds of Formula 1 are unclear. In continuing examination, when X is NR, then R 1 and/or R 2 will exclude -L’- NR a R b as a possible substituent . With respect to claim 5, the claim contains embodiments of Formula 1 which are outside the scope of parent claim 1. These embodiments include at least Compounds 1-153 through 1-164. These compounds lie outside the scope of parent claim 1 because X is NR and i is 1. Please note that this example is non-limiting and Applicant should check the claim for additional embodiments which lie outside the scope of parent claim 1. In continuing examination, these embodiments will not be considered. With respect to claim 14, the claim contains the limitation “control unit for driving the display device”. The c laim limitation “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" control unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" This limitation has been identified in the specification and does not appear to have any corresponding structure recited or clearly linked. For at least these reasons , the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. In continuing examination, the limitation “control unit for driving the display device” will be interpreted as anything capable of conveying electricity through a display device in order to achieve light emission. With respect to claim s 14 and 15 , the claim s recite the limitation " The electronic device " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In continuing examination, the claim s will be interpreted as, 14. [[The electronic device comprising: a ]] A display device comprising the organic electronic element of claim 1; and a control unit for driving the display device. 15. [[The electronic device of claim 14]] The organic electronic element of claim 1 , wherein the organic electronic element is at least one of an OLED, an organic solar cell, an organic photo conductor (OPC), an organic transistor (organic TFT), and an element for monochrom at ic or white illumination. Claims 2-4 and 6- 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency. 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 5 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. With respect to claim 5, the claim contains embodiments of Formula 1 which are outside the scope of parent claim 1. These embodiments include at least Compounds 1-153 through 1-164. These compounds lie outside the scope of parent claim 1 because X is NR and i is 1. 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. Claim s 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Ha et al. (WO 2019/139419 A1, using US 2020/0343450 A1 as an official translation and for references) . With respect to claim 1, Ha discloses organic light emitting diode number 42 (paragraph 0316 and Table 1, page 254), which comprises an anode (ITO, paragraph 0313), a cathode (Mg/Ag, paragraph 0314), and the organic material layer comprises an emitting layer and a hole adjusting layer (a hole transport band, 0314), and the hole transport band in Example 42 comprises Compound 2-3 (page 247 ) and the emitting layer comprises Compound 3-5 (page 250), which are pictured below. Hole transport compound 2-3 meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is NR, i is 0, and L 1 , Ar 1 and Ar 2 are not present, j is 1 and L 2 is a single bond, Ar 3 is C 6 aryl group (phenylene) substituted with a C 12 heterocyclic group ( dibenzofuranyl ), Ar 4 is a C 12 aryl (biphenyl) group, and a, b, c, and d are 0 so that R 1 , R 2 , R 3 , and R 4 are not present. Light emitting host compound 3-5 meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when X 1 , X 2 , and X 3 are each a nitrogen atom, L 3 and L 4 are each a single bond, L 5 is a C 6 arylene group (phenylene), Ar 5 and Ar 6 are both a C 6 aryl (phenyl) group, and Ar 7 is a C 12 hetero cyclic group and two substituents are fused to form an indolocarbazolyl structure. With respect to claim 2, Ha teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 is represented by Formula 1-2 for the reasons discussed above . With respect to claim 4, Ha teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, a s discussed above. Ha also teaches Example 69 (page 255) which comprises Compound 3-5, pictured and discussed above, and Compound 2-8, which is pictured below. This compound meets the requirements of the claim when Ar 1 is represented by Formula B-1, V 1 is CR 6 R 7 , V 2 is a single bond, R 6 and R 7 are both a C 1 alkyl (methyl) group, and rings A and B are both a C 6 aryl (benzene) group. With respect to claim 8, Ha teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, and L 5 is phenylene (Formula b-7), as pictured above. With respect to claim 10, Ha teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the device also comprises a hole transport layer (paragraph 0314). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( 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 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 . 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. Claim s 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the provided translation for references) and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the provided translation for references) . With respect to claim 1, Baek discloses an organic electronic element (an organic electroluminescent device), comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic material layer which includes an emitting layer (paragraph 0017), and a hole transport band (paragraph 0057), and the hole transport layer comprises a compound of the invention (paragraph 0157), such as compound 26 (page 6 of the untranslated document), which is recreated below for the sake of clarity . Hole transport compound 26 meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is oxygen, i is 1, L 1 is a single bond , Ar 1 is a C 12 heterocyclic ( dibenzofuranyl ) group, and Ar 2 is a C 12 (biphenyl) group, j is 0 and L 2 , Ar 3 , and Ar 4 are not present, and a, b, c, and d are 0 so that R 1 , R 2 , R 3 , and R 4 are not present. However, Baek does not teach nor fairly suggest a compound of instant Formula 2 as a material in the light emitting layer. In analogous art, Lui teaches a composition for the light-emitting layer (paragraph 0209) of an organic light-emitting device, which gives the device high power efficiency (paragraph 0318) and long-life (paragraph 0008). Lui teaches that this composition includes a compound of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0012), such as compound B-102, which is pictured below (page 10 of the untranslated document). Light emitting host compound B-102 meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when X 1 , X 2 , and X 3 are each a nitrogen atom, L 3 and L 4 are each a C 6 arylene (phenylene) group , L 5 is a single bond , Ar 5 and Ar 6 are both a C 6 aryl (phenyl) group, and Ar 7 is a C 12 heterocyclic ( dibenzofuranyl ) group . 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 use the light-emitting composition of Lui in the device of Baek in order to achieve a light-emitting layer which gives a light-emitting device with high power efficiency and long-life, as taught by Lui. With respect to claim 2, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 1 is also represented by instant Formula 1-1 for the reasons discussed above. With respect to claim 3, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 1 is also represented by instant Formula 1-8, for the reasons discussed above . With respect to claim 4, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, and Ar 1 is a C 12 heterocyclic ( dibenzofuranyl ) group, which meets the requirements of instant Formula B-1 when V 1 is an oxygen atom, V 2 is a single bond, and rings A and B are a C 6 aryl (benzene) group , as pictured above . With respect to claim 5, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, as discussed above. Compound 26, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Baek Chemical formula a, which is pictured below (page 3 of the untranslated document). Baek also teaches that Ar 1 is an unsubstituted C 6 aryl group (paragraph 0016). Such a modification produces instant compound 1-6. Baek includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Baek being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a C 6 aryl substituent from the finite list of possible substituents are arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with suitable energy levels, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability (paragraph 0006) , which is suitable for use in the hole transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device ( paragraph 0157) , commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). With respect to claim 6, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and Ar 7 is a C 12 heterocyclic ( dibenzofuranyl ) group, which meets the requirements of instant Formula 2-1 when X 4 is oxygen, e and f are each 0, and R 8 and R 9 are not present, as pictured above. With respect to claim 7, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 2, is also represented by instant Formula 2-7 for the reasons discussed above. With respect to claim 8, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and L 3 and L 4 are each a C 6 arylene (phenylene) group, which is instant Formula b-1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 9, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 2 is identical to instant compound 2-9. With respect to claim 10, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and Baek teaches that the hole transport band includes a hole transport layer (paragraph 0057), and the hole transport layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0157), as discussed above. With respect to claim 15, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic device of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Baek does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electronic device is an OLED. Lui teaches that examples of organic optoelectronic devices include organic solar cells, organic photoconductor drums, organic light emitting devices (paragraph 0005), as well as OLEDS (paragraph 0006). 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 use the organic electronic device of Baek and Lui in an OLED, as taught by Lui. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the provided translation for references) and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Liu (US 2015/0155524 A1). With respect to claim 11, Baek and Lui teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, as discussed above. However, this differs from the claimed invention in that neither Baek nor Lui teaches a light efficiency enhancing layer on the face of an electrode opposite the organic layer(s). In analogous art, Liu teaches a device configuration except that it includes a light efficiency enhancing layer on the light emitting surface of the claimed device structure. Liu teaches that this layer can effectively be used to adjust the chromaticity coordinates and improve the light emitting efficiency of the device (abstract). 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 incorporate a light emitting efficiency enhancing layer onto the surface of an electrode opposite to the organic layer(s) in the device of Baek and Lui , in order to adjust the chromaticity coordinate of the device and improve the light emitting efficiency, as taught by Liu. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the provided translation for references) and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above , and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1) . With respect to claims 12 and 13, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, as discussed above. However, neither Baek nor Lui teach a plurality of light-emitting layers, each comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, which are separated by a charge generation layer. In analogous art, Hatwar teaches an organic electronic device comprising at least two organic phototransducing units which are separated by an intermediate connecting region (“The layers that make up the connecting region can have various names such as a charge generation layer(s) ”, paragraph 0002). Hatwar teaches the structure of a tandem OLED comprising a green, red, and blue light emitting region in Figure 3, which is pictured below, and which has been annotated using the definitions in paragraph [ 0100 ] to facilitate discussion. This meets the requirements of the instant claim as it comprises 2 or more stacks, each comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, and which are separated by a charge generation layer ( intermediate connecting region, i.e. charge generation layer, 340, Figure 3). Hatwar teaches that embodiments of the invention can provide organic EL devices that have good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltages (paragraph 0131). 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 use the device structure taught by Baek and Lui as one or more layer in the tandem device of Hatwar in order to provide an EL device that has good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltage, as taught by Hatwar . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the provided translation for references) and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above , and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970) . With respect to claim 14, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic device of claim 1 , as discussed above. However, while Baek teaches that an organic electroluminescent device can be used in a display device (paragraph 0002), n either Baek nor Lui specifically teach the presence of a control unit for a display apparatus , although a display apparatus would necessarily require something that would constitute a control unit (a power switch or power cable would be considered able to control the status of such a device which would be recognized as implicit to the ordinarily skilled artisan). In analogous art , Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (paragraph 0003, abstract, 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraph 0071, 0062, and Fig 11 ). In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the display device of Baek and Lui using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ha et al. (KR 2017/0135391 A) – Teaches relevant compounds. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2657 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, 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. /RACHEL SIMBANA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1786