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. DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to. The limitation “any one of following” should be amended to “any one of the following” for better clarity. Claim 9 is objected to. The limitation “any one of following” should be amended to “any one of the following” for better clarity. 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. Claims 1, 3, 4, 13-16, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2016/0043338) , further evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2017/0025630), Watabe et al. (US 2023/0225149), Seo et al. (US Pat. 12,317,668) , and Seo et al. (US 2013/0270531). Since so many of these references are to Seo et al., each of the Seo et al. references below will be further distinguished by the last three digits of the ir respective pre-grant publication or patent. Claim 1: Seo ‘338 teaches light-emitting elements , light emitting devices , and electronic devices comprising said light-emitting elements. Table 3 of Seo ‘338 teaches light-emitting element 2 , which is comprised of an anode, a hole transport region, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The light-emitting layer is comprised of an electron transporting host material, a hole transporting host material, and a green dopant. The electron transporting host material is 2mDBTBPDBq-II which has the structure (page 10). The hole transporting host material is PCBBiF which has the structure (page 9). The compound 2mDBTBPDBq-II has a LUMO energy level of -2.94 eV and the compound PCBBiF has a LUMO energy level of -2.00 eV as evidenced by Seo ‘630 (Table 19). The LUMO energy difference between these two compounds is 0.94 eV, which is greater than 0.5 eV as required by claim 1. Figure 18 of Seo ‘531 teaches the emission spectrum for each of the compounds 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as well as a mixture of these two compounds. As can be seen in Fig. 18, the emission spectrum of the mixture has a lower emission energy than either compound alone, indicating the formation of an excited state complex, or an exciplex, which is a property required by the first and second host materials recited in claim 1. The electron mobility of the compound 2mDBTBPDBq-II is 2.2 x 10 -5 cm 2 /V•s as evidenced by Seo ‘668 (Table 9). The hole mobility of the compound PCBBiF is 5.6 x 10 -4 cm 2 /V•s as evidenced by Watabe (paragraph 0470). The hole mobility of PCBBiF is 25 times higher than the electron mobility of 2mDBTBPDBq-II which exceeds one order of magnitude as required by claim 1 (5.6 x 10 -4 / 2.2 x 10 -5 = 25.5). Table 7 of Seo ‘338 teaches that light-emitting element 2 has a CIEx,y of (0.32,0.67), making light-emitting element 2 a green light-emitting element. Therefore, light-emitting element 2 of Seo ‘338 anticipates all of the device limitations of claim 1. Claim 3: The LUMO energy levels of the host materials employed in light-emitting element 2 of Seo ‘338 also anticipate the LUMO energy level requirements of claim 3 (-2.00 eV and -2.94 eV). Claim 4: In Fig. 18 of Seo ‘531, the left side of emission spectrum of the exciplex crosses the 0.5 mark at approximately 465 nm and the right side of the emission spectrum of the exciplex crossed the 0.5 mark at approximately 560 nm, meaning that the full width at half maximum of the exciplex is approximately 95 nm, which is greater than 90 nm as required by claim 4, thereby anticipating claim 4. Claim 13: Seo ‘338 teaches explicitly teaches embodiments which are comprised of a base substrate and a plurality of light-emitting devices disposed on the substrate where at least one light-emitting device emits green light (Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 through Fig. 27). The preparation of a light-emitting element comprising light-emitting element 2 as a green emitting unit in the light-emitting devices disclosed in the aforementioned figures is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 13. Claim 14: A light-emitting device which satisfies all of the limitations of claim 13 is in itself, a light-emitting apparatus, thereby anticipating claim 14. Claims 15 and 16: Seo ‘338 teaches that the anode (bottom electrode) is formed using a material with a high work function such as ITSO which is employed in light-emitting element 2 (paragraph 0238). Seo ‘338 teaches that the cathode (top electrode) is formed using a material with a low work function such as Ag:Mg which is employed in light-emitting element 2. As such, Seo ‘338 anticipates the device limitations of claims 15 and 16. Claims 18 and 19: Claims 18 and 19 are rejected by Seo ‘338 in the same manner as claims 3 and 4 are rejected, as described above. 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 of this title, 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. 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 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2016/0043338), further evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2017/0025630), Watabe et al. (US 2023/0225149), and Seo et al. (US Pat. 12,317,668), and Seo et al. (US 2013/0270531) as applied to claim 1 above. Claim 5: Seo ‘338 , as evidenced by Fig. 18 of Seo ‘531 , shows exciplex formation with a full width at half maximum of about 95 nm (visual inspection). While this appears to fall just short of the 100-110 nm range as required by claim 5, it can be said that 95 nm and 100 nm are functionally equivalent and both exciplexes represent broad, non-monomeric emission. “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior art range (or in this case, a single value which falls just short of the claimed range) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As applied to the instant case, the mixed host materials as claimed and th ose employed by Seo ‘388 form charge-transfer complexes, which are known to have a broadening of their full-width at half-maximum. Claim 11: Seo ‘338 anticipates the light-emitting device as recited in claim 1. The electron transporting region of light-emitting element 2 includes rings which comprise a nitrogen atom, specifically, 2mDBTBPDBq-II and BPhen , which are both compounds comprising an azine group. While light-emitting element 2 of Seo ‘338 does not include a hole transporting material which comprises one of the compounds recited in claim 11 , Seo et al. explicitly teaches that carbazole-containing compounds may be employed in the hole-transport material as recited in paragraph 0254. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have employed one of the carbazole-containing compounds taught by Seo ‘338 as described in paragraph 0254, the motivation being that such compounds may be employed. Claim 12: Seo ‘338 anticipates the light-emitting device as recited in claim 1. While light-emitting element 2 of Seo ‘338 does not include one of the guest materials/dopant materials recited in claim 12, it is submitted that at least the employment of Ir(ppy) 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as Seo ‘338 teaches in paragraph 0245 that suitable light-emitting substances which have an emission peak between 520-600 nm, includes Ir(ppy) 3 . The employment of any one of the explicitly taught light-emitting materials of Seo ‘338 in the light-emitting elements described therein would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, Ir(ppy) 3 represents one of the most widely employed green dopants in the art due to its high quantum efficiency, color purity, and structural stability. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 2, 6 -10, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The electron and hole mobilities in the host materials described in the rejection above do not fall within the ranges recited in claim s 2 and 17. Additionally, the hole transporting host material taught by Seo ‘338 does not comprise two carbazoles as required by each of claims 6 and 20. Claims 7-10 refer to specific first and second host materials. Seo ‘338 does not teach or suggest any of these formulae and compounds. Relevant Art Cited Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3298 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1302 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Robert S Loewe/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766