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). Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title . It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words and the language “ The present specification relates to” should be deleted. .The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. The abstract should be in narrative form and within the range of 50 to 150 words in length A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicants lengthy specification has legibility issues. For examples, the compounds on pages 29-56. The compounds bonds are unclear and substitutent groups are not clear as well. Appropriate correction is required. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The heterocyclic compounds listed in claim 6 are unclear and needs to be darken. The compounds bonds are unclear and substituent groups are not clear as well. Appropriate correction is required. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 1-5 , 7-8 and 11 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 104672126 A1). Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11-12 , Li et al. teach a heterocyclic compound ( Compound P16) see claims 1, 6, 9, 10, abstract, examples and paragraphs [0005, 0034 & 0037]) according to Chemical Formula 1: Meeting the limitation of [Chemical Formula 1] as recited in instant claim 1, [Chemical Formula 3] as recited in instant claim 2, [Chemical Formula 7] as recited in instant claim 3, [Chemical Formula 1-1] as recited in instant claim 4, and wherein R1 to R6 are hydrogen as instantly claimed. Furthermore, Li et al. teach an organic light emitting device ( OLED) comprising a first electrode (anode layer) ; a second electrode (cathode layer) provided opposite to the first electrode; and one or more organic material layers (organic light-emitting layer) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein one or more layers of the organic material layers ( organic light-emitting layer) comprise the heterocyclic compound ( see claims 9 and 10). Li et al. also teach OLED comprises hole injection layer and/or hole transfer layer comprises the heterocyclic compound [0034 & 0037] . 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. Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (EP 3305773 A1). Regarding claims 1-12, Park et al. teach a heterocyclic compound ( see abstract, claims 1, 2 and 4-9 , drawings and examples) represented by formula P-9 ; however, the compound differs from [Chemical Formula 1] wherein Z1 must not be H as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, Park et al. teach ( see claim 1) that the ring A in Formula 1 may be substituted with R1, R1 can be a C1 group ( a methyl group i.e. substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C60 alkyl group ). Park et al. recognize that known compound P-9 can be modified by a Z1 group as required by Chemical Formula 1 of the present application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify formula P-9 of Park et al. to include Z1 as a methyl group meeting the limitation of Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claims in view of routine experimentation. Further, Park et al. teach an OLED ( organi c electric element) comprising a first electrode , a second electrode and an organic material layer formed between the electrodes, wherein the organic material comprises the heterocyclic compound ( see claims 5 and 9). Also, the heterocyclic compound is co m prise d in at least o ne layer of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer ( claim 6). Claim(s) 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 104672126 A1) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 6, Li et al. do not explicitly disclose a heterocyclic compound as recited in claim 6. It is noted that Compound 0078 of instant claim 6 amounts to compound P16 of Li et al. ( see claim 16). However, Compound 0078 of claim 6 differs from the compound of Li et al. in that a phenyl group connected to a benzo- naphtho furan structure is unsubstituted phenyl (difference 1) and biphenyl is connected to -N (difference 2), but difference 1 could be obvious by a person of ordinary skilled in the art in view of the feature disclosed in Li et al. wherein in chemical formula (P), Ar3 can be a C6-C30 unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group (see claim 1). In addition, with respect to difference 2, in view of the feature disclosed in Li et al. wherein in chemical formula (P), Ar1 can be a diarylamino group (see claim 1), a person of ordinary skilled in the art could readily derive changing a phenyl group to a biphenyl group, and the effects achieved by the differences could also be sufficiently predicted from Li et al. Regarding claims 9 and 10, Li et al. do not explicitly disclose the electron injection or electron transfer layer comprises the heterocyclic compound and/or the electron blocking layer or hole blocking layer comprises the heterocyclic compound as instantly claimed. However, Li et al. teach that the organic light-emitting functional layer comprises an electron transport layer and organic materials used in the organic light-emitting device comprise electron-blocking or hole-blocking materials (see paragraphs [0005] and [0037]). Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention could derive that a heterocyclic compound is used in various organic layers through selection and application in accordance with circumstances and the effects achieved by the difference could also be sufficiently predicted from Li et al. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Huang (CN 109265450 A; see abstract, claims and figures) teach an OLED comprising a first electrode , second electrode and an organic material light layer comprising a heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as instantly claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3786 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP) . 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 Mark Huff can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1385 . 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. /CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737