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. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2022/0029110) (Kim) . In reference to claims 1-5 , Kim teaches the compound as shown below (p 76) that reads on the instant claims. For Claim 1: Reads on a compound of chemical formula 1 wherein A2 is a group of formula 1-1, A1, A3 and A4 are each hydrogen, B1 to B3 are each hydrogen, B4 is a group of formula 1-2, R1 and R4 to R8 are each hydrogen, R2 and R4 are fused to form an aromatic ring, L is a direct bond, N-Het is a substituted triazine. For Claim 2: Reads chemical formula 1-1-3. For Claim 3: Reads on chemical formula 1-2-1. For Claim 4: Reads on hydrogen. For Claim 5: Reads on compound 163. 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. 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. Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al (US 2022/0029110) (Kim) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . In reference to claim s 6 and 9-11 , Kim teaches the compound as shown above for claim 1 and further teaches that this compound is used in an organic electronic device comprising a first and second electrode with organic layers between that include an emitting layer comprising the compound as a host material with additional host materials and a dopant in addition to other layers such as a hole transport layer (Kim [0003] [0080] [0081] [0141] [0228]). While Kim does not exemplify a device with this exact material included as the host material and device configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the taught material for the taught purpose in the taught device structure as described by Kim. Claims 7-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al (US 2022/0029110) (Kim) in view of Cho et al (KR 20160041822) (Cho) . In reference to claim s 7-8 and 12-15 , Kim teaches the device as described above for claim 6 comprising additional hosts in the emitting layer and exemplifies methods for forming such using mixtures of host materials. Kim does not expressly state that the additional host material is the claimed material. With respect to the difference, Cho teaches, in analogous art, the compounds of formula 1 such as compound 2-A-1 ( Cho [0167]) as shown below for use as host materials that can be mixed with other host materials and that the use of these compounds improves efficiency, driving voltage and lifetime of the resulting device ( Cho [0008] [0024] [00184] [0273] etc.). Given that Cho discloses the host compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including a second host of formula 1 of Cho, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the compound, which is both disclosed by Cho and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1027 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM . 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 A. 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. /Sean M DeGuire/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786