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. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Many of the structural formulas for the compounds H2-1 to H2-520 on pp. 32-55 have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Many of the structural formulas for the compounds of claim 6 have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-6 and 10 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. Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 describes compounds having the structure of the instant formula 1, shown below. Line 6 of the claim recites that X 1 can be -N=. However, it is not clear how this is possible and for the compound to remain uncharged , rendering the claim indefinite, because the claim is drawn as being uncharged. X 1 being -N= would require one of the adjacent carbon atoms to have an extra bond. This does not appear to be possible in the compounds of formula 1 of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that X 1 is selected from the list consisting of -NR 0 -, -O-, or -S-. Additionally, claim 1 is indefinite, because the structure has poor resolution and cannot be read with certainty. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the amine N is bonded to —L 2 —Ar 2 and —L 3 —Ar 3 . Regarding claims 2-6 and 10: Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1. Claims 7-9 and 11-12 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. Regarding claim 7: claim 7 is indefinite, because the structure has poor resolution and cannot be read with certainty. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the amine N is bonded to —L 2 —Ar 2 and —L 3 —Ar 3 . Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-12: Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 7. Claim 8 is 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. Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 describes compounds having the structure of one of structural formulas shown below. Claim 7 recites that X 2 can be -N=. However, it is not clear how this is possible for the structure of claim 8 and for the compound to remain uncharged , rendering the claim indefinite, because the structural formula is drawn as being uncharged. X 2 being -N= would require one of the adjacent carbon atoms to have an extra bond. This does not appear to be possible in the compounds of structural formulas of claim 8 . For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that X 2 is selected from the list consisting of -NR 0 -, -O-, or -S-. 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) 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2023/0192668 A1) (hereafter “Li”). Regarding claims 7-8 and 11 : Li discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0029]: The compounds of the disclosure of Li have the structure of Formula (1) of Li.), (paragraph [0154]: The compounds of the disclosure of Li are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 42-106), (p. 69, Compound 152)} . The compounds of Li are useful as materials for a hole blocking layer or an electron transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device { abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0017]-[0018], and [0156]-[0161] } . Thus, the compound can be equated with an organic electroluminescent compound Regarding claims 7-8 and 11-12 : Li discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound shown below {paragraph [0261] and Table 11: Example 42} . A compound used as a material of an organic electroluminescent device can be equated with an organic electroluminescent compound. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0192668 A1) (hereafter “Li”). Regarding claim 9: Li discloses all of the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above. Li does not exemplify a compound similar in structure to Li’s Compound 152 shown above in which the phenylene linked triazine group is instead bonded as in the instant Compound C-197. However, Li teaches that the compounds of Li have the structure of Formula (1) where an azine substituent can be bonded at any position on the benzene rings of the compound of Formula (1) of Li {paragraphs [0029] and [0033]: where the azine structures (such a triazine) have the structure of Formula (2) of Li.} . Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 152 of Li such that the phenylene linked triazine group is instead bonded as in the instant Compound C-197, based on the teaching of Li. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the taught positions for the azine substituent of Li) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “ Kondakova ”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”) . Regarding claims 1-3 and 10 : Park discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one light emitting layer comprises a host material having the structure shown below {p. 21, final 6 lines through p. 22, line 4 and Table 1: Example 4} . Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host. Kondakova teaches that using multiple host materials provides beneficial physical properties such as improved film morphology {paragraph [0209]} . Iwakuma teaches host materials that can be used for fluorescent light emitting materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0009] and [0013]: The compounds of the disclosure of Iwakuma have the structure of general formula (1) or (2).), (paragraphs [0056]-[0057]: The compounds of the disclosure are useful as host materials.), (paragraphs [0056] and [0065]: The light emitting material can be fluorescent.)} . Iwakuma exemplifies the compound shown below {(paragraph [0049]: Compounds having the structure of general formula (1) are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-27.), (p. 19 and paragraph [0154], the compound shown below)} . The host materials of Iwakuma can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and high color purity {paragraphs [0193] and [0201]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Park to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Park shown above, and the second being the compound of Iwakuma shown above, based on the teaching of Park, Kondakova , and Iwakuma. The modification would have been The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Iwakuma) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Iwakuma’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Iwakuma ), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material to improve the film morphology of the light-emitting layer through the addition of a host material known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high color purity. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “ Kondakova ”), Ahn et al. (US 2015/0171346 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn ‘346”), and Ma (US 2018/0138425 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) . Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 10 : Park discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one light emitting layer comprises a host material having the structure shown below {p. 21, final 6 lines through p. 22, line 4 and Table 1: Example 4} . Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host. Kondakova teaches that using multiple host materials provides beneficial physical properties such as improved film morphology {paragraph [0209]} . Ahn ‘346 teaches host materials that can be used as host materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraph [0011]: The compounds of the disclosure have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn ‘346.), (paragraph [0037]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn ‘346 can be used as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device.)} . Ahn ‘346 exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound of Ahn ‘346 {(paragraph [0033]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn ‘346 are exemplified by the Compounds C-1 through C-134.), (p. 4, Compound C-1)} . The host materials of Lee can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency, low driving voltage, and good durability {paragraph [00 10]} . Ma teaches that the compound shown above is a known host material for a light emitting material in an organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0071]-[0073]: The compound shown above is a known host material for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device.} . Ma teaches that the emissive material can be fluorescent {paragraph [0093]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Hatakeyama to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Hatakeyama shown above, and the second being the compound of Ahn ‘346 shown above, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama , Kondakova , Ahn ‘346, and Ma. The modification would have been The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Ahn ‘346 and Ma) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Ahn ;346’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Ahn ‘346 ), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material having reduced intermolecular attraction that is known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high durability. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4257 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain) . 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. /DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786