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 § 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 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 1-3 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 112898323 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wei) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1 , hereafter Geum ) . Regarding claim s 1-3 and 10-19 , Wei discloses a compound (Formula (I)) used for a light emitting device (“Technical Field” on page 1 and “Disclosure of Invention” on page 2- 5 ) and exemplifies Compound M139 (page 9-16). In the Compound M139, the pyridinyl groups at the positions corresponding to Ar1 and Ar2 of Formula (I) of Wei are not substituted; however, Wei does teach that the Ar1 and Ar2 can be a substituted C3-C30 heteroaryl (page 3, last par.), wherein the substituent can be a C6-C30 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (page 5, line 3-6). Wei exemplifies a phenyl group as the substituent of the Ar1 and Ar2 groups (see examples including at least compound M140 on page 16). Geum discloses B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for a light emitting device ([0011]-[0012]). Geum teaches that an aromatic ortho substituent that is substituted to the aromatic group linked to N of a core structure provides reduced aggregation of molecules , minimizing stacking between molecules , reduced intermolecular interaction, and reduced annihilation of exciton such that a light emitting device comprising the compound provides high efficiency ([0037], [0039]). Geum exemplifies diphenyl groups as the aromatic ortho substituents (see examples including at least 4 th compound on page 28, hereafter Compound A; and see the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below). 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 M139 of Wei by substituting each of the unsubstituted pyridine groups at the positions corresponding to the Ar 1 and Ar 2 of Formula (I) of Wei with ortho-diphenyl pyridine, as taught by Wei and Geum . The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced aggregation of molecules and minimizing stacking between molecules , reduced intermolecular interaction, and reduced annihilation of exciton such that a light emitting device comprising the compound provides high efficiency, based on the teaching of Geum . Furthermore, t he modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of hydrogen with phenyl as the substituents of the heteroaromatic group of Ar1 and Ar2 in Formula (I) of Wei would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides Compound of Wei as modified by Geum which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 , meeting all the limitations of claims 10-19 . Wei in view of Geum does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum ; however, Wei does teach that the compound of Wei can be used as the luminescent material of a light emitting device (page 4, par. 1-2) Wei teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (compound of Wei as a dopant, Compound BFH-4 as a host), and a second electrode (Example 1 on page 32-33). 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 of Wei as modified by Geum by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Wei. T he modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emission layer dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Wei as modified by Geum as a dopant, Compound BFH-4 as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1 . The light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device: 1) a difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum is equal to or less than about 0.2 eV, and 2) the emission layer emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2). Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. Applicant discloses in the instant specification. A difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the condensed cyclic compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 may be equal to or less than about 0.2 eV ([0025]). The emission layer of the light emitting device of the instant invention emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm ([0026] , [0008]). The Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum has identical structure as the light emitting device of the instant invention describes in the paragraph [0008]-[0024], and the emissive dopant, Compound of Wei as modified by Geum has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above. Additionally, the compound has identical core structure as Applicant’s specific embodiments in paragraph [00124] including at least Compounds 24, Furthermore, Wei teaches that the compound of Wei has thermally activated delayed fluorescent character (page 6, par. 2). Therefore, the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum possesses the properties : 1) a difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum is equal to or less than about 0.2 eV, and 2) the emission layer emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm , meeting all the limitations of claims 2-3 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner , et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80. Regarding claims 2-3 , the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum reads all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Wei as modified by Geum as a dopant, Compound BFH-4 as a host), and a second electrode. The Compound of Wei as modified by Geum does not have a carbazole substituent at the position corresponding to Rn of Formula (I) of Wei; however, Wei does teach Rn can be a substituted or unsubstituted C3-C30 heteroaryl (page 3) and exemplifies a carbazole group as the substituent (see examples including at least Compound M59 on page 13). 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 of Wei as modified by Geum by substituting the t-butyl group at the position corresponding to Rn of Formula (I) of Wei by , as taught by Wei. T he modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the position Rn of Formula (I) of Wei would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides Compound of Wei as modified by Geum (2). The modification also provides Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum (2) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Wei as modified by Geum (2) as a dopant, Compound BFH-4 as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer. The light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum (2) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device: 1) a difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum (2) is equal to or less than about 0.2 eV, and 2) the emission layer emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2). Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. Applicant discloses in the instant specification. A difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the condensed cyclic compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 may be equal to or less than about 0.2 eV ([0025]). The emission layer of the light emitting device of the instant invention emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm ([0026], [0008]). The Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum has identical structure as the light emitting device of the instant invention describes in the paragraph [0008]-[0024], and the emissive dopant, Compound of Wei as modified by Geum has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above. Additionally, the compound has identical core structure as Applicant’s specific embodiments in paragraph [00124] including at least Compound 8. Furthermore, Wei teaches that the compound of Wei has thermally activated delayed fluorescent character (page 6, par. 2). Therefore, the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum (2) possesses the properties 1) and 2), meeting all the limitations of claims 2-3 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum (2) is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner , et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80. Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 112898323 A) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 10-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012 , hereafter Pang). Regarding claim s 8-9 , the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum reads on all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Wei as modified by Geum as a dopant, Compound BFH-4 as a host), and a second electrode. Wei in view of Geum does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum . Pang discloses an apparatus (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising a light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3). 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 Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum by incorporating it into an apparatus (i.e. OLED display), as taught by Pang. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). T he substitution of the light-emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The resultant device is an electronic apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device electrically connected to one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin film transistor. Claim s 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 112898323 A) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) and Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1, hereafter Stengel) . Regarding claim s 1-7 and 10-19 , the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum reads on all the features of Formula 1, as outlined above. Wei in view of Geum does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising at least three different compounds in the light emitting layer; however, Wei does teach that the compound of Wei can be used as the luminescent material of the emission layer of a light emitting device (page 4, par. 1-2). Wei further teaches that the compound of Wei has high fluorescence quantum yield long service life (page 6, par. 2). Stengel discloses a light emitting device wherein the light emitting layer comprising a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0005]). Stengel teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emissive layer, and a second electrode (Example 24 in Table 2 and [0178]). Stengel exemplifies B,N-containing polycyclic compound as an example of fluorescent emitter (Formula 71 in [0075]). Stengel teaches that the fluorescent emitter of the device of Stengel can be any fluorescent emitter ([0055]). Stengel teaches Compound H-01 as a host and Compound PS-04 as the phosphorescent sensitizer (Example 24 in Table 2 and [0178]). Stengel teaches that the light emitting device provides very good efficiency and lifetime and low voltage ([0010]). The Compound H-10 has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound of π electron deficient nitrogen containing C1-C60 cyclic group of triazine. The Compound PS-04 has identical structure as Applicant’s fourth compound of Formula 401. 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 of Wei as modified by Geum by incorporating it as the fluorescent emitter with a host Compound H-01 and a sensitizer Compound PS-04 in to the emission layer of a light emitting device having structure comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, as taught by Wei, Geum , and Stengel. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide very good efficiency and lifetime and low voltage based on the teaching of Stengel. Furthermore, t he modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum and Stengel comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Wei as modified by Geum as a first compound, Compound H-01 of Stengel as a third compound, and Compound PS-04 as a fourth compound), and a second electrode , meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4-7, and 10-19 . The light emitting device of Wei as modified by Geum and Stengel inherently possesses the properties as outlined above: 1) a difference between a triplet energy level (eV) and a single energy level (eV) of the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum is equal to or less than about 0.2 eV, and 2) the emission layer emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm, because the Compound of Wei as modified by Geum is the emitting material of the device, meeting all the limitations of claims 2-3 . Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Wei is representation of the closest prior art. As described in more detail above, Wei teaches a condensed polycyclic compound containing boron and nitrogen and used for a light emitting device; however, Wei does not teach modification of the compound such that the compound has identical structure as any one of the specific embodiments of the instant claim 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4599 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST . 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. /SEOKMIN JEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786