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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 5 and 18 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 s 5 and 18 , Applicant claims Formula R-7, wherein the definition of substituents D 3 and D 4 are not provided. It is unclear which substituent can be D 3 and D 4 of Formula R-7, rendering this claim indefinite. For the p urpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that D 3 and D 4 can be any substituent. Regarding claim s 5 and 18 , Applicant claims Formula R-8 as the substituent at positions R 3 and/or R4 of the Formula 1 of claims 1 and 14. However, the independent claims 1 and 14 each recites “when R3 and R4 are a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group, the nitrogen atom of the carbazole group is not bonded to a benzene ring” . Because the Formula R-8 is a substituent at the positions R3 and/or R4, the Formula R-8 is necessarily bond ed to the benzene ring (s) having substituent R9 and/ or R10. It is unclear whether the Formula R-8 can be the substituent at the positions R3 and/or R4, rendering this claim indefinite. For the p urpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the Formula R-8 can be the substituent at the positions R3 and R4 regardless the independent claim does not allow a carbazole at position R3 and R4 to be bond ed to a benzene ring. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim s 5 and 18 , Applicant claims Formula R-8 as the substituent at positions R3 and/or R4 of the Formula 1 of claims 1 and 14. Because the Formula R-8 is a substituent at the positions R3 and/or R4, the Formula R-8 is necessarily bonded to the benzene ring(s) having substituent R9 and/or R10. However, the independent claims 1 and 14 each recites “when R3 and R4 are a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group, the nitrogen atom of the carbazole group is not bonded to a benzene ring”. Currently claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 and claim 18 is dependent from claim 14 . Therefore, claim s 5 and 18 each fails to include all the limitations of the claim s 1 and 14 upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim s 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim s 13 and 20 , Applicant claims specific compounds including 85 through 90 each of which has carbazolyl group at the positions corresponding to R3 and/or R4 of Formula 1, wherein the nitrogen atom of the carbazolyl group is bonded to a benzene ring. However, the independent claims 1 and 14 each recites “when R3 and R4 are a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group, the nitrogen atom of the carbazole group is not bonded to a benzene ring”. Currently claim 13 is dependent from claim 1 and claim 20 is dependent from claim 14 . Therefore, claim s 13 and 20 each fails to include all the limitations of the claim s 1 and 14 upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 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. (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. Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hatakeyama ) . Regarding claims 14-17 and 19 , Hatakeyama discloses a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound used for a light emitting element ([0001], [0014]), wherein the compound can be represented by Formula (ii) ([0071]) and at least one of rings a, b, c, and d is substituted by Formula (D) ([0077]). Hatakeyama exemplifies Compound (4-4 3 ) ([0790]). The acridine group of the Compound (4-4 3 ) reads on the limitations of a substituted heteroaryl group having 2 to 30 ring-forming carbon atoms at R 1 and R 2 of Applicant’s Formula 1 . The Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of Formula 1. 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 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent). Regarding claim s 1-4 and 6-10 , the Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama reads on all the features of Formula 1 of the instant claims as outlined above. Hatakeyama does not disclose a specific light emitting element comprising the Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama ; however, Hatakeyama does teach a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer contains the polycyclic compound of Hatakeyama as a dopant and a compound of Formula (H1) as a host ([1018], [1027], [1031]). Hatakeyama exemplifies mCBP as the host compound ([1045]). The compound mCBP has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT of the instant claims. 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 (4-43) of Hatakeyama by incorporating it as the dopant with mCBP as a host , as taught by Hatakeyama . The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each s ubstitution of exemplified dopants and hosts 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 Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host), and a second electrode , meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-9 . The Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emission layer is to emit blue light . It is reasonable to presume that the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama , wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. The emission color of the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama is determined by the Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama since the compound is the only emitter. The instant specification states that the polycyclic compound according to an embodiment of the instant invention emits blue light ([00149]). The Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above and has identical core structure as Applicant’s embodiments including at least Compound 93-94, 96, and 99-100. Furthermore, Hatakeyama teaches a light emitting element comprising a B,N-containing polycyclic compound having similar core structure as the Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama emits blue light (Examples 9, 11, and 16-17 in Tables 4 and 6) Therefore, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama , wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light , meeting all the limitations of claim 10 . 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 the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama 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 claim s 5 and 18 , the M odified light emitting element of Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 1 , and the Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 14 as outlined above. The device comp ris es a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host), and a second electrode. In Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama , t he a cridine group corresponding to the Formula (D) of Hatakeyama is not a n unsubstituted carbazole group represented by Formula R-8 of the instant claim; however, Hatakeyama does teach that the Q of Formula (D) can be a single bond ([0021]); and R21 to R28 can be each independently hydrogen ([0023]) . Hatakeyama exemplifies Formula (D-B-0000), as the Formula (D) ([0370]) . 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 (4-43) of Hatakeyama by substituting the acridine groups at the positions corresponding to Formula (D) with an unsubstituted carbazole represented by Formula (D-B-0000), , as taught by Hatakeyama . The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The s ubstitution of acridine with an unsubstituted carbazole 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 Modified compound of Hatakeyama , meeting all the limitations of claim 18 . The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Hatakeyama (2) comp rising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Hatakeyama as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim 5 . Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-19 above, further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1, hereafter Adamovich ) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1, hereafter Chen) . Regarding claims 11-12 , t he Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host), and a second electrode. The emission layer of the device does not include a triazine host and a phosphorescent sensitizer; however, Hatakeyama does teach that the emission layer can comprise a known host ([1031]). I t is known in the art that mCBP is used with another host to form a cohost system. Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). The mCBP is one of a wide band gap host taught by Adamovich ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims. Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]). Adamovich further teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]). Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920 , (page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims. Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]). 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 Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama by incorporating compounds ETH and HTH of Adamovich as additional hosts and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Adamovich and Chen. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich , and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen. 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 element of Hatakeyama , Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama , a second Compound mCBP , a third Compound ETH of Adamovich , a compound HTH of Adamovich , and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen ), and a second electrode. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1 4 - 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. Regarding claims 14-19 , the Patent ‘905 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound of Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘905 exemplifies Compound 255 as the Formula 1 (claim 13). The Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-19 . Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11- 13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. Regarding claims 1-12 , the Patent ‘905 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound of Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘905 exemplifies Compound 255 as the Formula 1 (claim 13). The Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims. Patent ‘905 teaches the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant (claim 11). Patent ‘905 teaches the emission layer of the device of Patent ‘905 emits blue light having a center wavelength of about 450 nm to about 470 nm (claim 12). Patent ‘905 does not disclose a specific light emitting element wherein the emission layer comprises the Compound 255 as a dopant emitting blue light, a specific host, and a sensitizer. Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). Adamovich exemplifies mCBP as a wide band gap host ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims. Adamovich teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]). Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920, (page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims. Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]). 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 255 of Patent ‘905 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting element having structure of a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, with compounds mCBP , ETH, and HTH of Adamovich as hosts, and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Patent ‘905, Adamovich and Chen. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich , and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen. 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 s ubstitution of 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 element of Patent ‘905 as modified by Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 , a second Compound mCBP , a third Compound ETH of Adamovich , a compound HTH of Adamovich , and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen ), and a second electrode , wherein the emission layer emits blue light having a center wavelength of about 450 nm to about 470 nm. Claims 14-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 9 and 21 of copending Application No. 18 / 356 , 509 FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" (reference application, hereafter Application ‘509 ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Regarding claim s 14-17 and 19 , Application ‘509 discloses a compound of Formula 1 (claim 9) and exemplifies Compound 142 (claim 21) . The Compound 142 of Application ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 14- 17 and 19 . Claims 1- 4 and 6- 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4 and 21 of copending Application No. 18 / 356 , 509 FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" (reference application) in Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Regarding claims 1- 4 and 6- 12 , Application ‘509 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising a compound of Formula 1, and a second electrode (claim 2) and exemplifies Compound 142 (claim 21). The Compound 142 of Application ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims. Application ‘509 teaches the emission layer comprises a host , a dopant, and a sensitizer, wherein the host comprises a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host or a combination, and the dopant is the boron compound (claims 3-4) . Application ‘509 does not disclose a specific light emitting element wherein the emission layer comprises the Compound 142 as a dopant, a specific host, and a sensitizer. Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). Adamovich exemplifies mCBP as a wide band gap host ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims. Adamovich teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]). Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920, (page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims. Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]). 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 142 of Application ‘509 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting element having structure of a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, with compounds mCBP , ETH, and HTH of Adamovich as hosts, and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Application ‘509 , Adamovich and Chen. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich , and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen. 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 s ubstitution of 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 element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound 142 of Application ‘509 , a second Compound mCBP , a third Compound ETH of Adamovich , a compound HTH of Adamovich , and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen ), and a second electrode , meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 . The Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emission layer is to emit blue light . It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen , wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. The emission color of the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen is determined by the Compound 142 of Application ‘509 since the compound is the only emitter. The instant specification states that the polycyclic compound according to an embodiment of the instant invention emits blue light ([00149]). The Compound 142 of Application ‘509 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen , wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light , meeting all the limitations of claim 10 . 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 the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen 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. 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