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(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 6 is 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 6 , Applicant claims Chemical Formula E-3, wherein the germanium atom has two covalent bonds, leaving no bond to the third and fourth valence electrons. However, the independent claim 1 requires the germanium atom to have four covalent bonds bonding to the groups L 1 , R 9 , R 10 , and R 11 . Thus, t he Chemical Formula E-3 is not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1. Currently claim 6 is dependent from claim 1. Claim 6 fails to incorporate all the lim itations to which the claim refer. 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. C laims 1, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. ( CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wang). Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 10 , Wang discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Technical Field on page 1 and Summary of Invention on page 2) and exemplifies Compound 31-1 (page 22). The Compound 31-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 . Wang discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode (ITO) , a first hole transport layer (TAPC), a second hole transport layer (TCTA), a light emitting layer (Compound 31-1 as a dopant and mCP as a host), an electron transport layer ( TmPyPB ), and a second electrode (Al) (Example 22 in Table 1 on page 37-38), meeting all the limitations of claims 7-8 and 10 . 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo ) . Regarding claim 9 , Wang discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode (ITO), a first hole transport layer (TAPC), a second hole transport layer (TCTA), a light emitting layer (Compound 31-1 as a dopant and mCP as a host), an electron transport layer ( TmPyPB ), and a second electrode (Al) (Example 22 in Table 1 on page 37-38). The device reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above. The device does not have a third hole transport layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer. Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1 st mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “hole transporting region” in Fig. 19). Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]). 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 Organic optoelectronic device of Wang by incorporating a mixed layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo. The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo . Furthermore, 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 modification provides Organic optoelectronic device of Wang as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode (ITO), a first hole transport layer (TAPC), a second hole transport layer (TCTA), a third hole transport layer (“mixed layer”), a light emitting layer (Compound 31-1 as a dopant and mCP as a host), an electron transport layer ( TmPyPB ), and a second electrode (Al) . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Duan et al. (US 2020/0083460, hereafter Duan) . Regarding claim 11 , Wang discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Technical Field on page 1 and Summary of Invention on page 2) and exemplifies Compound 31-1 (page 22). The Compound 31-1 of Wang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above. Wang teaches the structure of an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound 31-1 and mCP ) and a second electrode (Al) (Example 22 in Table 1 on page 37-38). Wang does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device wherein the Compound 31-1 is used as an auxiliary host material; however, Wang does teach that the Compound 31-1 of Wang is a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) material (page 27, Example 22 in Table 1). Duan discloses an organic optoelectronic device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host , a TADF auxiliary host material, and a fluorescent dye ([0006]-[0007]). Duan exemplifies mCP as the electron donor host material ([0015]). Duan exemplifies the acceptor host material [ 0017 ] ). Duan exemplifies a blue fluorescent dye TBPe ([0019]). Duan teaches the organic optoelectronic device provides high luminous efficiency and long lifetime ([0030]). 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 organic optoelectronic device of Wang by incorporating an acceptor host material and a blue fluorescent dye TBPe in the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Wang and Duan. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the device with high luminous efficiency and long lifetime based on the teaching of Duan. 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 provi des Organic optoelectronic device of Wang as modified by Duan comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer ( mCP , an acceptor host, Compound 31-1 of Wang as an auxiliary host, TBPe as a blue fluorescent dye), a second electrode, wherein the Compound 31-1 of Wang is a blue host material. Claim s 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0422617 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama ) and Yao et al. (“ Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host ”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025, hereafter Yao). Regarding claims 1 - 5, 7-8 and 10 -11 , Li discloses a compound used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0007] and exemplifies Compound S-204 ([ 0057 ]). Li doe s not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound S-204 of Li as a blue host material. Hatakeyama discloses a B,O-containing polycyclic compound (Formulas (1) and (2)) used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0009]), wherein in Formula ( 1 ), rings A, B, and C can be each an aryl ring; Y1 can be B; X1 and X2 can be O; and the substituents of the rings A, B, and C can be hydrogen, an aryl, and an alkyl ([0009]). That is, Hatakeyama teaches the Compound S-204 of Li is the compound of Hatakeyama represented by the Formula (1). Hatakeyama teaches a compound in which Y1 is B; and X1 and X2 are each O , is preferably used as a host material of the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device ([0044]). Hatakeyama teaches a known dopant compound can be used in the device ([0102]). Hatakeyama teaches a blue dopant having structure of perylene ([0103]). TBPe (2,5,8,11-tetra-tert-butylperylene) is a well-known commercially available blue dopant material having a perylene structure. Hatakeyama teaches the structure of an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0085]). Hatakeyama teaches the compound of Hatakeyama provides high band gap and high triplet excitation energy ([0011]). 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 S-204 of Li by incorporating it into an organic optoelectronic device as a blue host material with a blue dopant TBPe , as taught by Hatakeyama . The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a blue light emitting organic optoelectronic device using a commercially available dopant with high band gap and high triplet energy host material, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama . 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 Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound S-204 as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. The Compound S-204 of Li has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the tetraphenyl silane groups of the compound are required to be tetraphenyl germanium groups; however, silicon and germanium are obvious variant s because they are in the same elemental group. I t is also known in the art that a compound comprising tetraphenyl germanium group provides benefits as compared to a compound comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same structure. Yao discloses a tetraphenyl germanium compound ( DCzGe ) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Abstract, Scheme 1). Yao teaches that a tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility as compared to a tetraphenyl silane compound such that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and Conclusion on page 5023-5024). 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 S-204 of Li by substituting the tetraphenyl silane moieties with tetraphenyl germanium moieties (i.e. substitution of silicon atoms with germanium atoms), as taught by Yao. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility such that the OLED device comprising the compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE based on the teaching of Yao. 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 Compound of Li as modified by Yao, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-5 . The modification also provides Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode , meeting all the limitations of claims 7 - 8 and 10-11 . Claim s 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0422617 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1) and Yao et al. (“ Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host ”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 above, further in view of Seo et al. ( US 2002/0121860 A1 ). Regarding claim 9 , the Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer ”) , a second hole transport layer, a light emitting layer ( Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode . The device does not have a third hole transport layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer. Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1 st mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “hole transporting region” in Fig. 19). Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]). 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 Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao by incorporating a mixed layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo. The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo. Furthermore, 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 modification provides Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama , Yao, and Seo comprising a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a third hole transport layer (“mixed layer”), a light emitting layer ( Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, 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- 7 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988 ) in view of Yao et al. (“ Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host ”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025). 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 1 , Application ‘988 discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a first compound of Formula 1 (claim 1). Appl ication ‘988 exemplifies Compound 1 (claim 13). Application ‘988 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 1 of Application ‘988; however, Application ‘988 does teach the compound represented by Formula 1 can be used as the light emitting layer material (claim 1). 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 1 of Application ‘988 by incorporating it into the light emitting layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘988. 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 substitution of the light emitting layer materials represented by Formula 1 of Application ‘988 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 device of Application ‘988 comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer comprising Compound 1 of Application ‘988, and a second electrode. The Co mpound 1 of Application ‘988 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the tetraphenyl silane groups of the compound are required to be tetraphenyl germanium groups; however, silicon and germanium are obvious variants because they are in the same elemental group. It is also known in the art that a compound comprising tetraphenyl germanium group provides benefits as compared to a compound comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same structure. Yao discloses a tetraphenyl germanium compound ( DCzGe ) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Abstract, Scheme 1). Yao teaches that a tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility as compared to a tetraphenyl silane compound such that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and Conclusion on page 5023-5024). 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 1 of Application ‘988 by substituting the tetraphenyl silane moieties with tetraphenyl germanium moieties (i.e. substitution of silicon atoms with germanium atoms), as taught by Yao. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility such that the OLED device comprising the compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE based on the teaching of Yao. 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 Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula E-1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 . The modification also provides Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer containing the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim s 7 and 10 . Claims 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988 ) in view of Yao et al. (“ Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host ”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) as applied to claims 1-7 and 10 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1). Regarding claims 8 and 11 , the Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer containing the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, and a second electrode. The device does not have a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron transport layer, and the device does not have blue dopant. Hatakeyama discloses a B,O-containing polycyclic compound (Formulas (1) and (2)) used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0009]), wherein in Formula (1), rings A, B, and C can be each an aryl ring; Y1 can be B; X1 and X2 can be O; and the substituents of the rings A, B, and C can be hydrogen, an aryl, and an alkyl ([0009]). That is, Hatakeyama teaches the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao is the compound of Hatakeyama represented by Formula (1). Hatakeyama teaches a compound in which Y1 is B; and X1 and X2 are each O, is preferably used as a host material of the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device ([0044]). Hatakeyama teaches a known dopant compound can be used in the device ([0102]). Hatakeyama teaches a blue dopant having structure of perylene ([0103]). TBPe (2,5,8,11-tetra-tert-butylperylene) is a well-known commercially available blue dopant material having a perylene structure. Hatakeyama teaches the structure of an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0085]). Hatakeyama teaches the compound of Hatakeyama provides high band gap and high triplet excitation energy ([0011]). 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 Application ‘988 as modified by Yao by incorporating it into an organic optoelectronic device as a blue host material with a blue dopant TBPe , as taught by Hatakeyama . The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a blue light emitting organic optoelectronic device using a commercially available dopant with high band gap and high triplet energy host material, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama . 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 Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" (reference application) in view of Yao et al. (“ Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host ”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) and Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-11 above, further in view of Seo et al. ( 2002/0121860 A1 ). Regarding claim 9 , O rganic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. The device does not have a third hole transport layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer. Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1 st mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “hole transporting region” in Fig. 19). Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]). 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 Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama by incorporating a mixed layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo. The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo. Furthermore, 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 modification provides Organic o ptoelectronic device of Wang as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a third hole transport layer (“mixed layer”), a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. 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