DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1, hereafter Cho) . Regarding claims 9-20 , Cho discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for a light emitting device ([0001], [0009]) and exemplifies Compound C-13 ([0035]). The Compound C-13 of Cho has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and specific exemplary Compound 1 of the instant claim 20. 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 s 1- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) . Regarding claims 1- 4 , Cho discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for a light emitting device ([0001], [0009]) and exemplifies Compound C-13 ([0035]). The Compound C-13 of Cho has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 as outlined above . Cho does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound C-13 of Cho; however, Cho does teach that the compound of Cho can be used as the host material of the emission layer ([0042]). Cho teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode) , a hole injection layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode , wherein the emission layer contains the compound of Cho as a host and a phosphorescent dopant, Compound D-1 ([ 0107 ] , [0066] ). 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 C-13 of Cho by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Cho. 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 the exemplified host compounds of Cho in the OLED of Cho 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 Cho comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-13 of Cho as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, and the electron injection layer are an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 - 4 . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of Vo et al. (US 2015/0349267 A1, hereafter Vo). Regarding claim 5 , Modified light emitting device of Cho reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-13 of Cho as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) . The device does not emit white light ; however, Cho does teach that the device can emit white light by adding blue, red, and green dopants ([0071]). Cho exemplifies green and red dopant s (see examples including at least D-86 and D-87 in [0066]). Vo discloses blue phosphorescent compound used for a light emitting device ([0002], [0007]). Vo exemplifies Compound B4 ([0107]) emitting blue light (Example 1 in Table 1). Vo teaches that a white emitting device can be formed by incorporating the compound of Vo and additional dopants emitting red and green colors ([0119]). Vo teaches the compound of Vo provides high efficiency and improved lifetime ([0069]). 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 device of Cho by incorporating blue, green, and red dopants including the Compound B4 of Vo in the emission layer of the device, as taught by Cho and Vo. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device with high efficiency and improved lifetime, based on the teaching of Vo. 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 Cho as modified by Vo compris ing a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-13 of Cho as a host, Compound B4 of Vo as a blue dopant, green, and red dopant s ), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) . The device emits white light comprising blue, green, and red lights; thus, the emission layer of the device is to emit blue light. Claim s 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue). Regarding claim s 6-8 , Modified light emitting device of Cho reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-13 of Cho as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) . Cho does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Modified l ight emitting device of Cho and a thin film transistor. Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (“computer” in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]). Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor comprising source and drain electrodes (FET 611 in Figs 2A and 2B and [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor. 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 l ight emitting device of Cho by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified l ight emitting device of Cho and a thin film transistor comprising source and drain electrodes , wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue. The 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 light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus 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 Electronic apparatus of Cho as modified by Inoue containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified l ight emitting device of Cho and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor. 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 , 3, and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 8 and 11 of US Patent No. 12,250,874 (hereafter Patent ‘ 874) . 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 claim s 1 , 3, and 9-20 , Patent ‘ 874 discloses a first host compound of Formula 6 and exemplifies Compound ETH77 (claim 11). The Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 874 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20 . Patent ‘ 874 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 874; however, Patent ‘ 874 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the host comprises a first host of Formula 6 (claim 8). 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 ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘ 874 . 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 substitution 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 Patent ‘ 874 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 874 as a host and a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 . Claims 1 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 1 0 of US Patent No. 12,559,671 (hereafter Patent ‘ 671) . 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 claim s 1 and 9-20 , Patent ‘ 671 discloses a second compound and exemplifies Compound ETH77 (claim 10). The Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 671 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20 . Patent ‘ 671 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 671; however, Patent ‘ 671 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a second compound (claim 1), and the Compound ETH77 is an example of the second compound (claim 10). 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 ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘ 671 . 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 substitution 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 Patent ‘ 671 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘ 671), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1 . Claims 1 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,514,112 (hereafter Patent ‘ 112) . 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 claim s 1 and 9-20 , Patent ‘ 112 discloses a first electron transport compound and exemplifies Compound ETH-43 (claim 10). The Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘ 112 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20 . Patent ‘ 112 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘ 112; however, Patent ‘ 112 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a first electron transport compound (claim 1), and the Compound ETH-43 is an example of the first electron transport compound (claim 10). 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 ETH-43 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘ 112 . 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 substitution 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 Patent ‘ 112 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘ 112), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1 . Claims 1 , 3, and 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10 of copending Application 17/827,788 (hereafter Application ‘ 788) . 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 , 3, and 9-20 , Application ‘ 788 discloses an electron transport host and exemplifies Compound ETH 77 (claim 7 ). The Compound ETH 77 of Application ‘ 788 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20 . Application ‘ 788 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Application ‘ 788; however, Application ‘ 788 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises an electron transport host (claim 6 ) and a dopant, and the Compound ETH77 is an example of the electron transport host (claim 7 ). 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 ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device with a dopant , as taught by Application ‘ 788 . 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 substitution 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 ‘ 788 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Application ‘ 788 as a host, and a dopant ), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim s 1 and 3 . Claims 1 and 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 17/895,499 (hereafter Application ‘ 499) . 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 and 9-20 , Application ‘ 499 discloses a heterocyclic Compound 43 (claim 20). The Compound 43 of Application ‘ 499 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20 . Application ‘ 499 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 43 of Application ‘ 499; however, Application ‘ 499 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (claim 3), and the Compound 43 is an example of the heterocyclic compound of Formula 1 (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 43 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘ 499 . 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 substitution 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 ‘ 499 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 43 of Application ‘ 499), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1 . Claims 1 , 3, and 9- 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 9 , and 11 of copending Application 17/ 976 , 568 (hereafter Application ‘ 568 ) . 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 , 3, and 9- 19 , Application ‘ 568 discloses a polycyclic Compound 93 (claim s 11 ). The Compound 9 3 of Application ‘ 568 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 9- 19 . Application ‘ 568 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 93 of Application ‘ 568 ; however, Application ‘ 568 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound as a host and a dopant (claim 9 ), and the Compound 93 is an example of the polycyclic compound (claim 11 ). 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 93 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device as a host with a dopant , as taught by Application ‘ 568 . 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 substitution 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 ‘ 568 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 93 of Application ‘ 568 as a host, and a dopant ), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim s 1 and 3 . Claims 1 and 9-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 18/090,671 (hereafter Application ‘ 671) . 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 and 9-19 , Application ‘ 671 discloses a heterocyclic Compound 107 (claim 20). The Compound 107 of Application ‘ 671 has identical structure as Applicant ’ s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9- 19 . Application ‘ 671 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 107 of Application ‘ 671; however, Application ‘ 671 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (claim 3), and the Compound 107 is an example of the heterocyclic compound (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 107 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘ 671 . 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 substitution 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 ‘ 671 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 107 of Application ‘ 671), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1 . 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