DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on April 8, 2022 . Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 24, 2023 . Claim s 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 24, 2023 and January 26, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms ha ve been included with this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 8, 10 and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (WO2024058146A1, using the provided machine translation) . As per claims 1, 8, 13 , Inoue teaches: A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode (In Device Example 2, as described in [0079], Inoue teaches a device structure of substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/electron blocking layer/light-emitting layer/hole-blocking layer/electron transport layer/electron injection layer/cathode.) Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1 (In Example 2 , Inoue teaches a compound D1 used in the light emitting layer of an OLED device. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R 1 and R 2 are bonded together to form a substituent represented by Formula 2, R 9 and R 12 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.) As per claims 13 – 17 , Inoue teaches: A fused polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 (Another compound taught by Inoue is compound D71 . This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R 5 and R 6 and R 12 and R 13 are both bonded together to form a substituent represented by Formula 2; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Formula 3-2 in claim 14, Formula 4-2 in claim 15, Formula 5-2 in claim 16, Formula 6-3 in claim 17.) Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 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 2 – 7, 9, 10, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (WO2024058146A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10 and 13 – 17 above . As per claims 2 – 5 , Inoue does not specifically teach the use of compound D71 in a device. However, Inoue teaches that the inventive compounds are suitable for use in a light-emitting layer of OLED devices ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any of the specific compounds taught, including compound D71 in the light emitting layer of an OLED device. Compound D71 reads on the claimed Formula wherein R 5 and R 6 and R 12 and R 13 are both bonded together to form a substituent represented by Formula 2; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Formula 3-2 in claim 2 , Formula 4-2 in claim 3 , Formula 5-2 in claim 4 , Formula 6-3 in claim 5 . As per claims 6, 7, 9, and 18 – 20 , compound D71 of Inoue is a compound represented by Formula (19) ([0011]), wherein A 1 is represented by CR 1 and R 1 can be selected from an heteroaryl group ([0013]). In compound D13 , the substituents are shown to be carbazole groups in the para position of the nitrogen atom in the condensed polycyclic group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound D71 to similarly include carbazole groups in the claimed R 6 and R 13 positions. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula 7-2 in claims 6 and 18, wherein A 4-1 and A 9-1 are both an hetero aryl group represented by Formula 8- 4 in claims 7 and 19. This compound is the same as claimed compound 75 in claims 9 and 20. Inoue includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Inoue being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic EL elements with high efficiency ([0017]), a bsent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). As per claim 10 , Inoue teaches: Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula H-1 (Inoue teaches that specific host compounds suitable for use with the polycyclic compound include carbazole hosts ([0046]). Inoue teaches a specific example of a host material includes , which reads on the claimed Formula wherein L 1 is a direct linkage, Ar 1 is a substituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms, and both R 21 and R 22 are hydrogen. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the particularly taught host materials, including materials with the claimed carbazole group as the host material in a light emitting layer with the polycyclic compound because Inoue teaches that they are suitable host materials for the polycyclic compound. Claim s 1 – 9 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US20220059775A1) . As per claims 1 – 6, 8, and 13 – 17 , Nakano teaches: A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode ( Abstract: “ An organic electroluminescence device comprising: a cathode; an anode; and an organic layer disposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the organic layer includes an emitting layer and a first layer; the first layer is disposed between the cathode and the emitting layer; the emitting layer contains a compound represented by the following formula (A1) .”) Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1 ( Nakano teaches a compound of (A1) ([0013]). A specific formula within the scope of Formula (A1) is compound (A12) ([0407]), wherein X a is selected from O, S, and N ([0403]). A specific compound taught by Nakano is ([0420]) , w hich does not contain the sulfur atoms claimed. However, in Formula ( A12 ) , Nakano teaches that the X a may be an oxygen or sulfur atom, therefore it would have been obvious to replace the oxygen atoms in the above compound with sulfur atoms. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R 3 and R 4 and R 10 and R 11 are both bonded to each other to form a substituent represented by Formula 2; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Formula 3-1 of claims 2 and 14, Formula 4-1 in claims 3 and 15, Formula 5-1 in claims 4 and 16, Formula 6-1 in claims 5 and 17, and Formula 9 in claim 8.) Nakano includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Nakano being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of an organic EL device having a long lifetime ([0005]) , a bsent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). Nakano teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Nakano as Nakano demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention . As per claims 6, 7, 9, and 18 – 20 , the compound of Nakano above does not contain the required aryl substituents. However, in the definition of Formula (A12), the R atoms can be selected from substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups ([0016 – 0018]). Additionally, Nakano teaches compounds such as , which contain phenyl substituents in the positions corresponding to claimed R 6 and R 13 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first compound of Nakano shown above to include phenyl substituents. When further modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the cla imed Formula 7-2 in claims 6 and 18 wherein A 4-1 and A 9-1 are both an aryl group represented by Formula 8-1 in claims 7 and 19. This compound is the same as claimed compound 43 in claims 9 and 20. Nakano includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Nakano being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of an organic EL device having a long lifetime ([0005]), a bsent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US20220059775A1) as applied to claim s 1 – 9 and 13 – 20 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20200308209A1) . As per claim s 10 – 12 , Nakano does not restrict the host materials in the light-emitting layer ([0639]). Nakano does not teach: Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula H-1 Wherein the emission layer further comprises a third compound represented by Formula H-2 Wherein the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound represented by Formula D-1 Yoon teaches a light emitting device with an emission layer that includes a first host, a first dopant and a second dopant (Abstract). Yoon teaches that the second dopant may include a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4) , wherein Y 11 and Y 12 may be a single bond, and Y 15 can be N ([0343 – 0346]). This polycyclic compound is similar to the polycyclic compound of Nakano. Yoon teaches that the first dopant is a metal complex that can be selected from . This compound reads on claimed Formula D-1 wherein Q 1 to Q 4 are each C; C1 and C4 are each a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring forming carbon atoms; C2 and C3 are each an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; L 12 is *-O-*; L 11 and L 13 are direct linkages; b1 to b3 are 1; R 31 and R 34 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom and d1 and d4 is 1; bothR 32 and R 33 are hydrogen . Yoon teaches that the emission layer may contain both a first and second host, wherein the first host is a hole transporting compound and the second host may be an electron transporting compound so that the first and second host materials form an exciplex ([0123]). Yoon teaches that the first host may be selected from compounds including compound H19 , which reads on Formula H-1 wherein L 1 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; Ar 1 is a substituted aryl group having 14 ring-forming carbon atoms; both R 21 and R 22 are hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the second host may be selected from compounds including compound H36 , which reads on compound H-2 wherein Z 1 to Z 3 are N; R 23 and R 24 are both an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms and R 25 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms. Yoon teaches that by using this particular combination of materials in a light emitting layer, an OLED can be produced that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan ([0005]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting layer of Nakano with two host materials and an additional dopant material, wherein the compounds are of the claimed Formulas, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan as taught by Yoon ([0005]). Conclusion All claims are rejected. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210395233A1, US20200098994A1 and US20200365808A1 all teach fused polycyclic compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5780 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30 . 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 Marla McConnell can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7692 . 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. /JENNA N CHANDHOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789