Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, i s 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 16 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. Claim 16 includes the structures: at the end of the claim on p45 of the claims of 01/10/2023. These do not meet either of the two conditions at the end of claim 1, since the additional ring is on claim ring B rather than claimed ring C of Formula 1 . 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. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 13 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12035613 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims disclose the same OLED structure and consumer product as the present claims [claim 17 and 20] comprising the same host [claims 18-19] and an iridium complex having a ligand LA and a Ligand LB wherein the ligand LA has the generic structures [claim 9] wherein rings B3 and B4 include 5 and 6 membered rings, Y includes O and S [claim 9] and R 2 includes halogen, (hetero)cycloalkyl, (hetero)aryl, nitrile and other groups that read on RC of the claims [claim 9] . Layek discloses specific structures that demonstrate those that meet the condition (1) with a substituent for Rc and those that meet condition (2) that include a condensed ring formed by two Rc groups [claim 11, 16], though Layek is not limited to the specific examples: . The patent claims also disclose the Ligand LB having the structures of claimed ligand LB generically, and specifically [claim 16] though the patent claims are not limited to the specific examples: . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 and a2 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Layek et al ( US 20210399236 A1 ). Layek discloses OLEDs having an iridium complex having a ligand LA and a Ligand LB wherein the ligand LA has the generic structures [0064, p7] wherein ring s B3 and B4 include 5 and 6 membered rings, Y includes O and S [0064] and R 2 includes halogen, (hetero)cycloalkyl, (hetero)aryl, nitrile and other groups that read on RC of the claims [claim 9] . Layek discloses specific structures that demonstrate those that meet the condition (1) with a substituent for Rc and those that meet condition (2) that include a condensed ring formed by two Rc groups [pp221, 223], though Layek is not limited to the specific examples : . Layek also discloses the Ligand LB having the structures of claimed ligand LB generically, and specifically [0080, p64, p 220] though Layek is not limited to the specific examples: . The OLED includes a host material with the same structures of instant claim 19 [0093, p89]. This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that both claimed ligands are explicitly disclosed as used in the same capacity in Layek as in the claims, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would combine any LA ligand with any LB ligand, and readily envisage the claimed combination of LA and LB, therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the combination of the claimed ligand LA and the Acac ligand of LB because both are taught in Layek any combination of explicitly disclosed ligands would be obvious to combine. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Layek et al ( US 20210399236 A1 ), discussed above, discloses compounds that fall within the scope of the more generic claims. The specific compounds of claims 14-16, however, with specific structures to each ligand and the specific substituents therein, would require excessive hindsight to arrive at from the disclosure of Layek . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5464 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10am-6:30pm M-F . 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 Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1302 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1766 /MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766