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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0008524 , filed on 01/20/2022 . 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)(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 1– 7 , 11–13, 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1, hereafter “Ko”) . Regarding Claims 1 and 11 , Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0463] – [0466]. Ko further teaches the emission layer comprises Compound D8 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein: M is Pt, CY 1 is a C 3 heterocyclic group (imidazole), CY 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 3 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 4 is a C 5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), Y 4 is N, while Y 1 , Y 2 , and Y 3 are each C, A 1 to A 4 are each a chemical bond, X 5 is C(R 5a )(R 5b ) and n5 is 2 , T 1 and T 3 are each a single bond, T 2 is *-O-*’, a1 to a3 are each 1, R 1 is a C 6 carbocyclic group ( benzene ), R 2 to R 4 are each a hydrogen, d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 4 , R 5a and R 5b are each a hydrogen in one instance. In another instance R 5a and R 5b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Regarding Claim 2 , Example 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer comprises an organometallic compound. There is a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer. There is an electron transport region comprising a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer. Regarding Claim 3 , Example 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Compound D8 in the emission layer. Regarding Claim 4 , Example 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound D8 is doped at 10 wt % based on the total amount of the emission layer [0465]. Regarding Claim 5 , Example 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the emission layer comprises Compound H2-2 and Compound H3-2 [0465]. Regarding Claim 6 , Example 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since H2-2 comprises an electron withdrawing group (triazine), while Compound H3-2 comprises an electron donating group (carbazole). Additionally, Compound H2-2 is identical to Applicant’s ETH2 [00145] while Compound H3-2 is identical to Applicant’s HTH2 [00144] of the instant specification. Regarding Claim 7 , Example 1 reads on applicant’s limitation since it has a maximum emission wavelength of 457 nm [Table 3]. Regarding Claim 12 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since M is platinum (Pt). Regarding Claim 13 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY 1 is represented by CY1-14, CY 2 is represented by CY2-1, and CY 4 is represented by CY4-1 (shown below), wherein: X 1 2 to X 1 3 are C(R 1 2 ) to C(R 1 3 ), R 1 2 and R 1 3 are each a hydrogen, while R 14 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), Y 2 is C, X 21 to X 23 are C(R 21 ) to C(R 23 ), R 21 to R 23 are each a hydrogen, Y 4 is N, X 41 to X 44 are C(R 41 ) to C(R 44 ), R 41 to R 44 are each a hydroge n. Regarding Claim 1 6 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation as Y 1 is C, and A 1 is a coordinate bond. Regarding Claim 17 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y 2 and Y 3 are each C, and Y 4 is N. Regarding Claim 18 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T 2 is *-O - ‘*, and a2 is 1. Regarding Claim 19 , Compound D8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since one d1 R 1 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Claim s 11–14, 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2015/0349279 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 01/10/2023, hereafter “Li”) . Regarding Claim 11 , Li teaches Compound 1 ([0151] and pg. 103 ) which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein: M is Pt, CY 1 is a C 7 heterocyclic group ( benzimidazole ), CY 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 3 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 4 is a C 5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), Y 4 is N, while Y 1 , Y 2 , and Y 3 are each C, A 1 to A 4 are each a chemical bond, X 5 is C(R 5a )(R 5b ) and n5 is 3, T 1 and T 3 are each a single bond, T 2 is *-O-*’, a1 to a3 are each 1, R 1 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl), R 2 to R 3 are each a hydrogen , R 4 is a C 4 alkyl group (tert- butyl ), d1 is 1 , d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 1 , R 5a and R 5b are each a C 2 alkyl group ( ethyl ) in one instance. In another instance R 5a and R 5b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Regarding Claim 12 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since M is platinum (Pt). Regarding Claim 13 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY 1 is represented by CY1- 15 , CY 2 is represented by CY2-1, CY 4 is represented by CY4-1 (shown below), wherein: X 1 5 to X 1 8 are C(R 1 5 ) to C(R 1 8 ) , R 1 5 and R 1 8 are each a hydrogen, while R 1 4 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl) , Y 2 is C, X 21 to X 23 are C(R 21 ) to C(R 23 ), R 21 to R 23 are each a hydrogen, Y 4 is N, X 41 to X 44 are C(R 41 ) to C(R 44 ), R 41 , R 42 , and R 44 are each a hydrogen , while R 43 is a C 4 alkyl group (tert-butyl). Regarding Claim 14 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (shown below), wherein: M, CY 1 to CY 4 , Y 1 to Y 4 , A 1 to A 4 , T 1 to T 3 , a1 to a3, R 1 to R 4 , and d1 to d4 are each independently the same as described above, X 51 to X 53 is C(R 51a )(R 51b ) to C(R 53a )(R 53b ), R 53a and R 53b are each a C 2 alkyl group ( ethyl ), R 51a R 51b and R 52a R 52b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Regarding Claim 16 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y 1 is C, and A 1 is a coordinate bond. Regarding Claim 17 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y 2 and Y 3 are each C, and Y 4 is N. Regarding Claim 18 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T 2 is *-O-*’, and a2 is 1. Regarding Claim 19 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since d1 R 1 (s) is an unsubstituted C 1 alkyl group (methyl). 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. Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1) as applied to claim 1–7, 11–13, 16–19 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1). Regarding Claims 8–10 , Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0463] – [0466]. The emission layer of Example 1 comprises Compound D8. Ko further teaches an electronic apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin film transistor. Ko further teaches the thin film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device may be electrically coupled to the source electrode or the drain electrode [0283]. Additionally, Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device of present disclosure has a high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan [0005]. However, Ko does not teach an embodiment of a device apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Additionally, Ko does not teach a touch screen layer or a polarizing layer. Jin teaches a display device comprising an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061]. Jin further teaches the display device is integrated with a touch screen in an exemplary embodiment [0016]. Additionally, Jin teaches the use of a polarizing film disposed on the cover substrate to prevent reflection of external light. By doing so, the visibility of the organic light-emitting device can be further improved [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting device taught by Ko in the display device taught by Jin , because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Ko and Jin according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with high luminescent efficiency and long lifespan , as taught by Ko . See MPEP 2143.I.(A). Also , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polarization film taught by Jin to the display device from the combination of Ko in view of Jin , based on the teaching of Jin . The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the visibility of the organic light-emitting device , as taught by Jin . Per Claim 8–9 , the display device from the combination of Ko in view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is an electronic apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Per Claim 10 , the display device from the combination of Ko in view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a touch screen and a polarizing film. Claims 1– 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2015/0349279 A1) as applied to claim 11–14, 16–19 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1) . Regarding Claims 1 – 7 , Li teaches Compound 1 which may be used in lighting devices such as organic light-emitting devices providing improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes [0080]. However, Li does not teach a device embodiment including Compound 1. Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0463] – [0466]. In Example 1, Compound D8 is used in the emission layer , which is represented by Ko Formula 1. Compound 1 taught by Li reads on Ko Formula 1 (shown below), wherein: M is platinum (Pt), X 1 –X 3 are C, while X 4 is N, T 1 and T 3 are a single bond, while T 2 is *– O –*’ , CY 1 is a C 7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), CY 3 is a C 13 heterocyclic group (acridine), CY 4 is a C 5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), R 1 is a C 1 alkyl (methyl), a1 is 1, R 2 is hydrogen, a2 is 3, R 3 is a C 2 alkyl (ethyl), a3 is 2, R 4 is a C 4 alkyl (tert-butyl), a4 is 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Compound 1taught by Li for Compound D8 taught by Ko in the organic light-emitting device of Example 1 taught by Ko , based on the teaching of Ko . The motivation for doing so would have been to improved efficiency and/or operational lifetime of the organic light-emitting device , as taught by Li . Per Claim 1 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko , as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode wherein the emission layer comprises Compound 1 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below) wherein: M is Pt, CY 1 is a C 7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 3 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 4 is a C 5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), Y 4 is N, while Y 1 , Y 2 , and Y 3 are each C, A 1 to A 4 are each a chemical bond, X 5 is C(R 5a )(R 5b ) and n5 is 3, T 1 and T 3 are each a single bond, T 2 is *-O-*’, a1 to a3 are each 1, R 1 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl), R 2 to R 3 are each a hydrogen, R 4 is a C 4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 1, R 5a and R 5b are each a C2 alkyl group (ethyl) in one instance. In another instance R 5a and R 5b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Per Claim 2 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer comprises an organometallic compound. There is a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer. There is an electron transport region comprising a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer. Per Claim 3 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Compound 1 in the emission layer. Per Claim 4 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1 is doped at 10 wt % based on the total amount of the emission layer (see [0465] of Ko). Per Claim 5 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the emission layer comprises Compound H2-2 and Compound H3-2 (see [0465] of Ko). Per Claim 6 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since H2-2 comprises an electron withdrawing group (triazine), while Compound H3-2 comprises an electron donating group (carbazole). Additionally, Compound H2-2 is identical to Applicant’s ETH2 [00145] while Compound H3-2 is identical to Applicant’s HTH2 [00144] of the instant specification. Regarding Claim 7 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the maximum emission wavelength is 460 nm, as evidenced by Shin et al. (US 2023/0270000 A1, hereafter “Shin”). Li is silent in regards to the maximum emission wavelength of Compound 1. Shin teaches Comparative Example 2 [Table 2] comprising Compound B (shown below) which has a maximum emission wavelength of 460 nm . Since Shin teaches Compound B , which is nearly identical to Compound 1 , the property of maximum emission wavelength is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Claims 8 –10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2015/0349279 A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254 A1) as applied to claim 1– 7 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1). Regarding Claims 8–10 , the organic light-emitting device form the combination of Li in view of Ko, as described above comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (see [0463] – [0466] of Ko) . The emission layer comprises Compound 1 . Ko further teaches an electronic apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin film transistor. Ko further teaches the thin film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device may be electrically coupled to the source electrode or the drain electrode [0283]. Additionally, Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device of present disclosure has a high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan [0005]. However, Ko does not teach an embodiment of a device apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Additionally, Ko does not teach a touch screen layer or a polarizing layer. Jin teaches a display device comprising an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061]. Jin further teaches the display device is integrated with a touch screen in an exemplary embodiment [0016]. Additionally, Jin teaches the use of a polarizing film disposed on the cover substrate to prevent reflection of external light. By doing so, the visibility of the organic light-emitting device can be further improved [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting device taught by Li in view of Ko in the display device taught by Jin , because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Li in view of Ko and Jin according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with high luminescent efficiency and long lifespan , as taught by Ko . See MPEP 2143.I.(A). Also , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polarization film taught by Jin to the display device from the combination of Li in view Ko in further view of Jin , based on the teaching of Jin . The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the visibility of the organic light-emitting device , as taught by Jin . Per Claim 8–9 , the display device from the combination of Li in view of Ko in further view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is an electronic apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the anode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Per Claim 10 , the display device from the combination of Li in view Ko in further view of Jin, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a touch screen and a polarizing film. 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 . Claim s 11–1 4, 16–19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/093,410 (hereafter “Shin”) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Shin teaches Compound ‘410 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 . Regarding Claim 11 , Compound ‘410 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein: M is Pt, CY 1 is a C 7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 3 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene), CY 4 is a C 5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), Y 4 is N, while Y 1 , Y 2 , and Y 3 are each C, A 1 to A 4 are each a chemical bond, X 5 is C(R 5a )(R 5b ) and n5 is 3, T 1 and T 3 are each a single bond, T 2 is *-O-*’, a1 to a3 are each 1, R 1 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl), R 2 to R 3 are each a hydrogen, R 4 is a C 4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), d1 is 1, d2 is 3, d3 is 2, d4 is 1, R 5a and R 5b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Regarding Claim 12 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since M is platinum (Pt). Regarding Claim 13 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY 1 is represented by CY1-15, CY 2 is represented by CY2-1, CY 4 is represented by CY4-1 (shown below), wherein: X 15 to X 18 are C(R 15 ) to C(R 18 ), R 15 and R 18 are each a hydrogen, while R 14 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl), Y 2 is C, X 21 to X 23 are C(R 21 ) to C(R 23 ), R 21 to R 23 are each a hydrogen, Y 4 is N, X 41 to X 44 are C(R 41 ) to C(R 44 ), R 41 , R 42 , and R 44 are each a hydrogen, while R 43 is a C 4 alkyl group (tert-butyl). Regarding Claim 14 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (shown below), wherein: M, CY 1 to CY 4 , Y 1 to Y 4 , A 1 to A 4 , T 1 to T 3 , a1 to a3, R 1 to R 4 , and d1 to d4 are each independently the same as described above, X 51 to X 53 is C(R 51a )(R 51b ) to C(R 53a )(R 53b ), R 52a R 52b and R 53a R 53b are bonded to each other to form an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group (benzene). Regarding Claim 16 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y 1 is C, and A 1 is a coordinate bond. Regarding Claim 17 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Y 2 and Y 3 are each C, and Y 4 is N. Regarding Claim 18 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T 2 is *-O-*’, and a2 is 1. Regarding Claim 19 , Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since d1 R 1 (s) is an unsubstituted C 1 alkyl group (methyl). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 15 and 20 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 intervening claims. Claim 15 recites an organometallic compound wherein the moiety represented by in Formula 1 is represented by one of groups represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. However, the closet prior art (Li and/or Ko) does not teach compounds with a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Additionally, Li and/or Ko do not give motivation to modify any of the compounds taught to include a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Therefore, Li and/or Ko, the closest prior art on record, neither anticipate nor render obvious the limitation of a compound including a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Claim 20 recites organometallic compounds selected from Compounds 1 to 120. These compounds contain a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Therefore, as discussed above, Li and/or Ko, the closest prior art on record, neither anticipate nor render obvious the limitation of a compound including a moiety represented by Formula CY3-1 to CY3-9. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5433 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm . 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 at 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. /J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789