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 1, 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 9, 2023 . Claim s 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 9, 2023 and February 10, 2026 have been considered. S igned cop ies of the corresponding 1449 form s ha ve been included with this office action. 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 . Claim s 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/480744 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘744 application as evidenced by compound 24 in claim 13 . Compounds of formula HT-1, ET-1, and M-b in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with formulae HT-1, ET-1 and D-1 in claims 13 – 15 of the ‘744 application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota ( KR20220024878A, using the provided machine translation ) . As per claims 1 – 6 , 8, 10, and 15 – 18, Rota teaches: A light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode on the first electrode and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode ( [0902 – 0912]) : “When the optoelectronic device is an OLED, it may, for example, having the following layer structure: 1. Substrate 2. Anode layer A 3. Hole injection layer, HIL 4. Hole transport layer, HTL 5. Electron blocking layer, EBL 6. Emitting layer, EML 7. Hole blocking layer HBL 8. Electron transport layer, ETL 9. Electron injection layer, EIL 10. Cathode layer.”) Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1 (Rota teaches compounds of formula (I) ([0009]) wherein R V is selected from Formula I-0 ([0150]) , wherein one R b is the binding site of R V . A particular compound taught by Rota is , which does not contain the claimed R 4 substituent. However, in the definition of Formula I-0, Rota teaches that the other R b can be selected from an alkyl group or an aryl group ([0220]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an alkyl or aryl substituent on the compound of Rota in the position corresponding to claimed R 4 and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R 1 to R 3 are hydrogen; R 4 is an alkyl or aryl group substituent; X 1 and X 2 are NR X ; Y is O; R X is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms. The compound reads on Formula 2 in claim s 3 and 16 , Formula 3-1 in claim s 4 and 17 , Formula 3-1-1 in claim s 5 and 18. & [0791] : “A preferred embodiment relates to the use of an organic molecule according to the invention as a luminescent emitter in an optoelectronic device.”) Wherein the emission layer comprises at least one selected from among a second compound represented by HT-1, a third compound represented by Formula ET-1, and a fourth compound represented by M-b (In D1, Rota teaches a device where in addition to the boron-nitride compound, the emission layer also contains mCBP, which reads on the claimed HT-1 compound wherein R 9 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and MAT2, , which reads on the claimed ET-1 compound wherein Y 1 – Y 3 are N; L 1 to L 3 are all direct linkages and Ar 1 to Ar 3 are ach a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms.) Rota includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota 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 higher efficiency or higher color purity ([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). As per claims 7, 9, 14, 19 and 20, Rota teaches Formula Ie-1 ([0555]) , with a tert-phenyl substituent on the nitrogen atoms, and Formula Ig ([0597]) with phenyl groups in the corresponding R II and R III positions. Since the carbazole group is also represented by Formula I-0 , it would have been obvious to substitute the carbazole substituent with a group such as tert-butyl ([ 0220 ]). When Formula Ie-1 is modified to contain the phenyl substituents as in Formula Ig, the compound reads on Formula 4-2 in claims 7 and 19, wherein R 4 is a tert-butyl group as required by claim 9. The only difference between this modified compound and compound 86 in claims 14 and 20 is the orientation of the tert-phenyl. However, in formula (1), the substituents off of the phenyl group can be in any location, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the orientation of the tert-phenyl groups and arrive at the claimed compound. Rota includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota 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 higher efficiency or higher color purity ([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). As per claim 12, Rota teaches: Wherein the emission layer is to emit thermally activated delayed fluorescence ([0873]: “In one embodiment of the present invention, host compound D and/or host compound H are thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) materials.”) As per claim 13, Rota teaches: Wherein the emission layer is to emit light having an emission center wavelength of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0955]: “Accordingly, a further aspect of the present invention relates to an OLED… exhibiting a maximum emission of 485 nm to 560 nm.”) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota (KR20220024878A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claim s 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 above, and further in view of Kim (US20210104681A1) . As per claim 11, Rota teaches that the emission layer contains the boron-nitride compound and a dual host compound. Rota does not specifically teach: A fourth compound represented by M-b Kim teaches an emission layer that comprises a boron-containing compound (Abstract), a hole transporting host material and an electron transport host material ([0230]). This is similar to the emission layer composition of Rota. Kim further teaches that the emission layer includes a compound including a metal element having an atomic number of 40 or more (Abstract). Kim teaches compound PT1 as a specific example of this compound ([0210]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula M-b wherein Q 1 to Q 4 are each independently C; C1 and C4 are substituted heterocyclic groups of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms, C2 and C3 are unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; e4 is 0 so that rings C1 and C4 are not linked; e1 to e3 are all 1; L 21 and L 23 are both a direct linkage; L 22 is -O-. Kim teaches that by including this metallic compound, intersystem crossing occurs, resulting in the transfer of triplet exciton generated from the host materials to the boron compound, and creating improved efficiency ([0212 – 0213]). 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 a Pt-based compound in the emission layer of Rota, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a device with improved efficiency as taught by Kim ([0212 – 0213]). Conclusion All claims are rejected. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR20210090468A, cited in the IDS filed by Applicant on February 10, 2026, teaches boron-nitride compounds and 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