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. DETAILED ACTION Drawings The drawing is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1) because the sole illustration is designated as “Fig. 1”. In applications containing only one figure, no figure number should appear on the drawing or be used in the specification. The “Fig. 1” designation must be removed from the drawing sheet. Specification The specification is objected to because the sole figure is identified as “Fig. 1”. Pursuant to MPEP 608.02, where there is only one figure, it should not be numbered and should be referred to as “the figure”. Correction is required. The two instances of “Fig. 1” as they appear in paragraphs 0012 and 0048 of Applicants specification should be replaced with “the figure”. Claim Interpretation A donor group which is recited in claim 1 will be interpreted as any group which has a negative Hammett s p value as taught in applicants specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 13 and 14 ends with the limitation that the hydrogen atom can be substituted, but is not further condensed. These two claims are indefinite since it is unclear what hydrogen atom out of the 10 hydrogen atoms present in these structures of claims 13 and 14, Applicants are referring to. For purposes of further examination, it will be interpreted that Applicants meant to claim “wherein any hydrogen atoms can be substituted but not further condensed”. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation “the above compound”. This limitation is indefinite since it raises the question which compound Applicants are referring to. There are many compounds listed “above” claims 17 and 18. For purposes of further examination, the above compound will be interpreted as being a compound of general formula 1. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The limitation that the light emitting material “mainly emits light” renders the claim indefinite since there is a question as to what “mainly” means. Does it mean more than 50% of the total radiation emitted? Does it mean it is the primary source of visible light compared to the “above compound”? Without any definition provided in the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know exactly when any potential patent infringement may occur. 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. Claim s 1 , 4, 5, 8, 11-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2019/190235, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 3/8/23) as evidenced by Hansch et al. ( Chem. Rev. 1991 , 91 ,165-195 , cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 3/8/23 ). Claim 1: Yoon et al. teaches compounds having the general structure shown at the top of page 2. The compound has a central benzene ring which has two cyano groups bonded meta to each other and two polycyclic electron donating groups, and one or two R1 groups. Specific compounds taught by Yoon et al. are shown on pages 15-24. Several of these compounds anticipate general formula (1) of claim 1, including, but not limited to, the compounds and . As applied to general formula (1), these compounds have R 1 equal to hydrogen, and R 2 -R 4 equal to a donor group. Specifically, R 3 is an isopropyl group, which has a negative Hammett value , or s p of -0.15 as evidenced by Hansch et al. (entry 288 in table 1). Variables R 2 and R 4 in the compounds above are identical and are either a benzofur an-c arbazol -9- yl group or a benzothi ophene- carbazol -9- yl group. The benzofuran ring and the benzothiophene ring are bonded to the carbazole ring system at the 2 and 3 positions. Claims 4 and 5: The two compounds above also anticipate claims 4 and 5 as described above. Claim 8: In the compounds above, R 1 is hydrogen, thereby anticipating claim 8. Claim 11: The two compounds above are symmetric along the R 1 -R 3 axis, thereby anticipating claim 11. Claim 12: The two compounds above consist of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and either oxygen (left compound) or sulfur (right compound), thereby anticipating claim 12. Claim 13: The benzofuran-condensed carbazol-9-yl group in the top left compound above anticipates the last structure of claim 13. Claim 14: The benzothiophene-condensed carbazol-9-yl group in the top right compound above anticipates the 5 th structure of claim 14. Claim 16: The compounds taught by Yoon et al. are employed in light-emitting devices as taught in the device examples therein. The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Yoon et al. in the manner taught in the device examples, including either of the two compounds above, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 16. Claim 17: The device examples taught by Yoon et al. are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant where the compounds prepared according to Yoon et al. are employed as the dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0233-0239 of the machine translation of Yoon et al., which is of record). Devices comprising either of the two compounds shown in claim 1 above in the manner taught in the device examples is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 17. Claims 1 -3, 9, 10, 12-14 , 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (CN-108264478, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 3/8/23). Claim 1: Duan et al. teaches the compound (compound 1-5 on page 4). This compound anticipates general formula (1) of claim 1. As applied to claim 1, compound 1-5 has R 2 equal to hydrogen, and R 1 , R 3 , and R 4 equal to a donor group which is an indole-condensed carbazol-9-yl group having a skeleton of a carbazole group which is condensed with an indole group at the 2,3-positions of the indole, thereby anticipating claim 1. Claims 2 and 3: Compound 1-5 anticipates the limitations of claims as all of R 1 , R 3 , and R 4 contain a carbazole ring and R 3 is an indole-condensed carbazol-9-yl group. Claim 9: All of R 1 , R 2 , and R 4 in compound 1-5 are the same, thereby anticipating claim 9. Claim 10: Variables R 1 , R 2 , and R 4 in compound 1-5 is a group satisfying claim 10, as described in claim 1 above. Claim 12: Compound 1-5 consists of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, thereby anticipating claim 12. Claims 13 and 14: While compound 1-5 above does not comprise a group of claims 13 or 14, these claims serve to further limit the optional embodiment of claim 1. Benzofuran-condensed or benzothiophene-condensed carbazol-9-yl groups are not required to satisfy chemical formula (1) of claim 1. Claim s 16 and 18 : As described in the device examples of Duan et al., the compounds taught therein are employed as host materials in an emission layer of an organic electroluminescent device. The emission layer further comprises a phosphorescent dopant The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Duan et al., including compound 1-5 above, in the manner employed in the device examples, is at once envisaged, thereby satisfying the limitations of claims 16 and 18. 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 of this title, 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. 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 6 , 7 , 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN-108264478), as applied to claim 1 above. While Duan et al. does not explicitly teach a compound of general formula (1) where in at least one of the remaining two of R 1 , R 2 , and R 4 , and R 3 are all a benzofuran-condensed carbazol- 9- yl group or a benzothiophene-condensed carbazol-9-yl group as required by claim 6, or where all remaining two of R 1 , R 2 , and R 4 , and R 3 are a benzofuran-condensed carbazol- 9- yl group or a benzothiophene-condensed carbazol-9-yl group as required by claim 7 , a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found the preparation of such compounds obvious given the overall teachings of Duan et al. Specifically, Duan et al. teaches that the X groups in the formula may be selected from the groups and (page 2) where Y is selected from, inter alia , O, S, and N(Ph) as tuaght in the machine translation which is already of record. So while compound 1-5 of Duan et al. has three indolo-condensed carbazol-9-yl groups , the preparation of an analogous compounds where one of the five groups shown above where Y is equal to O or S would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as such groups are explitly tuaght as suitable substituents X in the formula . Compound 1-5 having three benzofuran-condensed carbazol-9-yl groups or three benzothiophene-condensed carbazol-9-yl groups at postions R 1 , R 3 , and R 4 of general formula (1) satisfies all of the limitations of claims 6 and 7. Additionally such compounds include groups which satisy those recited in claims 13 and 14. Claims 1- 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa et al. (WO 2020/085446, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 10/20/23). Claim s 1 -14 : Yasukawa et al. teaches compounds of formula (1-1) through (1-47) as taught on pages 18-21. Formula 1-11 has the general structure . Yasukawa et al. further teaches that the D 1 groups are identical to each other as taught in paragraph 0025 of the machine translation which is already of record. Yasukawa et al. further teaches that the D 1 groups are preferably a group represented by any one of general formulae (3-1) through (3-12) whose structures are taught on pages 23 and 25. Yasukawa et al. further teaches that it is preferably that D 1 is a group represented by formulae (3-7) to (3-12) and that X 1 to X 6 in these formulae are preferably S to achieve a longer wavelength effect (paragraph 0066 of the machine translation). Additionally, Yasukawa et al. teaches that it is preferable that the D 1 groups are represented by general formual (3-7) to (3-12) and X is preferably O (paragraph 0068 of the machine translation). Yasukawa et al. further teaches that R x is hydrogen or a substituent with every exemplified compound having R x equal to hydrogen. It is submitted that Yasukawa et al. teaches with sufficient specificity the preparation of a compound which has a structure represented by formula 1-11 where R x is equal to hydrogen, and all three D 1 groups are identical and are selected from one of formulae (3-7) to (3-12) where X 1 -X 6 is equal to O, or of formula (3-12) where X 6 is equal to S. Such compounds are readily envisaged as Yasukawa et al. points to such compounds given that the arrival at such compounds follows the roadmap of preferable groups and atoms as described above. Compounds of the type above where R x is hydrogen and D 1 is a group which satisfies any one of the six strucutres recited in claim 13 and at least the 5 th structure recited in claim 14 are prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the overall teachings of Yasukawa et al. This includes the preparation of compounds which are identical to Applicants exemplified compounds 2-6 and 33. Compounds 2-6 and 33 anticipate all of the limitations of general formula (1) of claim 1, comprise three identical carbazole-containing groups at positions R 2 -R 4 which satisfies claims 2-10, are symmetric which satisfies claim 11, consist of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen or sulfur, which satisfies claim 12, and include the specific groups recited in claims 13 and 14. Claims 16 and 17: Yasukawa et al. teaches that the compounds prepared according to the invention are employed in organic light-emitting devices which comprse an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant where the dopant is one of the inventive compounds disclosed by Yasukawa et al. The employment of any one of the tuaght or suggested compounds of Yasukawa et al. in the manner tuaght in the device examples would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Devices which comprise any one of the compounds rendered obvious as described above as a dopant in an emission layer satisfies all of the device and structure limitations of claims 16 and 17. Relevant Art Cited Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3298 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Robert S Loewe/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766