DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The preliminary amendment dated January 27, 2023 is entered. Claims 1-13 are each indicated “original” in status. Claims 1-13 are pending and under consideration. The amendments to the specification and to the abstract are acknowledged. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 shows a variable ‘e within the structures of Formula 1-4, Formula 1-5 and Formula 1-6. While the text of claim 2 refers to a variable e’ and parent claim 1 sets forth and defines a variable e’ , the variable ‘e is never defined. Accordingly, variable ‘e is not specifically defined and is considered indefinite. Claim 3 shows a variable ‘e within the structures of Formula 1-13, Formula 1-14, Formula 1-15, and Formula 1-16. While the text of claim 3 refers to a variable e’ and parent claim 1 sets forth a variable e’ , the variable ‘e is never defined. Accordingly, variable ‘e is not defined and is considered indefinite. 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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 202 0 /218680 A1; an English language translation copy is provided and referred to below). Lee et al. discloses organic compounds for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). General Formula 1 is taught (see par. [10] of translation copy page 3) with full definitions provided below the chemical structure in the reference : . At least two specific example compounds #42 and #102 of the Formula 1 are disclosed (see page 12 of translation and page 13 of translation): . With respect to instant claim 1, t he above compounds meet the requirements of an instant Formula 1 compound of instant claim 1 where the instant Ar2 and Ar3 are phenyl, L1 and L2 are single bond, and c is 2. The above compound 42 has a group corresponding to instant formula A-2 as the instant Ar1 group and above compound 102 has a group corresponding to instant formula A-1 as the instant Ar1 group. Regarding claim 2, compound 42 is according to instant formula 1-4 and compound 102 is according to instant formula 1-1. Regarding claim 5, at least above example compound 102 is identical to recited instant compound 1-114 and accordingly, compound 102 anticipates claim 5. 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. Claim s 1- 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202 0 /218680 A1; an English language translation copy is provided and referred to below). Lee et al. discloses organic compounds for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). General Formula 1 is taught (see par. [10] of translation copy page 3) with definitions provided below the structure: . More specifically, the Formula 1 may be F ormula s 4 to 10 (see pages 6-7 of translation). At least Formula 4 is the following: . In the F ormula 4 of F ormula 1, X may be O or S (see par. 12), Ar1to Ar3 may be aryl or heteroaryl (par. 16), L2 may be arylene or heteroarylene (see par. 15). More specifically, linker group L2 as a heteroarylene may be a group “Link 6” (par. 59) where Y1 may be O, S, or C(R4)(R5) with respect to instant groups having instant variables V1 and V2 in claims 3 and 4 with bonding to any portion of the ring group : . Also, note that heteroarylene is generally taught as a suitable linker group and dibenzofuran is recognized as a known heteroarylene within compounds (see par. 56, 57, 98-115, 122). With respect to Lee Ar1, specific Ar1 group is taught to include “S6” (see par. 66): . While Lee et al. does not exemplify all possible compounds within Formula 1 that also meet the requirements of instant Formula 1 (instant claims 1-5), groups are defined for a Formula 1 which would result in compounds within recited Formula 1 of claim 1 and specific compounds of dependent claims 2-5 (par. 10-19 and 39-96). With further respect to claims 3 and 4, it is not seen where an example Formula 1 compound is shown where Ar1 was specifically selected as group S6 in combination with selecting the linking group as Link6 . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed compounds of Formula 1 comprising groups as specifically defined for Formula 1 by Lee et al. One would expect to achieve functional Formula 1 compounds within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. With respect to device claim 6, Lee et al. teaches the compounds of Formula 1 are used in an “ organic material layer ” between electrodes in a light-emitting device structure (see Lee par. 37 on page 5 of translation). With respect to claim 8, “organic material layer” as a whole (300) (see Fig. 1 and 2) includes a light emitting layer (340) (see par. 26-29). While it is not seen where an example device was formed using an example Formula 1 compound the same as instant Formula 1 (such as example 42 or example 102; pages 12-13 of translation), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected compounds as defined for Formula 1 by Lee et al. for a device structure as discussed above where the compound and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a device within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Claim s 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy is provided and referred to below) in view of Jung et al. (US 2016/0149141 A1). Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6 . Lee et al. teaches arylamine compounds of F ormula 1 for use in a light emitting device as discussed in the above rejection over claim 1; however, it is not seen where Lee et al. teaches specifically to use the arylamine compounds in a capping layer on the outer portion of one or two of the electrodes. In analogous art, Jung et al. teaches using amine-based compounds (see abstract) in capping layer(s) on the electrodes of a device (see claim 20 on page 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a capping layer as described by Jung et al. comprised of amine-based formula 1 compounds as taught by Lee et al. as part of a sealing layer for protecting a light-emitting device, because one would expect a capping layer as suggested by Jung et al. formed of an amine-based compound selected from formula (1) compounds taught by Lee et al. to be useful for protecting a device display according to Lee et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Claim s 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy is provided and referred to below) in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Pieh (US 2012 / 0097998A1) . Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6 . With respect to claims 10 and 11, Lee does not appear to specifically teach: Wherein the organic material layer comprises two or more stacks The stacks comprise the hole transport layer, the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer formed sequentially on the anode Wherein the organic electric element further comprises the charge generation layer formed between the stacks In analogous art, Pieh teaches a white organic light emitting device with a first stack including a first light emitting layer and a second stack with a second light emitting layer and a charge generating layer in between (Abstract). Fig. 1, as described in ([0045]) shows that each stack has a hole transport layer, light emitting layer and an electron transport layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee as one stack in a multi-stack light emitting device, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that emits white light as taught by Pieh (Abstract). Claim s 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy is provided and referred to below) in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Park (US 2015 / 0221873A1) . Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6 . Regarding claims 12 and 13, Lee teaches a light emitting device for a display (par. 22). Lee teaches does appear specifically to discuss: A control unit for driving the display device and Wherein the organic electric element is selected from the group consisting of an organic electroluminescent element, an organic solar cell, an organic photo conductor, an organic transistor, an element for monochromatic illumination and an element for quantum dot display. In analogous art, Park teaches an electroluminescent device for use with a terminal (Abstract). The terminal includes a control unit for driving the display device ([0056]). These terminals can be used in an organic solar cell, or an organic transistor (Claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee with a control unit in an organic solar cell or an organic transistor because Park establishes that this is a suitable use for OLEDs. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chu, Zengze , et al. "Synthesis of spiro [fluorene-9, 9′-xanthene] derivatives and their application as hole-transporting materials for organic light-emitting devices." Synthetic metals 162.7-8 (2012): 614-620. The reference discusses amine compounds comprising a heteroaromatic spiroxanthene group, which is considered relevant to field of the endeavor . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1523 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time) . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Boyd can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7783 . 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. /DAWN L GARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786