DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-21 are pending in the present application. 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 The claim of benefit of CN 202211172952.2 filed on September 26, 2022 is acknowledged in the present application file. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are numerous instances on pages 2-4 and 6-8 of text and structures that are hard to read such as paragraph 8 from page 2: Any text or structure that is not black should be changed to black to ensure that it is legible. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain numerous instances of text and /or structures that are hard to read . Any text or structure that is not black should be changed to black to ensure that it is legible. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The present claims are drawn to compounds of Formula I: , where A and B are substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups, L 1 and L 2 are single bonds or substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups , and Ar 1 -Ar 4 are various substituents . This leads to numerous core structures depending on the identity of A and B. The specification identifies 162 compounds on pages 9-17 w here A and B were defined such that is either or . The Applicant is reminded of the written description guidelines set out by the USPTO in MPEP 2163: The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly , 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. While the genus is described by a generic formula, the generic formula is not sufficiently detailed to show that the Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Namely, that the definitions described above, while not being indefinite, are not sufficiently detailed in order to stand on their own as being adequately described. Therefore, the “representative number of species” standard is used to determine whether the claims are adequately described. MPEP 2163 goes on to describe what a "representative number of species" is: What constitutes a "representative number" is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the elements possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly . Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an applicant was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell , 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird , 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112 , para. 1. The species described in the specification do not cover the entire genus such that it is a representative sample of the genus as the species are close together in structure and only describe an extremely small portion of the claimed genus. Therefore, the claims lack written description and are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) . 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. Claims 1- 6, 9-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (KR 2020-0010137) . With respect to claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 12- 18, Jung et al. teaches the compound , which anticipates the claims where A and B are a substituted or unsubstituted C6 phenyl groups, L 1 and L 2 are single bonds, Ar 1 and Ar 2 are unsubstituted aryl groups, Ar 3 is a substituted heteroaryl group, and Ar 4 is a hydrogen atom. See page 36, compound 5. With respect to claim 11 , L 1 and L 2 are phenyl rings while Ar 1 and Ar 2 are hydrogen atoms. With respect to claims 5 and 16-18, the claims discuss optional selections of a monocyclic heteroaryl group for claim 5 and substituents for claims 16-18. As those groups are not present, the selection is immaterial to anticipate the claims. With respect to claims 20 and 21, Jung et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices comprising an anode, and cathode, and an organic thin film layer comprising the compound described above. See Examples 1-7, especially Example 5, pages 38-41. As the display panel of claim 21 only requires an organic light-emitting device for the display panel , claim 21 is anticipated. Conclusion Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected. Claims 1-21 are objected to. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Kosack whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5575 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-4:30 . 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 Patricia Engle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6660 . 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. /JOSEPH R KOSACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991