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 12, 2023 is entered. Claim 5 was amended. Claims 1-5 are pending. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pages 22-36, 39, and 40 of the specification as filed have unclear print resolution. Bonding lines of ring structures are faint and blurry. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 1-4 contain text that is enclosed with “(“ “)” symbols. (In each instance, the phrase after symbol “(“ begins “in the formula”). The parentheses are not needed and it is suggested they be removed for the purpose of clarity , since the encompassed text includes recited limitations required by the respective claims. Claim 1 refers to general formula (1), but also labels the formula “[Chem. 1]”. Removal of “[Chem. 1]” is suggested for the purpose of clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-5 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 1 refers to a general formula (2-1) below, but lists a label “[Chem. 2]”. The terms are inconsistent and introduce ambiguity. Clarification and/or correction of the group is required. Claim 2 refers to a general formula (2-2) below, but lists a label [Chem. 3]. The terms are inconsistent and introduce ambiguity. Clarification and/or correction of the group is required. Claim 3 refers to a general formula (2-3) below, but lists a label [Chem. 4]. The terms are inconsistent and introduce ambiguity. Clarification and/or correction of the group is required. Claim 4 refers to a general formula (2-4) below, but lists a label [Chem. 5]. The terms are inconsistent and introduce ambiguity. Clarification and/or correction of the group is required. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al. (US 2011/0031877 A1; listed on 01/12/2023 I.D.S.) (as evidenced by Ichimura et al. (US 2010/0109555 A1) with respect to claim 5). Takada et al. discloses at least the following compound (1)-1 per instant formula (1) , which is used in a hole transporting layer of Takada et al. Example 1 light emitting device (see par. 82-89) : . Regarding claim 1-5, the above compound (1)-1 corresponds to instant Formula 1 where instant group A is the formula 2-1 group, group B is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group, group C is the formula 2-1 group, variables Ar1 and Ar2 of group 2-1 are aromatic hydrocarbon group (phenyl), n is zero, m is 1 , and L1 is divalent aromatic hydrocarbon (phenylene). Regarding claim 2, the position of the corresponding Ar2 group in the compound above is ortho as shown in instant claim 2. Regarding claims 3 and 4, the corresponding group of the compound above is a para -phenylene linking group and the corresponding value of p is zero. Further regarding layers recited in independent claim 1 and the “second hole transport layer” of claim 5, Example 1 device comprises an ITO anode (par. 83), a layer of m-MTDATA triphenylamine compound per the instant “second hole transport layer” (par. 84), a layer of compound (1)-1 shown above (see par. 85) , a light emitting layer (see par. 86), an electron transport layer (see par. 87), and a cathode (see par. 88). [Note: Evidence that compound “m-MTDATA” is inherently a “hole-transporting” material – per instant claim 5 - is provided by reference Ichimura et al. (US 2010/0109555 A1) at Ichimura et al. par. 235.] 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 . Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No.17/909,100 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘100 includes further compounds in a device that are not required in the instant device, an arylamine compound of general formula (1) is recited for a hole transporting layer of a device structure. Note that t he group of 2- 4 in claim 4 for the arylamine compound of a hole transport layer is the same as the group of Formula 2-4 in claim 4 of ‘100. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds in a device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/909,100 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No.17/925,619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘619 includes further compounds in a device that are not required in the instant device, an arylamine compound of general formula (1) is recited for a hole transporting layer of a device structure. The group of 2-4 in claim 4 is the same as the group of Formula 2-4 in claim 4 in ‘619 for the arylamine compound of a hole transporting layer. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds in a device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/925,619 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Thelakkat, M. (2002). Star‐shaped, dendrimeric and polymeric triarylamines as photoconductors and hole transport materials for electro‐optical applications. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 287(7), 442-461. The reference discusses triarylamine compounds for use as hole transporting materials, which is considered relevant to the state of the art. 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