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. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification filed 01 /30/ 23 recites the chemical structures on the following pages: 3, 9, 16, 19, 30, 33, 34, 52-54, 66-68, 70, 73-75, 84-92, 142-145, 157, and 158 which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolution; many of the bonds and superscripts/subscripts are fuzzy and barely legible. They all need to be replaced by structures which are clearly legible, with all bonds and atoms that are clearly drawn (i.e., with solid lines and well resolved) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 4. Claims 1 -11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites the structure of Chemical Formula 1 which is graphically unclear due to its small size; the subscripts are difficult to resolve . The structure need to be replaced by a larger structure with all atoms, bonds, substituent groups, and subscripts clearly drawn and legible . Appropriate correction is required. 5 . Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the structure s of Chemical Formula e B’-1 to B’-9 which is graphically unclear due to the poorly drawn subscripts of T31-61; the lines are fuzzy and poorly resolved . The structure s need to be replaced by structures containing subscripts of T31-61 which are clearly drawn (with solid lies) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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. 7. Claim 5 is 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. The claim recites structures of L containing “---” which is nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted “---” in the structures to be single bonds to the arylamino nitrogen atoms in Chemical Formula 1 as recited in Claim 1. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 10. Claims 1 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. ( WO 2018/159937 A1 ) in view of Radu et al. (US 2016/0329497 A1). Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2019/0237669 A1 as the English equivalent of WO publication WO 2018/159937 A1 (herein referred to “Kang et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication. Regarding Claims 1- 10 , Kang et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device: (Fig. 1) comprising substrate (101), anode (201), hole-injecting layer (301) (first organic material layer) , hole-transporting layer (401) (second organic material layer) , light-emitting layer (501), electron-injecting/transporting layer (601), and cathode (701) ([0036]-[0042]); the hole-injecting layer comprises the following fluorene-based composition ([0213], [0318]) : ([0012]) where m1-2 = independently 2-12, X1-2 = photocurable group, n1-4 = 0-5, and R1 and R4 = independently hydrogen, deuterium, and halogen (among others) ([0016]-[0018] , [0023]). An embodiment is disclosed: (page 17) such that n = n’ = 1, R1 = R3 = halogen (F), m = m’ = n1-3 = m1-3 = 0, L1-2 = direct bond or methylene group, and X1-2 = curing group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 . However, Kang et al. does not explicitly disclose a copolymer of Chemical Formula 3. Radu et al. discloses the following hole-transporting copolymer: ([0009]) where a+b+c =1 (with a and b being nonzero), A = monomeric unit containing at least one triarylamine group, B’ = monomeric unit having at least three points of attachment in the copolymer, C’ = aromatic monomeric unit (or deuterated analog), and E = groups such as hydrogen, deuterium, among others ([0010]-[0014]). Alternatively, the formula is written in a different format: ([0064]) where z = integer greater than 3, a1 = b1 = c1 = e1 = are independently mole fractions (with a1+b1+c1+e1 = 1 and a1, b1 = non-zero), and * indicates a point of attachment in the copolymer ([0065]-[0067]). The copolymer has a molecular weight of 10,000-500,000 g/mol ([0080]). Radu et al. discloses that there can be 100% deuteration ([0077]) ; an embodiment is disclosed: (page 54) such that q = 0, Ar2-3 = substituted arylene group, and Ar1 = unsubstituted arylene group (biphenylene) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-2; Ar8 = aromatic cyclic group (benzene) and k6-8 = 0 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula B’-1 . Its inventive copolymers are utilized as material comprising the hole-transporting layer, the use of which results in a device with increase d efficiency ([0297], [0305], [0360]-[0390]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the copolymer as disclosed by Radu et al. into the hole-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kang et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Radu et al., which is directed to a viable hole-transporting material, the use of which results in a device with increased efficiency. Regarding Claim 11 , Kang et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature of the curing group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound 20 as disclosed by Kang et al. (above) such that the curing group is the following: (with L1-2 = methylene group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one linking group (hexylene) for a functional equivalent (ethylene) which can be easily envisioned from the scope of Kang et al.’s general formula (in regards to the scope of m1-2); additional motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves a homologous change in the number of carbon atoms in the alkylene linkage (from six to two) producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAY L YANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1137 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm . 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 Jennifer A 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. /JAY YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786