DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on June 3, 2022 . Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communication filed on August 21, 2025 . Claim s 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 16, 2023 and January 13, 2026 have been considered. S igned cop ies of the corresponding 1449 form s ha ve been included with this office action. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claim s 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 – 28 of copending Application No. 17/809819 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘ 819 application as evidenced by Formula 3-2 in claim 5 of the ‘ 819 application and at least compound 187 in claim 12 of the ‘ 819 application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 – 38 of copending Application No. 18/314,486 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘486 application as evidenced by Formula 3-2 in claim 5 of the ‘486 application and at least compound 187 in claim 12 of the ‘486 application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 – 5, 8, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN112010759A, using the provided machine translation) . As per claims 1 – 5 , 8, 11 – 17, 19 , Wang teaches: An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer , wherein the interlayer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron-blocking layer or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a buffer layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ( In [0170 – 176], Wang teaches Example devices that are formed of the structure substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/electron blocking layer/emission layer/electron transport layer/electron injection layer/cathode . The inventi ve compounds are used in the electron blocking layer, which transports holes and is interpreted as a hole transport layer and is directly in contact with the emission layer as required by claim 5. As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Wang anticipates claim 8 .) An amine containing-compound represented by Formula 1 , in the hole transport layer, wherein the hole transport layer directly contacts the emission layer (Example 10 in Table 2 of Wang uses compound 533 . This compound reads on the claimed formula wherein L 1 is an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group , namely a benzene ring as required by claim 12, represented by Formula 2-1 of claim 13 ; a1 is 1 and a2 and a3 are 0 so that L 2 and L 3 are a single bond; Ar 1 is an unsubstituted C 12 carbocyclic group, namely a fluorene group as required by claim 12, represented by Formula 3-10 , wherein X 30 is CR’R” in claim 14; Ar 2 to Ar 4 are all an unsubstituted C 6 carbocyclic group , namely a benzene ring as required by claim 12, represented by Formula 3-1 in claim 14 ; R 1 and R 2 are a C 1 alkyl group; R 3 and R 4 are hydrogen . This compound is represented by Formula 1-3 in claim 19. ) As per claim 20, another compound taught by Wang is compound 453 . This is the same as compound 44 in claim 20. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN112010759A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 above and further in view of Park (US20180226585A1) . As per claims 6 and 7, Wang does not teach: The light emitting device comprising a first capping layer outside the first electrode, wherein the first capping layer includes the amine-containing compound. Park teaches OLED s can include a protective layer or capping layer on at least one of the sides of the first and second electrodes, which is a side opposite to the organic material layer ([0058]). Park further teaches amine-based compounds ([0023]). Th ese compounds are similar to the compounds of Wang . Park teaches that the compounds can be used in the hole transport layer or a capping layer ([0059]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a protective layer or capping layer on the OLED of Wang because Park teaches that the arrangement was known as a predictably suitable arrangement of O LEDs prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio n to use the compound of Wang in the capping layer as claimed, because Park teaches that amine-based compounds that are suitable for use in hole transport layers are also predictably suitable in capping layers ([0059]). 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN112010759A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1) . As per claim 9, Wang teaches: A thin-film transistor electrically connected to the light-emitting device ([0125]: “In addition, thin-film transistors (TFTs) can also be incorporated into the substrate used for displays.”) Wang does not teach: The device comprising a color conversion layer Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Wang because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN112010759A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 above . As per claim 10, Wang teaches: An electronic apparatus comprising the electronic device wherein the electronic apparatus is… a flexible display… ([0004]: “OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display technology…. Can achieve flexible display by flexing the substrate.”) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED device of Wang in a flexible display as claimed because Wang teaches that OLEDs are predictably suitable for use in flexible display applications ([0004]). 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. As per claim 18, the compound of Wang above does not show that R 1 and R 2 are a C 3 – C 60 carbocyclic group that are bonded via a single bond to form a spiro group as claimed. However, the compound of Wang above is a compound of Formula 3-1 ( [0020] ) where R and R’ can be selected from C6 – C18 aryl groups that are connected to form a ring ([0013]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention replace the methyl group substituents of compound C533 above with aryl groups that are connected to form a ring so that the fluorenyl group is a spiro-fluorenyl group as required by the claim. Wang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wang being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of OLED devices with excellent device performance and stability (Abstract) , a bsent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). Conclusion All claims are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5780 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30 . 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 Marla McConnell can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7692 . 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. /JENNA N CHANDHOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789