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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 22-47 in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 6, 10-21, and 48-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 . 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. Claim s 1-5, 7-9, and 22-47 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. Independent claim(s) 1 requires a first emitting compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less, a second emitting compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less, and a triplet energy of the first host material T 1 (H1) and a triple energy of the second host material T 1 (H2) satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 1 below), T 1 (H1)>T 1 (H2) . The instant description includes a description of formulae for compounds that can be used as host materials . The description only provides 6 example s of such a combination that meets this requirement. The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable as host material and light emitting materials but provides no further description of which what is required in the structure of these compounds to meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations. The specification has a list of compounds that can be used as host and emitting materials, but the specification does not provide any energy properties for the materials except for the compounds used in the examples. It is unclear from the specification what combination of compounds meet the energy limitations . The limited example(s) described in the written description do(es) not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). 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 1-5, 7-9, and 22-47 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. Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9, and 22-47, it is unclear how the energy properties of the compounds are measured. The Office points out that depending on the method used different results will occur and could lead to compounds that meet the limitations under one way of measuring the energy properties but not under another way of measuring the energy properties. Also claim 1 does not provide any limitations to the structure of the compounds and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot fully envisage the entire scope of compounds that can be used in the different emitting layers. Also regarding claims 41-46, the description of the host material is not clear and unclear what the crosslinking is referring to and what the structure of the crosslinking can be. Further clarification is needed. 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 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. Claim (s) 1-5, 8, 9, 22-36, and 41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417), where Tasaki et al. (US 2023/0047477) (hereafter “Tasaki”) is used as the English equivalent, as referenced by Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0348522) (hereafter “Tasaki 2022”) . Regarding claim s 1-5, 8, 9, 24, 26, 29-31 , and 33- 35, Tasaki teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a first emitting layer, a second emitting layer in contact with the first layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode ( paragraphs [0758]-[0763] and [0779]-[0790] ). Tasaki teaches that the dopant used in the first light emitting layer and the dopant used in the second light emitting layer is the same, compound BD-2, which is the same as compound BD2 disclosed by the applicant in the specification and is not a metal complex ( paragraphs [0758]-[0763] and [0779]-[0790] ). The specification of the instant application teaches that BD-2 emits light at a peak wavelength of 500 nm or less. Tasaki teaches the thickness of the both light emitting layers is 25 nm and the distance from the cathode to second light emitting layer is cathode is 40 nm and the ratio is 0.625 ( paragraphs [0758]-[0763] and [0779]-[0790] ). Tasaki teaches the ratio between the film thickness (film thickness T1) of the first light emitting layer and the film thickness (film thickness T2) of the second light emitting layer is 0.1 < (T1/(T1 + T2) < 0.4 and that the film thickness of T1 is 5-12.5 nm ( paragraphs [0162]-[0164] ) . Tasaki teaches that having thinner light emitting layers can lead to lower costs and better life ( paragraphs [0162]-[0164] ). Tasaki does not specifically teach where the thickness of the light emitting layer meets the applicant’s claimed thicknesses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the light emitting layers according to the teachings of Tasaki so the thickness of the two layers is 20 nm or less. The motivation would have been to lower the cost and improve the lifetime of the device. Tasaki does not disclose the relationship of the in the mathematical formula (mathematical formula 1) recited in claim 1 of the present application. Tasaki does not teach the triplet energy of the host materials, but Tasaki 2022 teaches the triplet energy of the of the first host material is 1.87 eV (paragraph [1074], Table 2, compound BH2-3) and the triplet energy of the second host material is 1.82 eV (paragraph [1074, Table 2, compound BH-4). These host materials meet the applicant’s claimed formula. Regarding c laim 22 , Tasaki 2022 teaches t he singlet energy S ₁ (H1) of compound D-BH-1 is 3.01 eV ( paragraph [1074], Table 2, compound BH2-3) and teaches the singlet energy S ₁ (D1) of the compound BD-2, the first light emitting compound, is 2.73 eV (paragraph [1477] ) . The device of Tasaki (example 3) meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitation . Regarding c laim 23 , Tasaki 2022 teaches the triplet energy T ₁ (H1) of compound D-BH-1 is 1.87 eV (paragraph [1074], Table 2, compound BH2-3), and the singlet energy T1 (D1) of the compound BD-2, the first light emitting compound, is 2.29 eV (paragraph [1478]) . The device of Tasaki (example 3) meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitation. Regarding claim 25 , Tasaki teaches that the that the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer each independently contain a host material and a dopant material (paragraph [0165], which indicates that the dopant can be different from each other . Regarding c laim 27 , Tasaki 2022 teaches the singlet energy S ₁ (D2) of the compound BD-2 is 2.73 eV (paragraph [1477]) , and the triplet energy T1 (H2) of compound BH-3, the second host material, is 1.82 eV (paragraph [1074, Table 2, compound BH-4) . The device of Tasaki (example 3) meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitation. Regarding c laim 28 , Tasaki 2022 teaches the singlet energy S ₁ (H2) of compound BH-3, the second host material is 2.93 eV (paragraph [1074, Table 2, compound BH-4) and teaches the singlet energy S ₁ (D1) of the compound BD-2, the second light emitting compound, is 2.73 eV (paragraph [1477]). The device of Tasaki (example 3) meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitation. Regarding claims 32 and 36, Tasaki 2022 teaches the triplet energy of the of the first host material is 1.87 eV (paragraph [1074], Table 2, compound BH2-3) and the triplet energy of the second host material is 1.82 eV (paragraph [1074, Table 2, compound BH-4). Tasaki 2022 teaches the singlet energy S ₁ (D1) of the compound BD-2, the second light emitting compound, is 2.73 eV (paragraph [1477]). The compounds of Tasaki meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations. Regarding claims 41-46 , Tasaki teaches host materials that comprise biphenyl groups and phenyl and naphthyl groups that are crossed-linked with a double bond (compounds in paragraphs [0260]-[0342]). Regarding claim 47, Tasaki teaches an electronic device comprising the electroluminescent device (paragraph [0001]). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417), where Tasaki et al. (US 2023/0047477) (hereafter “Tasaki”) is used as the English equivalent, as referenced by Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0348522) (hereafter “Tasaki 2022”), as applied to claim s 1-5, 8, 9, 22-36, and 41-47 above, and further in view of Itoi et al. (WO 2020/09307), where Itoi et al. (US 2022/0173335) (hereafter “Itoi”) is used as the English equivalent . Regarding c laim 7 , Tasaki does not teach where the anode is a reflective electrode, and light is extracted through the cathode side . Itoi teaches that one can make the device a top emitting device by making the anode reflective and light is extracted through the cathode (paragraphs [0640]-[0641] and [1753]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tasaki so the anode was reflective and light is extracted through the cathode as taught by Itoi. The motivation would have been to make a top emission device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakamura et al. (US 2021/0242419) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising two light emitting layer comprising host materials and blue dopants. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1148 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7am-4pm . 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 Curtis Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1234 . 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. /ANDREW K BOHATY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759