DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 0 1 / 30 /202 6 . Currently, claims 1- 13 are pending in the 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Species II I (Fig. 3A) in the reply filed on 05/14/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I, II, and III are not mutually exclusive because each of the light emitting devices in Fig. III have the device structure described in Embodiment 1 (Figs. 1A-1C) and that all of claims 1-13 are believed to read on elected Species III . Applicant’s arguments regarding the embodiment of Fig. 3A encompassing use of either the two or three layer block layer stack as described in Figs. 1B-1C is found persuasive. Claims 1- 13 are examined in this Office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2025 and 08/03/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the Examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Th e 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. Claims 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the cathode is in contact with the side surface of the EL layer with the block layer prov ide d therebetween”. It is unclear what this limitation means because the figures and written description corresponding to the elected Species (Figs. 1A-1C & 3A) disclose that it is the anode and not the cathode that is in contact with the side surface of the EL layer with the block layer in-between (from ¶ [0066] , “when voltage is applied to the light-emitting device 100 as illustrated in FIG. 1A, the first electrode 101 functions as a cathode and the second electrode 102 functions as an anode” ) . It can be seen in Figs. 1B-1C, it is anode 10 2 that is in contact with the side surface of EL layer 103 and block layer 107. Independent claim 7, which appears to correspond to the device of Fig. 3A, also discloses that the “the block layer…is provided between the anode and the side surface of the first EL layer”. Applicant also assert ed that the device of Fig. 3A includes the device structure of Figs.1A-1C in Applicant’s Response to Election of Species filed 01/30/2026. Therefore, f or the purpose of examination, th e aforementioned claim 1 limitation will be read as “the anode is in contact with the side surface of the EL layer with the block layer provided therebetween” . Claims 1-6 are also rejected under 112(b) as they depend on base claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKUMOTO et al. ( Foreign Pub. No. JP 2014022221 A (English translation attached) ). Regarding independent claim 7 , a light-emitting apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising a first light-emitting device (Fig. 5, 100(R), ¶ [0025]) and a second light-emitting device (Fig. 5, 100(G), ¶ [0025]) a djacent to each other, wherein the first light-emitting device comprises: a first cathode (Fig. 5, 12 in 100(R), ¶ [0028]) ; an anode (Fig. 5, portion of 19 in 100(R), ¶ [0030]) ; and a first EL layer (Fig. 5, 16(R) + 17a(R) , ) sandwiched between the first cathode and the anode, wherein the first EL layer comprises at least a first light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 16(R ),¶ [0051] ) and a first oxidation-resistant layer (Fig. 5, 17a(R), ¶ [0053]) over the first light-emitting layer, wherein the second light-emitting device comprises: a second cathode (Fig. 5, 12 in 100(G)) ; the anode (Fig. 5, portion of 19 in 100(G)) ; and a second EL layer (Fig. 5, 16(G) + 17a(G), ¶ [0050]) sandwiched between the second cathode and the anode , wherein the second EL layer comprises at least a second light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 16(G), ¶ [0050]) and a second oxidation-resistant layer (Fig. 5, 17a(G), ¶ [0050]) over the second light-emitting layer, wherein a block layer (Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) is provided in contact with a top surface and a side surface of the first EL layer and a top surface and a side surface of the second EL layer (Fig. 5) , wherein a space (Fig. 5, there is a space between 100(R) and 100(G) occupied by 19, 18, and 17b) is provided between the second EL layer and the first EL layer, and wherein , in the space, the anode is provided in such a way that t he block layer, which is in contact with the side surface of the first EL layer and the side surface of the second EL layer, is provided between the anode and the side surface of the first EL layer and the anode and the side surface of the second EL layer (Fig. 5) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OKUMOTO et al. ( Foreign Pub. No. JP 2014022221 A (English translation attached) in view of SHITAGAKI et al. (US Pub. No. 2011 / 0057178 A1). Regarding claim 8 , Okumoto teaches t he light-emitting apparatus according to claim 7. However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach that the first oxidation-resistant layer comprises one or a plurality of an organic compound having an electron-withdrawing group and an oxide of a metal belonging to Group 4 to Group 8 of the periodic table. However Shitagaki is a pertinent art that teaches the first oxidation-resistant layer (Fig. 1A, 112, ¶ [0099]) comprises one or a plurality of an organic compound having an electron-withdrawing group and an oxide of a metal belonging to Group 4 to Group 8 of the periodic table (¶ [0100] teaches that hole transport layer 112 can include an electron withdrawing material such as 7,7,8,8-tetracyano-2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane and a metal oxide such as molybdenum oxide) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto’s hole transport layer to include an electron withdrawing group and a metal oxide according to the teaching of Shitagaki (¶ [0100]) in order to use materials that are stable with respect to electron reduction and high electron accepting properties ( Shitagaki ¶¶ [0099] -[ 0100]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 9, Okumoto teaches t he light-emitting apparatus according to claim 7 . However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach that the first oxidation-resistant layer (Fig. 1A, 112, ¶ [0099]) comprises one or a plurality of a molybdenum oxide, a vanadium oxide, a niobium oxide, a tantalum oxide, a chromium oxide, a tungsten oxide, a manganese oxide, a rhenium oxide, 7,7,8,8-tetracyano- 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane, 3,6-difluoro-2,5,7,7,8,8-hexacyanoquinodimethane, chloranil, 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexacyano-1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene, 1,3,4,5,7,8- hexafluorotetracyano-naphthoquinodimethane , and 2-(7-dicyano methylen - 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10-octafluoro-7H-pyren-2-ylidene)malononitrile. However, Shitagaki is a pertinent art that teaches that the first oxidation-resistant layer comprises one or a plurality of a molybdenum oxide, a vanadium oxide, a niobium oxide, a tantalum oxide, a chromium oxide, a tungsten oxide, a manganese oxide, a rhenium oxide, 7,7,8,8-tetracyano- 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane, 3,6-difluoro-2,5,7,7,8,8-hexacyanoquinodimethane, chloranil, 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexacyano-1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene, 1,3,4,5,7,8- hexafluorotetracyano-naphthoquinodimethane , and 2-(7-dicyano methylen - 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10-octafluoro-7H-pyren-2-ylidene)malononitrile (¶ [0100] teaches that hole transport layer 112 can include an electron withdrawing material such as 7,7,8,8- tetracyano-2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane and a metal oxide such as molybdenum oxide) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto’s hole transport layer to include an electron withdrawing group and a metal oxide according to the teaching of Shitagaki (¶ [0100]) in order to use materials that are stable with respect to electron reduction and that have high electron accepting properties ( Shitagaki ¶¶ [0099] -[ 0100]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 12, Okumoto teaches a n electronic device comprising: the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 7 . However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone. However, organic EL display panels such as Okumoto’s are often used as display devices (Okumoto ¶ [0002]). A cellular phone with a sensor, operation button, speaker, or microphone is an obvious application of Okumoto’s EL display panel (for example, see Shitagaki Fig. 14C, ¶ [0228]). Regarding claim 13, Okumoto teaches a lighting device comprising: the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 7 . However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach a housing. However, organic EL display panels such as Okumoto’s are often used as display devices (Okumoto ¶ [0002]). A display device with a housing is an obvious application of Okumoto’s EL display panel (for example, see Shitagaki Fig. 14C, ¶ [0228]). Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OKUMOTO et al. ( Foreign Pub. No. JP 2014022221 A (English translation attached) in view of EUM et al. (US Pub. No. 20240049594 A1). Regarding independent claim 1, Okumoto teaches a light-emitting device comprisin g (Fig. 5) : a cathode (Fig. 5, 12, ¶ [0028]) ; an anode (Fig. 5, 19, ¶ [0030]) ; and an EL layer (Fig. 5, 50, ¶ [0028]) sandwiched between the cathode and the anode, wherein the EL layer comprises at least a light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 16, ¶ [0025]) and an oxidation- resistant layer (Fig. 5, 17a, ¶ [0029]) over the light-emitting layer, wherein the EL layer comprises a side surface (Fig. 5) , wherein , a block layer (Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) is provided in contact with a top surface and the side surface of the EL layer (Fig. 5) , wherein the anode is in contact with the side surface of the EL layer with the block layer provided therebetween (Fig. 5) . However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach that the block layer comprises a heterocyclic compound . However, Eum is a pertinent art that teaches that a block layer (¶ [0100] teaches a heterocyclic compound that can be used in a hole injection or charge transporting layer) that comprises a heterocyclic compound . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto’s hole transport layer to be a heterocyclic compound according to the teaching of Eum ( Eum ¶ [0100]) in order to increase power efficiency ( Eum ¶¶ [0024] -[ 0025]). Regarding claim 6, Okumoto modified by Eum teaches a light-emitting apparatus comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 1 , and Okumoto teaches a transistor or a substrate (Fig. 5, 11, ¶ [0069]) . Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OKUMOTO et al. ( Foreign Pub. No. JP 2014022221 A (English translation attached) in view of EUM et al. (US Pub. No. 20240049594 A1) and further in view of SHITAGAKI et al. (US Pub. No. 2011 / 0057178 A1). Regarding claim 2, Okumoto modified by Eum teaches t he light-emitting device according to claim 1. However, Okumoto modified by Eum does not explicitly teach that the first oxidation-resistant layer comprises any one or a plurality of an organic compound having an electron-withdrawing group and an oxide of a metal belonging to Group 4 to Group 8 of the periodic table. However Shitagaki is a pertinent art that teaches the first oxidation-resistant layer (Fig. 1A, 112, ¶ [0099]) comprises any one or a plurality of an organic compound having an electron-withdrawing group and an oxide of a metal belonging to Group 4 to Group 8 of the periodic table (¶ [0100] teaches that hole transport layer 112 can include an electron withdrawing material such as 7,7,8,8-tetracyano-2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane and a metal oxide such as molybdenum oxide) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto modified by Eum’s hole transport layer to include an electron withdrawing group and a metal oxide according to the teaching of Shitagaki (¶ [0100]) in order to use materials that are stable with respect to electron reduction and high electron accepting properties ( Shitagaki ¶¶ [0099] -[ 0100]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 3, Okumoto modified by Eum teaches t he light-emitting device according to claim 1. However, Okumoto modified by Eum does not explicitly teach that the oxidation-resistant layer comprises one or a plurality of a molybdenum oxide, a vanadium oxide, a niobium oxide, a tantalum oxide, a chromium oxide, a tungsten oxide, a manganese oxide, a rhenium oxide, 7,7,8,8-tetracyano- 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane, 3,6-difluoro-2,5,7,7,8,8-hexacyanoquinodimethane, chloranil, 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexacyano-1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene, 1,3,4,5,7,8- hexafluorotetracyano-naphthoquinodimethane , and 2-(7-dicyano methylen - 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10-octafluoro-7H-pyren-2-ylidene)malononitrile. However, Shitagaki is a pertinent art that teaches that the first oxidation-resistant layer comprises one or a plurality of a molybdenum oxide, a vanadium oxide, a niobium oxide, a tantalum oxide, a chromium oxide, a tungsten oxide, a manganese oxide, a rhenium oxide, 7,7,8,8-tetracyano- 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane, 3,6-difluoro-2,5,7,7,8,8-hexacyanoquinodimethane, chloranil, 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexacyano-1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene, 1,3,4,5,7,8- hexafluorotetracyano-naphthoquinodimethane , and 2-(7-dicyano methylen - 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10-octafluoro-7H-pyren-2-ylidene)malononitrile (¶ [0100] teaches that hole transport layer 112 can include an electron withdrawing material such as 7,7,8,8-tetracyano-2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane and a metal oxide such as molybdenum oxide) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto modified by Eum’s hole transport layer to include an electron withdrawing group and a metal oxide according to the teaching of Shitagaki (¶ [0100]) in order to use materials that are stable with respect to electron reduction and that have high electron accepting properties ( Shitagaki ¶¶ [0099]-[0100]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claims 4-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OKUMOTO et al. ( Foreign Pub. No. JP 2014022221 A (English translation attached) in view of EUM et al. (US Pub. No. 20240049594 A1) and further in view of MATSUNAGA et al. (US Pub. No. 2010 / 0073268 A1) and further in view of SASAKI et al. (US Pub. No. 2017 / 0244059 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Okumoto modified by Eum teaches t he light-emitting device according to claim 1 , and Okumoto teaches that the block layer (Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) comprises a first block layer (Fig. 5, 17b, ¶ [0067]) and a second block layer (Fig. 5, left half of 18, ¶ [0067]) over the first block layer , However, Okumoto modified by Eum does not explicitly teach that the second block layer comprises a metal. However, Matsunaga is a pertinent art that teaches that the second block layer comprises an electron-transport material and a metal (¶ [0153] teaches that Matsunaga’s hole injection layer can include a metal complex having a ligand such as an oxazole derivative. Examples of a metal complex having a ligand such as an oxazole derivative include ZnBTZ and ZnPBO (see ¶ [0192] of Sasaki)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto modified by Eum’s hole injection layer to include a metal complex having an oxazole derivative according to the teaching of Matsunaga (¶ [0089]) in order to reduce manufacturing costs. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 5, Okumoto modified by Eum modified by Matsunaga teaches t he light-emitting device according to claim 4, and Okumoto teaches that the block layer (Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) comprises a third block layer (Fig. 5, right half of 18) in contact with the EL layer (Fig. 5, 50, ¶ [0028]) , and wherein the third block layer comprises a metal (Okumoto modified by Eum modified by Matsunaga would fulfill this limitation) . Regarding claim 10, Okumoto teaches t he light-emitting apparatus according to claim 7 , and Okumoto teaches that the block layer ( Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) comprises a first block layer (Fig. 5, 17b, ¶ [0067 ]) and a second block layer (Fig. 5, left half of 18, ¶ [0067]) over the first block layer. However, Okumoto does not explicitly teach that the first block layer comprises an electron-transport material, and wherein the second block layer comprises an electron-transport material and a metal. However, Eum is a pertinent art that teaches that first block layer comprises an electron-transport material (¶ [0100] teaches a heterocyclic compound that can be used as a hole injection or electron/hole transporting material) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto’s hole transport layer to be a heterocyclic compound according to the teaching of Eum ( Eum ¶ [0100]) in order to increase power efficiency ( Eum ¶¶ [0024] -[ 0025]). However, Okumoto modified by Eum does not explicitly teach that the second block layer comprises an electron-transport material and a metal. However, Matsunaga is a pertinent art that teaches that the second block layer comprises an electron-transport material and a metal (¶ [0 153 ] teaches that Matsunaga’s hole injection layer can include a metal complex having a ligand such as an oxazole derivative. Examples of a metal complex having a ligand such as an oxazole derivative include ZnBTZ and ZnPBO (see ¶ [0192] of Sasaki) ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okumoto modified by Eum’s hole injection layer to include a metal complex having an oxazole derivative according to the teaching of Matsunaga (¶ [0089]) in order to reduce manufacturing costs. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 11, Okumoto modified by Eum modified by Matsunaga teaches the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 10, and Okumoto teaches that the block layer (Fig. 5, 17b + 18, ¶ [0067]) comprises a third block layer (Fig. 5, right half of 18) in contact with the EL layer (Fig. 5, 50, ¶ [0028]) , and wherein the third block layer comprises a metal (Okumoto modified by Eum modified by Matsunaga would fulfill this limitation) . Cited Prior Art The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2010 / 0320481 by Kashiwabara discloses a display device. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2020 / 0075897 by Tanaka discloses a display device . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1348 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm . 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 Steven B Gauthier can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-0373 . 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. /R.P.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2813 /STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813