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. DETAILED ACTION Response to Restriction Applicants election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 2/17/26, is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending and claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Interpretation Paragraph 0090 of Applicants specification reads “The wording ‘concentration profile of the dopant composition’ as used herein is a wording used for representing that a concentration profile of the first dopant with respect to the thickness of the mixed layer 15 and a concentration profile of the second dopant with respect to the thickness of the mixed layer 15 are substantially the same (e.g., are the same) at each thickness, and thus are not distinguished from each other based on the thickness of the mixed layer”. It is understood that this passage means that each of the first dopant and second dopant must follow the same , or substantially the same, concentration profile. Figures 6-9 of Applicants specification show several concentration profiles according to the invention. The x axis represents an arbitrary length L of the emission layer (the thickness of the emission layer) and the y axis represents the total concentration of the dopant mixture in wt%. Figures 6 and 7 show embodiments wherein each dopant follows a sinusoidal dopant profile (having one or two sine waves) and Figures 8 and 9 show embodiments wherein each dopant follows a linear gradient (either down or up) as a function of emission layer thickness. Figure 10 represents an embodiment which falls outside the scope of the definition provided in claim 1 where each of the first and second dopant have different concentration profiles (as described in paragraph 0091 of Applicants specification). While not shown in any of the Figures, a concentration profile where the first dopant and second dopant have a uniform distribut ion throughout the thickness L of the mixed layer would also satisfy this limitation as defined by Applicants . Further, the relative amounts of the first and second dopants do not need to be the same, they only need to follow the same concentration profile as shown by the Y axis which reads “concentration of dopant mixture (wt%)”. This includes embodiments where one dopant is present at 5 wt% relative to the total wt% of the emission layer, and the other dopant is present at 1 wt% relative to the total wt% of the emission layer. The only requirement in this embodiment is that both the first and second dopants follow the same concentration profile. Additionally, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. The claim is drawn to a mixed layer , and the claim also includes process steps as to how said mixed layer is prepared. Specifically, claim 1 includes the limitation “the mixed layer is formed by deposition of the matrix material, the first dopant, and the second dopant”. Additionally, the claim requires that the expression T m1 > T p > T m1 + 2 is satisfied. These limitations further limit the process steps within the product-by-process claim. For product-by-process claims, patentability is determined on the product itself, and not on the method of its production. In this instan t case, i f th e prior art teaches a mixed layer comprising a matrix material, a first dopant, and a second dopant as a dopant mixture, and wherein said dopant mixture has a concentration profile as defined by Applicants, the method for preparing said mixed layer would not be required to be prepared via a deposition process which satisfies the expression T m1 > T p > T m1 + 2 . The prior art references relied upon in the rejections below represent such references which teach Applicants claimed mixed layer but not the specific process steps. 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- 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubey et al. ( Organic Electronics 2019 , 69 , 232-240). Claim 1: Dubey et al. teaches a solution process for preparing a white organic light-emitting diode (WOLED). The WOLEDs taught by Dubey et al. comprise an emission layer which is a mixed layer comprising a host material (TCTA), a first dopant ( FIrpic ) which comprises a transition metal (iridium), and a second dopant (PO-01). By depositing from a solution, the concentration of the first and second dopants would be expected to be the same throughout the thickness of the emission layer. In one example Dubey et al. teaches a light-emitting device where the emission layer consists of TCTA which is the matrix material/host, 1 wt% of PO-01, which is the second dopant, and a varying amount (10, 15, 20, and 25 wt%) of FIrpic , which is the first dopant. In a device having 10 wt% of FIrpic , a solution process would be expected to have a uniform distribution where the amount of FIrpic is 10 wt% throughout the emission layer, the amount of PO-01 is 1 wt% throughout the emission layer, and TCTA represents the balance wt% throughout the emission layer. Therefore, the emission layers taught by Dubey et al. represent a mixed layer which satisfies all of the structural limitations of claim 1 as well as the concentration profile requirement of claim 1. The specific deposition limitations are part of the product-by-process claim language and are not required to be met if it is shown that the mixed layer prepared by the art, in this case, by Dubey et al., is the same as that prepared according to the claim. Claim 2: The host material TCTA is a hole-transporting compound which satisfies claim 2. Claims 3, 5, and 6: Both the first and second dopants of Dubey et al. comprise iridium, which satisfies claims 3, 5, and 6. Claims 4 and 7: Claims 4 and 7 are limitations which further limit the process steps in claim 1. As stated above, these limitations do not need to be specifically met in the case of product-by-process claims if it can be shown that the final product of the claim is also taught in the art. Claim 10: In the emission layer/mixed layer of Dubey et al., the first and second dopants are emitters, thereby satisfying claim 10. Claim s 1-4 and 8 -10 ar e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0246851). Claim 1: Fleetham et al. teaches organic light emitting devices comprising a mixed layer which is an emission layer. Fleetham et al. exemplifies a light emitting device where the emission layer is comprised of a hole-transporting host (compound 3), an electron-transporting host (compound 4), a sensitizer (phosphor 1, shown as sensitizer 1), and a dopant (DABNA-D21). The sensitizer serves as a first dopant and is a platinum-group containing dopant and the DABNA-D21 serves as a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) second dopant which does not comprise a transition metal and comprises a cyclic group including a boron and a nitrogen atom as ring forming atoms. While Fleetham et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensitizer and TADF dopant have a concentration profile with respect to a thickness of the mixed layer/emission layer, Fleetham et al. is clearly aware of the challenges of vapor depositing two different materials. In paragraphs 0118 and 0119 Fleetham et al. teaches that when co-evaporating 3 or 4 source materials, maintaining control over the deposition rates of each material becomes costly and difficult (paragraph 0118). Fleetham et al. teaches that co-evaporation must be stable so that the composition of the evaporated film remains constant during the vacuum deposition process (paragraph 0119). Fleetham et al. requires that the difference in evaporation temperature between the sensitizer and dopant are preferably less than 20 °C (paragraph 0125) . Fleetham et al. further teaches that the sensitizer has a concentration C1 in the mixture , the TADF material has a concentration C2 in the mixture, and the absolute value of (C1-C2)/C1 is less than 3% (paragraph 0126), and that the mixture of sensitizer and TADF material have a mass loss rate within 0.97:1 to 1.03:1 (paragraph 0128). All of these requirements are understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to allow for an even distribution of sensitizer and dopant to be present throughout the thickness of the emission layer. In other words, the sensitizer and TADF dopant has a constant concentration profile with respect to the thickness of the mixed layer according to Applicants definition . It would be expected that the concentration profile of the sensitizer material and the TADF material would be at least substantially the same given the parameters which must be adhered to according to Fleetham et al. Alternative ly , should this not be the case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the various parameters taught by Fleetham et al. so as to ensure that the vapor-deposited dopant mixture has a uniform concentration profile with respect to the thickness of the mixed layer, the motivation to do so being rooted in the teachings of Fleetham et al. as described in paragraphs 0117-0137. Claim 2: The host materials employed in the device examples comprises a combination of a hole-transporting compound and an electron-transporting compound, as described in claim 1 above, thereby satisfying claim 2. Claim 3: The first dopant/sensitizer comprises platinum, thereby satisfying claim 3. Claim 4: Claim 4 include s limitations which further limit the process steps in product-by-process claim 1. As stated above, these limitations do not need to be specifically met in the case of product-by-process claims if it can be shown that the final product of the claim is also taught in the art. Claims 8 and 9: The second dopant (TADF dopant) does not comprise a transition metal and comprises a cyclic group including a boron and a nitrogen atom as ring forming atoms, thereby satisfying claims 8 and 9. Claim 10: The first dopant in the device examples of Fleetham et al. is a sensitizer and the second dopant is an emitter, thereby satisfying claim 10. 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 of this title, 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. 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 1- 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146). Claim 1: Adamovich et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices which comprise an emission layer. The emission layer consists of a host material, a first phosphorescent dopant, and a second phosphorescent dopant. One embodiment employs a mixture of phosphorescent dopants A and B which are both green emitters and another embodiment employs a mixture of phosphorescent dopants C and D which are both red emitters as shown in the figures of Adamovich et al. The devices which comprise H1:A:B and BAlq:C:D as the emission layers are mixed layers which comprise a matrix material (H1 o r BAlq ), a dopant composition comprising a first dopant and a second dopant (A and B or C and D) where the first dopant comprises a transition metal and the host does not comprise a transition metal. While Adamovich et al. does not explicitly teach that the mixed layer/emission layer has a concentration profile of the dopant composition with respect to a thickness of the mixed layer, Adamovich et al. explicitly teaches that the layers of the light-emitting devices may be deposited using solution-based methods, such as ink-jet printing, and spin coating (paragraph 0055). It is submitted that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have prepared the emission layers taught by Adamovich et al. using a solution deposition process as such methods are explicitly taught by Adamovich et al. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a solution deposition process since such methods start from a homogeneous solution of host material, a first dopant material, and a second dopant material. It would therefore be expected that a solution process would prepare an emission layer which has a uniform distribution of dopants throughout the entire emission layer. That is to say, both the first dopant and second dopant would have a concentration profile of the dopant composition with respect to the thickness of the mixed layer/emission layer, thereby satisfying claim 1. Claim 2: The host material H1, whose structure is shown in Fig. 19 is a hole transporting host which satisfies claim 2. Claims 3, 5, and 6: The dopants A, B, C, and D, whose structures are shown in Fig. 19, are all iridium-based phosphorescent dopants, thereby satisfying claims 3, 5, and 6. Claims 4 and 7: Claims 4 and 7 are limitations which further limit the process steps in claim 1. As stated above, these limitations do not need to be specifically met in the case of product-by-process claims if it can be shown that the final product of the claim is also taught in the art. Claims 10 and 11: Dopants A and B and dopant C and D each function as emitters in the devices taught by Adamovich et al. thereby satisfying claim 10. Additionally, dopants A and B both emit green light, and dopants C and D both emit red light, thereby satisfying claim 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3298 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1302 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Robert S Loewe/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766