Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/231,835

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 15, 2021
Examiner
SIMBANA, RACHEL A
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rohm And Haas Electronic Materials Korea Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
95 granted / 153 resolved
-2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+44.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
225
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 153 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 04/15/2021. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment In the response filed 02/12/2026, the claims were amended. These amendments are hereby entered. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-6 and 8-10 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2021/0376255 A1) and Ahn et al. (US 2018/0208837 A1) is withdrawn by the Office. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. 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. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2021/0376255 A1) and Cho et al. (US 2019/0214572 A1). With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), a light emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0009), and an electron transport zone comprising an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer (paragraph 0168). The light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula (1), and an anthracene based compound represented by Formula (3) (abstract). A representative example of the compound of Formula 1, compound 1-1152 (page 5) is pictured below, and a representative example of the compound of Formula 3, compound 3-5 (page 6) is pictured beside it. PNG media_image1.png 268 309 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 161 311 media_image2.png Greyscale Compound 1-1152 meets the requirements of instant Formula (2) when rings A, B, and C are a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl, Y1 is boron, X1 and X2 are NR, and R is an unsubstituted C6 or unsubstituted C12 (phenyl or biphenyl) aryl. Compound 3-5 meets the requirements of instant Formula (1) when L1 is a direct bond, L2 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthalene), and Ar1 and Ar2 are both an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl). However, while Hatakeyama teaches that any hydrogen atom can be replaced by deuterium (paragraph 0019), Compound 3-5 differs from the claimed invention in that the anthracene core is not fully deuterated. In analogous art, Yoon teaches an anthracene derivative for use in an electroluminescent device wherein just the anthracene core is deuterated (abstract). Yoon teaches that host compounds wherein just the anthracene core is deuterated have the advantages of light emitting efficiency, lifespan, and production cost (paragraph 0095). This is because deuterium is expensive and deuterating just the anthracene core provides sufficient lifespan while minimizing the production cost as a result of deuterium atoms (paragraph 0200). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate just the anthracene core of the Compound 3-5 in order to provide the advantages of light emitting efficiency and lifespan, while minimizing production cost as a result of the deuterium atoms, as taught by Yoon. However, while Hatakeyama teaches the electron transport layer may comprise a triazine derivative (paragraph 0194, lines 1-15 and Formula ETM-10-1, paragraph 0314), and while an electron transport layer is capable of acting as an electron buffer layer, neither Hatakeyama nor Yoon teaches an electron buffer layer comprising a compound of instant Formula (11-1). Cho teaches an electron buffer material for use in an electron buffering layer (abstract) located in an electron transport zone, for example, between a light-emitting layer and the second electrode (paragraph 0050 and Figure 1) in an organic electroluminescent device having low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and/or long lifespan (paragraph 0009). Cho gives an example of the inventive electron buffer material, B-15 (page 8), which is pictured below. PNG media_image3.png 378 444 media_image3.png Greyscale This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula (11-1) when A1 and A2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L3 is a C6 arylene (phenylene), m is 1 and Ar3 is an unsubstituted 20-membered heteroaryl (benzothieno[2,3-a]carbazolyl). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron buffer layer of Cho comprising the electron buffer material of Cho into the device of Hatakeyama in order to produce an organic electroluminescent device having low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and/or long lifespan, as taught by Cho. With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and in Formula (2), the substituent of the substituted aryl is a C6 aryl (phenyl), as pictured above. The compounds of Formulae 1 and (11-1) do not contain any substituted groups. With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and L1 is a single bond, and L2 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthalene), which is the third embodiment of instant Group 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and Ar1 and Ar2 in Formula 1 are each a phenyl group, which is the first embodiment of Group 2 of the instant claim. With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Compound 3-5, which is discussed above, is derived from Hatakeyama formula (3), which is pictured below. PNG media_image4.png 215 237 media_image4.png Greyscale Compound 3-5 can be derived from this formula when Ar4 is a deuterium atom (paragraph 0038 and 0019), one X is represented by Formula (3-X3), and the other X is represented by Formula (3-X1). In Formula 3-X3, Ar3 is a phenyl group (paragraph 0037, lines 1-7). In formula 3-X1, Ar1 is a phenyl group (paragraph 0037, lines 1-7). Hatakeyama also teaches that Ar1 may be represented by Formula 4-1 (paragraph 0037, lines 6-10), which is pictured below. PNG media_image5.png 94 258 media_image5.png Greyscale In formula 4-1, Y is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0040). This forms a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when three of R9-R12 are hydrogen atoms, and X is an oxygen atom. Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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, such as the substituent of formula (4-1), 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 result of a compound for use in an organic electroluminescent element in a light emitting layer which has excellent quantum efficiency (paragraph 0550), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 2 is represented by formula 2-1 when R23 is a C6 aryl group and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above. With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 1 is compound H-1 when n is 8, as discussed above. With respect to claim 9, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 2 is the first embodiment (line 1, column 1) on page 19 of the instant claims. With respect to claim 10, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Cho teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 11-1 is instant compound B-15, as pictured above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.. 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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. /RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 17, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577261
CARBENE COMPOUNDS AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575313
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563969
ORGANIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545667
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT USING THE SAME, AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12520712
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+44.7%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 153 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month