Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/294,453

CARBAZOLE DERIVATES FOR USE IN OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICES

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 17, 2021
Priority
Nov 16, 2018 — EU 18206790.0 +3 more
Examiner
GARRETT, DAWN L
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
702 granted / 967 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1028
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is responsive to the amendment received April 1, 2026. Claims 1 and 2 were amended. Claims 8-15 are cancelled claims. Claims 1-7 and 16-28 are pending. The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-28 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the claim amendment dated April 1, 2026. The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2012/0223276 A1) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendment dated April 1, 2026. 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. Claims 1-7 and 16-28 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. [Note that dependent claims are included in the rejection based upon their dependence on a rejected claim.] Claim 1 was amended to include new definitions for R2 (see page 4 of claim set) including where C1-C5 alkyl, C1-C5 alkoxy, C1-C5 thioalkoxy, C2-C5 alkenyl, and C2-C5 alkynyl may each be substituted with CF3. It is not seen where the original specification provides for the definition of R2 to include these groups specifically substituted with CF3. Further it is not seen where R2 is defined as alkoxy or thioalkoxy groups. (See specification as filed at least at pages 3 and 7). Claim 1 is considered to include new matter. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 2, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 2 contains definitions for variable R2 that are no longer included within the specific definitions for R2 in parent claim 1. Claims 21 and 22 are included in this rejection as they depend from claim 2. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time). 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. /DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 10 earlier events
May 27, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679816
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
4y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12652953
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
5y 0m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12643849
COMPOUND, MATERIAL FOR ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENTS, ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
4y 1m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12648294
Light Emitting Element and Display Device Including the Same
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12622131
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
3y 10m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+10.3%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 967 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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