Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/527,396

HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 16, 2021
Examiner
KERSHNER, DYLAN CLAY
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
176 granted / 282 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
335
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 282 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Response to Amendment The amendment of 18 December 2025 has been entered. Disposition of claims: Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Additionally, while not indicated as being amended, the compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 18 December 2025 appear to be different than the compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 5 September 2025. Claims 13-14 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-20 are pending. The amendments to claim 9 have overcome the rejections of claims 9-12, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 9-12, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1) (hereafter “Forrest”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner’s Note The compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 18 December 2025 appear to be different than the compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 5 September 2025. Specifically, compounds 112 to 119 are omitted from the claims of 18 December 2025. The claim has not been indicated as being amended. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The compounds of Groups I and II in paragraph [0058] have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The compounds of claim 20 have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 20 is 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 claim 20: The compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 18 December 2025 appear to be different than the compounds in claim 20 in the claims of 5 September 2025. Specifically, compounds 112 to 119 are omitted from the claims of 18 December 2025. The claim has not been indicated as being amended. Thus, it is unclear if compounds 112 to 119 are intended to be included in claim 20 or not. Furthermore, there appears to be a partial chemical structure below compound 111 on p. 20 of the claims of 18 December 2025. It is unclear if this partial structure is meant to be part of a claimed compound or not. Thus, the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that compounds 112 to 119 of the claims of 5 September 2025 are meant to be included and that the partial chemical structure below compound 111 on p. 20 of the claims of 18 December 2025 is a typographical error. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-19 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As described in the Office action of 19 December 2024, Yoon et al. (US 2021/0119147 A1) (hereafter “Yoon”) is a representation of the closest prior art. Yoon teaches similar compounds to those of the instant claims, but the group that can be equated with the instant *-(L21)a21-(R21)b21 is located at the instant R11 to R14. Given the electronic differences between the benzene ring to which the instant R11 to R14 are attached and the benzene ring to which the instant R15 to R18 are attached, it would not be obvious to make similar compounds to those of Yoon in which the group that can be equated with the instant *-(L21)a21-(R21)b21 is instead attached at the instant R16 or R17. The benzene rings would have differing electronics due to the differing heterocyclic rings to which the benzene rings are fused. Additionally, while Yoon teaches that the positions equivalent to the instant R16 or R17 can be substituted with groups such as biphenyl, replacing a hydrogen with a biphenyl would not be obvious. Hydrogen and biphenyl would differ significantly both in terms of sterics and electronics. In sum, claims 1-12, 15, and 17-19 are allowable over the cited prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined in the Office action of 29 October 2025, Kang et al. (US 2022/0144856 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) is a representation of the closest prior art. However, Kang does not teach the substituent patterns required for the compounds of the current claim 20. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Kang to have the substituent patterns of the compounds of the current claim 20. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain). 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. /DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584065
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575253
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE AND DISPLAY DEVICE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568759
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559673
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552986
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.6%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 282 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