Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/675,482

LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND POLYCYCLIC COMPOUND FOR THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 18, 2022
Examiner
GARRETT, DAWN L
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 952 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
1026
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 952 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered. The claim amendment dated October 28, 2025 has now been entered. Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 were amended. Claims 7, 18, and 20 are canceled claims. Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, 21, and 22 are pending. Previous rejections over now canceled claims are withdrawn. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed October 28, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims because the Table 2A “inventive” compounds are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed compounds. The “inventive” compounds of the Table are the following: PNG media_image1.png 160 756 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 178 838 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 176 848 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 146 342 media_image4.png Greyscale The additionally provided comparative compounds differ from the “inventive” compounds in multiple features. Further, Parham is not limited to teaching only structures 25, 27, and 42. While specific “inventive” compound 27 may be improved over X-7 and they are directly comparable to one another, the comparison is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter as no claims are limited solely to instant compound 27. 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. Claims 1-6, 9-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2009/0295275 A1). Regarding compounds of instant Formula 1 and devices comprising instant Formula 1, Parham et al. teaches compounds of formula (1) for organic electronic devices (see par. 16): PNG media_image5.png 218 320 media_image5.png Greyscale . X may be selected as N and each Y is selected identically or differently as C(R1)2, BR1, NR1, Si(R1)2, PR1, O, S, SO, SO2, or C=O (see par. 18). Integer “n” is selected as 0, 1, or 2 (see par. 24). Accordingly, at least one Y may be selected as a BR1 group corresponding to the instant “at least one A1 and A2 is >B-X1-Y1”. R1 meanings include at least F, CN, alkoxy, thioalkoxy, S(=O)Ar2, S(=O)Ar, and OSO2R2 (see par. 19) where Ar is defined in par. 22 and R2 is defined in par. 21. R and R1 substituent groups are taught in paragraphs 19 and 20. The compound may be in an emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (see claim 25 on page 23). Regarding claims 2 and 13, a Y may be selected as BR1 (see par. 18) with R1 as at least alkoxy (see par. 19). Further regarding claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, R1 groups may bond to form further rings (see par. 19). Further regarding claims 5 and 16, as noted above, the Y variables may be selected differently from one another (see par. 18). Further regarding claims 6 and 17, both of two Ys present may be selected as BR1 (see par. 18) where a R1 group may include at least alkoxy (see par. 19). Further regarding claims 9 and 21, two Y may be selected the same (see par. 18). Further regarding claim 10, the compounds of formula (1) are fluorescent (see par. 58) and are used in combination with host material (see par. 56-57). Regarding claims 11 and 22 and at least compound #27, Parham et al. one Y may be selected as C(R1)2 with R1s as alkyl with corresponding “n” as 1, one Y may be selected as BR1 with R1 as alkoxy (methoxy) with corresponding “n” as 1, the other Y is not present with a corresponding “n” as zero, two Rs are branched alkyl (tert-butyl), and X is N (see par. 16-20 and 29). Instant #27: PNG media_image6.png 142 144 media_image6.png Greyscale . While Parham et al. does not appear to exemplify a formula (1) compound with groups and variables selected the same as the instant compounds, give the teachings of the reference it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of the reference as described above, wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional device using compounds within the disclosure of Parham et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2009/0295275 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0256538 A1). Parham et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Parham et al. teaches compounds meeting the requirements of instant Formula 1 compounds as discussed above, but does not appear to teach specifically including deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atoms. In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. teaches polycyclic boron and nitrogen containing derivatives where “at least one hydrogen in the polycyclic aromatic compound…may be substituted by…deuterium atom” (see Hatakeyama et al. par. 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atoms as taught by Hatakeyama et al. in compounds according to Parham et al. One would expect including one or more deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atom(s) in compounds of Parham et al. to provide polycyclic compounds useful as a dopant material in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, the declaration signed October 28, 2025 is not considered effective to overcome the obviousness rejection. Further, while the claims have been amended to a narrower scope they remain broader in scope than the group of tested compounds. Additionally, some of the tested “inventive” compounds do not correspond to a comparison compound that can be directly compared as many features of the compounds differ. The experimental evidence does not clearly demonstrate unexpected results for the specific features of including a bridging boron atom bonded to an O or S in polycyclic structures as claimed that is commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant argues Parham shows no specific compounds with a boron as a ring forming atom. In response, the office maintains a Parham structure is defined to include a boron. The office notes that a reference is relevant for all it teaches and is not limited to only preferred example embodiments. Applicant argues comparative example X-3 is inferior, but Parham is not limited to only a compound with a X-3 structure. Conclusion 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

Feb 18, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595256
COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598910
COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583864
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581847
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12563960
Organic Compound, Light-Emitting Device, Light-Emitting Apparatus, Electronic Device, and Lighting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 952 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