Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/679,220

MULTI-COMPONENT HOST MATERIAL AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 24, 2022
Priority
Apr 29, 2014 — RE 10-2014-0051930 +4 more
Examiner
BOHATY, ANDREW K
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rohm And Haas Electronic Materials Korea Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allowance Rate
596 granted / 913 resolved
At TC average
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
944
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
75.3%
+35.3% vs TC avg
§102
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 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 . This Office action is in response to the amendment filed December 18, 2025, which amends claims 1, 3, and 12 and cancels claim 6. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, and 12 are pending. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed December 18, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection claims 1-6, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzaki (US 2012/0153272) in view of Kato et al. (US 2014/0061602) and Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0234119) as set forth in the Office action mailed August 21, 2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11, and 12 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 § 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 1-5, 9, 11, and 12 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. Regarding claim 1, the specification does not contain support for the applicant’s amendment to claim 1, where La represents formula 5-1, Xi to Xk each independently represent hydrogen and Xl represents a deuterium-substituted phenyl, Ma is a substituted or unsubstituted triazine, Xc represents a deuterium substituted or unsubstituted phenyl, and Xa, Xd, Xf, and Xh are hydrogen atoms. This a very specific structure and the applicant does not provide any specific examples where Xl represents a deuterium-substituted phenyl or any specific language in the specification that describes this limitation. Only broad teachings in the specification indicate that this substitution pattern may occur, but there is no specific teaching that would suggest this combination of substituents. Claims 2-5, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 1. 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. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, and 12 are 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 1, the claim 1 does not describe the group Xe. It is unclear what substituent groups can be used for group Xe. Claims 2-5, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 1. 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 ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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. /ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 6 earlier events
Jun 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Dec 05, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12642001
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT
3y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635410
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
4y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630496
ORGANIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND LIGHTING DEVICE
4y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12635411
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE COMPRISING A COMPOUND OF FORMULA (I) AND AN ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING THE ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623919
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
5y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 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
65%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+23.1%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 913 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