Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/679,220

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

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 24, 2022
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
3y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
592 granted / 908 resolved
At TC average
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 908 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

Feb 24, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 16, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
May 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 05, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598911
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL LAYER THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593607
MATERIALS FOR ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593606
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588354
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING FUSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, AND THE FUSED CYCLIC COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581849
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENCE ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+23.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 908 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