Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/921,091

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 24, 2022
Priority
Dec 28, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTCN2021142221
Examiner
NGUYEN, VU ANH
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1255 granted / 1507 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1529
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
67.5%
+27.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1507 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 . 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. Claims 1-19 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. Claims 1 and 13 recite that the second group of the auxiliary layer “and the ligands of the quantum dots in the quantum dot layer are bound with each other through a chemical reaction.” However, the description in the specification and claims 2 and 14 clearly state that said chemical reaction is exemplified by a ligand exchange reaction. Now, ligand exchange reaction substitutes a pre-installed ligand, e.g., TOPO, on the surface of the QDs with a new ligand. In other words, it is not a chemical reaction that binds the two ligands together. The claims are therefore unclear. Claims 1 and 13 are also indefinite for another reason. They recite that the binding force between the auxiliary layer and the QDs is greater than the binding force between the auxiliary layer and the substrate. However, since nothing is known about the substrate and the QDs, the recited binding forces are ambiguous. Specifically, if the substrate surface is functionalized with organic molecules, and the auxiliary layer is made of a single coupling agent such as 3-mercaptopropyl trimethoxysilane (MPTMS) wherein one of the methoxysilyl group reacts with one of the organic molecules on the substrate surface, which of the bonds should then be considered “the binding force between the auxiliary layer and the substrate”? Should the surface-functionalizing organic molecules be considered a part of the substrate or a part of the auxiliary layer? Similarly, quantum dots are often synthesized to be covered with ligands such as trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), oleic acid or thioglycolic acid. As the bonding between these ligands and the metallic surface of the QDs is relatively weak, the ligands may be easily replaced by other ligands in a ligand exchange process. Now, assuming that the QDs come with pre-installed ligands that have a second functional group, e.g., a carbon-carbon double bond, and assuming that this second functional group is reacted with the second group of the auxiliary layer, what bond should then be considered “the binding force between the auxiliary layer and the quantum dots”? Should the pre-installed ligands be considered a part of the QDs or a part of the auxiliary layer? Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are indefinite by dependency. Additionally, claim 8 depends on claim 7, which ultimately depends on claim 1, and recites that there are 2 additional layers between the substrate and the auxiliary layers: one is an electrode and the other is a carrier transport layer. This is contrary to claim 1 which requires a chemical bonding between the substrate and the auxiliary layer. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-19 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: The claimed subject matter appears to be novel and unobvious. The most relevant prior art is by CN-110635057-A (~ US 2021/0098726 A1) to Zhang, which discloses a method of preparing a light-emitting device (see [0059]) comprising a step of depositing a photoresist on the surface of a substrate that has a silicon oxide layer, and a patterning step, wherein the exposed regions have the photoresist stripped off. A coupling agent, such as a mercaptosilane or an aminosilane, is then deposited, followed by a quantum dot layer, wherein the alkoxysilyl groups of the silane react with the alkoxysilyl groups of the silicon oxide layer of the substrate (see figures 2-4) while the thiol group or the amino group of the silane reacts with the quantum dot. As Zhang is silent about the surface of the quantum dots, it can only be assumed that the reaction between the coupling agent and the QDs is via ligand exchange. The resulting bonds are expected to be much weaker than the Si-O bond between the coupling agent and the substrate. Further, since the fabrication method does not involve a detachment of the linking layer, i.e., the layer formed by a reaction between the coupling agent and the silicon oxide layer, from the substrate, there is not a motivation for a POSITA to modify the device such that the binding force between the linking layer and the QDs is greater than the binding force between the linking layer and the substrate. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM. 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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. /VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637449
ORGANIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637400
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT USING THE SAME, AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOF
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630522
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE, COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
4y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12628556
A PLURALITY OF HOST MATERIALS AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
5y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624045
CONDENSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
4y 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1507 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