Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/956,739

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, AND THE ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 29, 2022
Examiner
CLARK, GREGORY D
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1016 granted / 1202 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1246
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1202 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 01/20/2026. Elected Species PNG media_image1.png 78 792 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 650 798 media_image2.png Greyscale A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species, but no examinable species were found. The restriction requirement is therefore withdrawn. 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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the compounds listed in paragraph [0169] on page 22 and the compounds listed starting in paragraph [0631] in the examples which all feature Pt as M and benzimidazole as A1 and A2, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of claim 1, claim 8 and their dependents. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Per MPEP 2164, the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. V. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: Is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? Upon applying this test to claim 1 and claim 8 and their dependent claims, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required based on the evidence regarding each of the following factors: (B) The nature of the invention: Independent claims 1 and 8 requires a light emitting-device having an emission layer of formula I and a compound of formula I as shown below: PNG media_image3.png 564 674 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 84 564 media_image4.png Greyscale and PNG media_image5.png 53 579 media_image5.png Greyscale (C) The state of the prior art and (E) The level of predictability in the art: The stability of metal complexes is highly influenced by several key factors including: The structural and chemical behavior of metal complexes is significantly influenced by several key factors, including The nature of the metal ion The oxidation state of the central metal ion The nature and donor atoms of the ligands Overall coordination number and geometry Metal-ligand interactions (Priyanka Bhojak* and Dr. Rachna Yadav**, Recent Advances in Metal Complex Formation and Their Physico-Chemical Characterization, Published 2025 and Senthilkumar Muthaiah, Anita Bhatia and Muthukumar Kannan, Stability of Metal Complexes , Published: 05 March 2020) (D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably make a complex of Formula 1 with any M as described in the claims PNG media_image4.png 84 564 media_image4.png Greyscale and A1 to A4 and B1 to B6 with any carboxylic group or heterocyclic group as described in the claims PNG media_image5.png 53 579 media_image5.png Greyscale without further guidance as it is known in the art that metal complexes have several complex factors that affect the ability to synthesize and result in a stable compound. (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The specification provides no description of how to make compounds of Formula 1 that have M other than platinum (Pt) (e.g. iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), rhenium (Re), osmium (Os), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), or thulium (Tm)) and have A1 and A2 other than benzimidazole (e.g. any C3-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group) . (G) The existence of working examples: The specification does not provide any compounds or examples of metal complexes of Formula 1 with M other than platinum (Pt) (e.g. iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), rhenium (Re), osmium (Os), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), or thulium (Tm)) and have A1 and A2 other than benzimidazole (e.g. any C3-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group) . (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict how to appropriately synthesize a stable metal complex of Formula 1 with M other than platinum (Pt) (e.g. iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), rhenium (Re), osmium (Os), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), or thulium (Tm)) and have A1 and A2 other than benzimidazole (e.g. any C3-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group) without a large amount of undue experimentation. Based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of claims 1, 8 and their dependents without undue experimentation. Claims 1-25 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. Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. Independent claims 1 and 8 require a light emitting-device having an emission layer of formula I and a compound of formula I as shown below: PNG media_image3.png 564 674 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 84 564 media_image4.png Greyscale and PNG media_image5.png 53 579 media_image5.png Greyscale The description only provides compounds and examples of metal complexes of Formula 1 with M as platinum (Pt) and have A1 and A2 as benzimidazole. The limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. Therefore, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written description. Conclusion 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.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F. 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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604655
POLYMER, QUANTUM DOT COMPOSITION AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE EMPLOYING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584066
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584067
COMPOUND, MATERIAL FOR ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581793
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577202
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1202 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