Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/978,088

ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 31, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, VU ANH
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1247 granted / 1498 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1529
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1498 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 1-11 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. Claim 1 is not clear as it recites formula a PNG media_image1.png 172 222 media_image1.png Greyscale that may be reduced to one of the following formulae: PNG media_image2.png 152 164 media_image2.png Greyscale , PNG media_image3.png 110 218 media_image3.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image4.png 116 208 media_image4.png Greyscale . The recitation is confusing because one would normally assume that, in formula a, each of R1, R2 and R3 is bonded to a carbon atom. That is, formula a must have at least 6 fused rings, and none of X1-4 can be R16, which is defined as a monovalent group, including hydrogen atom. The other claims are indefinite by dependency. In addition, claim 3 is unclear because it recites chemical structures that have missing bonds, such as in H22-H24, H40, H57 and EH19 (among others), or are illegible, such as PH61-PH70 and PH120 (among many others). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113024529 Wang et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation). Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses an OLED comprising the following compound as a host material in the light-emitting layer (see [0023]-[0024]) PNG media_image5.png 248 258 media_image5.png Greyscale , which is representative of the claimed compound wherein A is formula a1 in claim 2 with R1 being a phenyl group, L is a single bond, B is formula b wherein R17 is an aryl group and R18 is a heterocyclic group. Claims 1 and 2 are therefore anticipated. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). The features of claims 4-6 are also disclosed. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114702484 A to Su et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation). Regarding claim 1, Su et al. discloses an OLED comprising the following compound (see compound 9), PNG media_image6.png 180 274 media_image6.png Greyscale , which is representative of the claimed compound. Claims 1 and 2 are therefore anticipated. The compound may be included in the light-emitting layer ([0026]). Thus, claim 4 is anticipated. The features of claim 5 are disclosed in paragraph [0024]. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114014851 A to Li et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation). Regarding claim 1, Li et al. discloses an OLED comprising the following compound PNG media_image7.png 188 208 media_image7.png Greyscale . This compound is representative of the claimed compound and claims 1-2 are therefore anticipated. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113024529 Wang et al. in view of US 9,059,430 B2 to Seo et al. Wang et al. discloses the organic light emitting element of claims 1 and 6, as explained above, but fails to disclose the multi-host structure of claim 7 or the stacked structure of claim 8. However, Seo et al. discloses an organic light emitting element comprising a stack of two light-emitting layers between two electrodes wherein each light-emitting layer includes a phosphorescent dopant, a hole-transporting host material and an electron-transporting host material, and wherein the two host materials form an exciplex and the device exhibits a high external quantum efficiency and a long lifetime (see the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the organic light emitting element disclosed by Wang et al. in the manner suggested by Seo et al. so as to optimize the efficiency and lifetime of the device. Claims 7-11 are therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is not an obvious reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound disclosed by Wang et al., Su et al. or Li et al. to arrive at the organic light emitting element of claim 3. 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 31, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604662
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600885
COMPOSITION INCLUDING MONOMER WITH A CARBOXYLIC ACID GROUP, MONOMER WITH A HYDROXYL GROUP, AN ALKYL MONOMER, AND CROSSLINKER AND RELATED ARTICLE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598907
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598859
LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583843
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL LAYER OF ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1498 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