Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/985,653

HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 11, 2022
Examiner
GARRETT, DAWN L
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 952 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
1026
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 952 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 as filed on November 11, 2022 are pending. 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 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10201001135204A (cited on I.D.S.; a translation copy is attached to this office action). KR’204 discloses light emitting materials for a light emitting device (see title) of formula 1 (see page 2 of translation copy): PNG media_image1.png 196 210 media_image1.png Greyscale . More specifically, an example Formula 1 compound is the following compound #66 (see translation copy page 16): PNG media_image2.png 174 240 media_image2.png Greyscale . The compound #66 corresponds to instant Formula 1 where A1 and A2 rings are each carbocyclic group, R1 is the Formula 2 group, and each Ar1 to Ar3 is carbocyclic group., L2 is carbocyclic, a2 is 1, and n2 is 1. Furthermore, example compound #26 is shown (see page 12 of translation copy: PNG media_image3.png 196 242 media_image3.png Greyscale . In compound #26, the groups corresponding to instant Ar1 to Ar3 are alkyl. Also, compound #6 is disclosed (see page 10 of translation copy): PNG media_image4.png 150 228 media_image4.png Greyscale . The example compounds anticipate independent compound claim 8 and dependent claims 9-19. With respect to claim 9, at least compound #26 is considered to correspond to an instant A1 as benzene and an A2 heterocycle (e.g., isoquinoline). Regarding claim 10, it is noted that instant a1 to a3 may be zero and L1 to L3 are not required to be present. Also with regard to claim 10, note that at least compound #66 shows a benzene group per instant L2 and the group is para-benzene per instant 3-1 group (with each X1 to X4 as carbon-containing) per instant claim 11. Regarding claim 12, the compounds #6, 26 and 66 comprise the core group where “CE”s adjacent one another are bonded to form carbocyclic group. Regarding claim 13, compound #6 contains the corresponding instant Formula 2 group at the instant R3 location. Regarding claim 14, all corresponding locations in the above compounds are carbon-containing. Regarding claim 15, The compound #66 corresponds to instant Formula 1 where A1 and A2 rings are each carbocyclic group, R1 is the Formula 2 group, and each Ar1 to Ar3 is carbocyclic group., L2 is carbocyclic, a2 is 1, and n2 is 1. Regarding claim 16, the above compounds comprise phenyl/phenylene at the shown instant X31 to X35 ring. Regarding claim 17, at least compound #66 may be considered to show both a L2 group and a L3 group and accordingly, the sum of instant a1 + a2 + a3 would be at least 2. Regarding claim 18, at least compound #66 meets the substitution requirements of the claim as at least one group of instant Formula 2 is present as R2. Regarding claim 19, corresponding instant Ar1 to Ar3 in compound #66 are unsubstituted phenyl. 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. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10201001135204A (cited on I.D.S.; a translation copy is attached to this office action). KR’204 discloses light emitting materials for a light emitting device (see title) of formula 1 (see page 2 of translation copy): PNG media_image1.png 196 210 media_image1.png Greyscale . More specifically, an example Formula 1 compound includes the following compound #66 (see translation copy page 16): PNG media_image2.png 174 240 media_image2.png Greyscale . The compound #66 corresponds to instant Formula 1 where A1 and A2 rings are each carbocyclic group, R1 is the Formula 2 group, and each Ar1 to Ar3 is carbocyclic group., L2 is carbocyclic, a2 is 1, and n2 is 1. Furthermore, example compound #26 is shown (see page 12 of translation copy: PNG media_image3.png 196 242 media_image3.png Greyscale . In compound #26, the groups corresponding to instant Ar1 to Ar3 are alkyl. Additionally, compound #6 is disclosed (see page 10 of translation copy): PNG media_image4.png 150 228 media_image4.png Greyscale . The above example compounds #6, 26, and 66 are all within instant formula 1 of claim 1. Note that KR ‘204 sets forth example devices using compounds of formula 1 (see page 31 of translation), but did not specifically select any of specific example compounds #6, 26, or 66 of formula 1 for the example devices. The formula 1 compounds were used in the electron injection and transportation layer of the example device structures (see Example 1 near bottom of page 31 of translation copy). The device also includes an emission layer and the functional layers including the electron injecting and transporting layer are between electrodes per the requirements of claim 1 (see Example 1 on page 31 of translation). Regarding claim 2, the example device structures further include a hole injection layer (see Example 1 on page 31 of translation). Regarding claim 3, the disclosure also teaches the compounds may be used as light emitting material (see “Effective” section on page 3 of translation copy). Regarding claim 5, organic electric elements comprising the layered device are discussed in the top half of page 19 of the translation copy. While KR’204 does not show an example device specifically comprising compounds #6, 26, or 66 as the Formula 1 compound in a layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed layered device structures with the specific Formula 1 compounds #6, 26, or 66, because one would expect any of the taught Formula 1 compounds to be suitable for forming a device layer as discussed within the KR ‘204 reference. One would expect to achieve an operational device having the compounds within the disclosure of KR ‘204 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10201001135204A (cited on I.D.S.; a translation copy is attached to this office action)in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1). KR’204 is relied upon as set forth above. Regarding claim 4, the example device structures (see Example 1 of KR ‘204 page 31 translation copy) comprise a specific emitting dopant “D1” in an emitting layer and the layer is not described specifically as emitting blue light. Jeong et al. teaches in analogous art emission layers of a device may be formed of material that emits blue light in order to obtain blue emission in a layer (see Jeong et al. par. 89-90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a blue light emitting layer as an emitting layer in a device as taught by KR ‘204 by selecting and using blue emitting material as taught by Jeong et al. in order to achieve a desired color of light displayed by a device. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of KR’204 and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 6 and 7, KR’204 teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by KR’204 to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of KR’204 and in view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach or to render obvious the very specific derivatives of claim 20 comprising a pyrido[1,2-a]indole group and a triphenysilyl group each bonded to a core of triazine or pyrimidine ring. Conclusion The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lim, J.M.; Shim, S.; Bui, H.T.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.-J.; Hwa, Y.; Cho, S. Substitution Effect of a Single Nitrogen Atom on π-Electronic Systems of Linear Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Theoretically Visualized Coexistence of Mono- and Polycyclic π-Electron Delocalization. Molecules 2024, 29, 784. Mohanakumari, D. S., Hakeem, K. L., & Krishnan, R. (2026). Tuning electron donor strength in isomeric Phenylcarbazoles for delayed fluorescence materials. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 117030. Lim et al. and Mohanakumari et al. are not prior to the instant application, but discuss nitrogen-containing polyaromatic compounds considered relevant to the state of the art. Zassowski, Pawel, et al. "1, 3, 5-Triazine and carbazole derivatives for OLED applications." Dyes and Pigments 149 (2018): 804-811. Zassowski et al. discusses triazine derivatives for OLEDs, which are considered relevant to the field of the endeavor. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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 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. /DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595256
COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598910
COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583864
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581847
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12563960
Organic Compound, Light-Emitting Device, Light-Emitting Apparatus, Electronic Device, and Lighting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
72%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 952 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