Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/999,440

COMPOUND, LIGHT EMITTING MATERIAL, AND LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 21, 2022
Examiner
YOUNG, WILLIAM D
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kyulux Inc.
OA Round
5 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
365 granted / 681 resolved
-11.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
727
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 681 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 17/999,440. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-17, 19-21 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, 19-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions or non-elected species. The applicant’s amendment filed November 19, 2025 has been entered. The declaration of Masataka Yamashita has been considered. The previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment. The previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102/103 are maintained in this action and discussed below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 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, 4, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by, or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Cheng et al (WO 2019/195104, included in the applicant’s IDS). Cheng et al teaches a compound: PNG media_image1.png 213 359 media_image1.png Greyscale (p. 2), wherein “D” includes: PNG media_image2.png 154 230 media_image2.png Greyscale (p. 3), wherein “Z” includes oxygen (p. 5, line 8), and wherein “P” includes, independently, hydrogen or phenyl (p. 4, structure P1). The above combination satisfies general formula (3) with “R” being H and “Ar” being phenyl. In the event that the above disclosure is not sufficiently specific to anticipate the above listed claims, the examiner submits that the selection of the instantly claimed compound would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art since Cheng et al teaches a compound including each of the claimed substituents. Response to Arguments The applicant argues that the Cheng et al does not teach every element of the claimed invention. However, the applicant does not identify which element is missing. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. The applicant further argues that the compounds in Cheng et al have different properties than the claimed compounds. However, Cheng et al teaches a compound having the same structure as the claimed compound. Therefore, it must have the same properties. The fact that there are other compounds described in Cheng et al having different structures does not negate the teaching of the claimed structure. Conclusion No new ground(s) of rejection was 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Examiner’s Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 December 15, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 28, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603192
CONDUCTIVE RESIN COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590200
Polyester Compositions Including Carbon Nanotubes as Microwave Absorbers in Sensor Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573564
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573521
Elastomeric Conductive Composite Interconnect
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552972
CONDUCTIVE ADHESIVE COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+15.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 681 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