Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/003,702

COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND ALIGHTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2022
Examiner
BOHATY, ANDREW K
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
592 granted / 908 resolved
At TC average
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 908 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al. (US 2016/0211462) (hereafter “Ogiwara”) in view of Ohsawa et al. (WO 2019/215535), where Ohsawa et al. (US 20210057667) (hereafter “Ohsawa”) is used as the English equivalent. Regarding claims 1-9, Ogiwara teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0272]-[0282]). Ogiwara teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a first compound (TADF material) and a second material (arylamine compound), and can further comprise a phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0029], [0031], and [0107]). Ogiwara teaches that the second compound is a fluorescent emitter and can have the following structure, PNG media_image1.png 147 230 media_image1.png Greyscale , PNG media_image2.png 113 213 media_image2.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image3.png 180 266 media_image3.png Greyscale are a few examples (paragraphs [0107] and [0137]). Ogiwara does not teach where the bisanthracene arylamine compounds comprise the applicant’s claimed substitution pattern. Ohsawa teaches anthracene arylamine compounds for use as fluorescent dopants (paragraph [0135]). Ohsawa teaches that one can improve emission efficiency by attaching protecting groups to the fluorescent materials and teaches that the number of protecting groups should be 5 or more (abstract and paragraph [0123]). Ohsawa teaches the following fluorescent compounds with protecting groups, PNG media_image4.png 251 198 media_image4.png Greyscale , PNG media_image5.png 275 204 media_image5.png Greyscale , PNG media_image6.png 257 204 media_image6.png Greyscale , PNG media_image7.png 372 304 media_image7.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image8.png 280 206 media_image8.png Greyscale are few examples (paragraph [0268]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compounds Ogiwara to have the protecting groups as taught by Ohsawa. The motivation would have been to improve the emission efficiency of the electroluminescent device. This would leave to the following compounds, PNG media_image9.png 266 191 media_image9.png Greyscale and PNG media_image10.png 257 202 media_image10.png Greyscale as examples. Regarding claims 10-12, Ogiwara teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic device (light emitting apparatus) (paragraph [0217]). Ogiwara does not teach the structure of the electronic device (light emitting apparatus). Ohsawa teaches a similar electroluminescent device that can be used in an electronic device (light emitting apparatus) (paragraphs [0445-[0447]). Ohsawa teaches that the electronic apparatus can comprise at least one transistor and a substrate, the electronic device contains the electron apparatus and comprises a microphone, camera, operation button, external connection portion, or a speaker, and teaches a light device comprising the electronic device and a housing, cover, or support (paragraphs [0031], [0338], and [0396]-[0433]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before, the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to use the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara in the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device of Ohsawa. Both Ogiwara and Ohsawa teach similar electroluminescent device and Ogiwara teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic device, but does not teach the structure of the device. Ohsawa teaches the structure of the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device that electroluminescent devices can be used in; therefore, it would have been obvious try to use the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara in the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device of Ohsawa and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara can be used successfully in a light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohsawa et al. (WO 2020/012304) teaches anthracene comprises arylamine groups and protecting groups and the use of the compounds in the electroluminescent device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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. /ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598911
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL LAYER THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593607
MATERIALS FOR ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593606
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588354
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING FUSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, AND THE FUSED CYCLIC COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581849
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENCE ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
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
65%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+23.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 908 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