Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/068,575

ORGANIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, THIN FILM, LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND LIGHTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
SIMBANA, RACHEL A
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
95 granted / 153 resolved
-2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+44.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
225
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 153 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-212283, filed on 12/27/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/20/2023 and 12/17/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/20/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment In the response filed 12/17/2024, the claims were amended. These amendments are hereby entered. Claims 1-4, 11-13, 20-23, and 27-30 have been amended. Claims 1-31 are pending in the application. 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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (KR 2020/0049197 A, using the provided translation for references). With respect to claim 1, Song teaches Compound P-132, which is pictured below. PNG media_image1.png 374 288 media_image1.png Greyscale This compound meets the requirements of instant General Formula (G1) when X1 is a carbon atom bonded to an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is carbon atom with a bond to General Formula (r1), and X4 is a nitrogen atom, Ar1 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene), Q is oxygen and Z is a sulfur atom, R31 is a bond to X3, R37 is a phenyl-substituted heteroaryl having 16 carbon atoms forming a skeleton, and R32 through R36 and R38 are hydrogen atoms. With respect to claim 2, Song teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is also represented by General Formula (G2) because X3 is bonded to General Formula (r2) at the asterisk, as pictured above. With respect to claim 3, Song teaches the compound of claim 1, and the benzene ring of Ar1 is fused to the adjacent furan moiety, as pictured above. With respect to claim 5, Song teaches the compound of claim 1, and X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon with a bond to General Formula (r1), and X4 is a nitrogen atom, as discussed above. With respect to claims 6 through 8, Song teaches the compound of claim 1 and Song also teaches manufacture of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0158, claim 7) on a glass substrate (paragraph 160, claim 8) using one of the inventive compounds as a host in a thin film (light-emitting layer, paragraph 0169, claim 6), such as Example 15 (Table 2, page 31 of the untranslated document), which comprises compound 1-132 (P-132), which is pictured and discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 2020/0049197 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above. With respect to claim 4, Song teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above. Compound P-132, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Formula 1 (page 12 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below. PNG media_image2.png 266 526 media_image2.png Greyscale Song also teaches that neighboring groups of R5 can combine with each other to form a ring (paragraph 0058). Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when Ar1 is represented by instant t2-1 and all R groups are hydrogen atoms. Song includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Song being a lack of the aforementioned additional fused ring being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent or substituent combination, such as forming a fused ring, from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound capable of lowering the driving voltage of a device and improving the luminous efficiency and lifespan of the device (paragraph 0008), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). With respect to claims 9 and 10, Song teaches the light-emitting apparatus of claim 8, as discussed above. Song also teaches an electronic device comprising the apparatus, such as a display device, and a communication unit that controls the device, wherein the display device may be a lighting device, such as a game console, which has an implied housing around the console (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light-emitting apparatus of Song in an electronic device with a communication unit or in a lighting device encased in a housing, as taught by Song. Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0336937 A1). With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses compound 128 (page 36), which is pictured below. PNG media_image3.png 396 456 media_image3.png Greyscale Compound 128 is derived from Lee Formula 1 (paragraph 0041) when R3 is represented by Formula 4-47 (page 14), which is pictured below. PNG media_image4.png 190 460 media_image4.png Greyscale Lee also teaches that Z32 is a hydrogen atom, e4 is 1 (paragraph 0105), and Z31 is a phenyl group (paragraph 0101). Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant General Formula (G1’) when X1 is a carbon atom bonded to R32 in General Formula (r1), X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, Ar1 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) which is substituted with an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), Q and Z are both a sulfur atom, R32 is a bond to X1, R33 is a heteroaryl having 12 carbon atoms forming a skeleton, and R31 and R34 through R38 are hydrogen atoms. Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination of a hydrogen atom and a phenyl group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which conveys improved consumption of power, efficiency, luminance, and lifetime characteristics when used in an organic light-emitting device (paragraph 0141), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the compound of claim 11, and Ar1 is a benzene ring which is fused to the adjacent thiophene moiety, as pictured above. With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches the compound of claim 11, and Ar1 is represented by General Formula (t1) when one of R1 through R4 is an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, as pictured above. With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches the compound of claim 14 and X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, as discussed above. With respect to claims 15 through 17, Lee teaches the compound of claim 11, and Lee also teaches the compound is used in a thin film (an emission layer, claim 15) of a light-emitting device (an organic light-emitting device, claim 16) (paragraphs 0332-0335) which is formed on a glass substrate (paragraph 0332, claim 17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device which is formed on a substrate, as taught by Lee. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0336937 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Song et al. (KR 2020/0049197 A, using the provided translation for references). With respect to claims 18 and 19, Lee teaches the light-emitting apparatus of claim 17, as discussed above. However, Lee does not teach nor fairly suggest a communication unit nor a lighting device comprising a housing. In analogous art, Song teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a similar host material. Further, Song teaches a light-emitting apparatus formed on a substrate and which contains the host material in an emission layer of an organic electroluminescent device. Song also teaches an electronic device comprising the apparatus, such as a display device, and a communication unit that controls the device, wherein the display device may be a lighting device, such as a game console, which has an implied housing around the console (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Lee in an electronic device with a communication unit or in a lighting device encased in a housing, as taught by Song. Claims 20-24, 26-27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 2018/0010165 A, using the provided translation for references). With respect to claim 20, Jung teaches the compound below (page 10 of the untranslated document). PNG media_image5.png 310 344 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound above in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Jung and possess the properties taught by Jung. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II. Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant General Formula (G4) when X1 is a carbon atom bonded to (r3), X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, Ar1 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) which is substituted with an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), Q and Z are both an oxygen atom, R37 is a bond to R42 and R35, R36, and R38 are hydrogen atoms, n is 0 and α is not present, R49 is a phenyl group, and R41 and R43 through R48 are hydrogen atoms. With respect to claim 21, Jung teaches the compound of claim 20, and General Formula (G4) is represented by General Formula (G5), for the reasons discussed above. With respect to claim 22, Jung teaches the compound of claim 20, and Ar1 is a benzene ring which is fused to the adjacent furan ring, as pictured above. With respect to claim 23, Jung teaches the compound of claim 20, and Ar1 is represented by General Formula (t1) when one of R1 through R4 is an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, as discussed above. With respect to claim 24, Jung teaches the compound of claim 20, and X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, as discussed above. With respect to claim 26, Jung teaches the compound of claim 21, and General Formula (G5) is represented by General Formula (G6), for the reasons discussed above. With respect to claim 27, Jung teaches the compound of claim 26, and the compound of General Formula (G6) is also represented by General Formula (G7) for the reasons discussed above. With respect to claim 29, Jung teaches the compound below (page 10 of the untranslated document). PNG media_image5.png 310 344 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound above in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Jung and possess the properties taught by Jung. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II. Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant General Formula (G3) when X1 is a carbon atom bonded to a substituted dibenzofuran group, X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, Ar1 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) which is substituted with an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), and Q is an oxygen atom. With respect to claim 30, Jung teaches the compound of claim 29, and Ar1 is represented by instant General Formula (t1) when one of R1 through R4 is a phenyl and the rest are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above. With respect to claim 31, Jung teaches the compound of claim 29, and X2 is a nitrogen atom, X3 is a carbon atom, and X4 is a nitrogen atom, as discussed above. Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 2018/0010165 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Seo et al (WO 2019/229583 A1, using US 2021/0363151 A1 as an official translation and for references). With respect to claim 25, Jung teaches the compound of claim 20, as discussed above. However, Jung does not teach nor fairly suggest a polyphenylene chain attached to ring Ar1. In analogous art, Seo teaches benzofuropyrimidine derivative which is bonded to an aromatic hydrocarbon chain according to General Formula (G1), which is pictured below (abstract). PNG media_image6.png 188 504 media_image6.png Greyscale Seo teaches that when a plurality of aromatic hydrocarbon rings are bonded, the organic compound used in a light-emitting element can have improved reliability compared to compounds comprising only one aromatic ring (paragraph 0099). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of hydrocarbon rings on the compound of Jung in order to obtain improved reliability compared to compounds with one aromatic ring, as taught by Seo. Modifying the compound of Jung according to Seo’s teachings could be used to arrive at instant compound (100) or (102). With respect to claim 28, Jung teaches the compound of claim 27, as discussed above. However, Jung does not teach nor fairly suggest a polyphenylene chain attached to ring Ar1. In analogous art, Seo teaches benzofuropyrimidine derivative which is bonded to an aromatic hydrocarbon chain according to General Formula (G1), which is pictured below (abstract). PNG media_image6.png 188 504 media_image6.png Greyscale Seo teaches that when a plurality of aromatic hydrocarbon rings are bonded, the organic compound used in a light-emitting element can have improved reliability compared to compounds comprising only one aromatic ring (paragraph 0099). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of hydrocarbon rings on the compound of Jung in order to obtain improved reliability compared to compounds with one aromatic ring, as taught by Seo. Such a modification produces a compound of the instant claim when k is 0 or 1, and all R characters are hydrogen atoms. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parham et al. (US 2023/0389344 A1) – teaches relevant compounds. Watabe et al. (US 2021/0206775 A1) – teaches relevant compounds. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.. 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 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. /RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577261
CARBENE COMPOUNDS AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575313
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563969
ORGANIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545667
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTRONIC ELEMENT USING THE SAME, AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12520712
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+44.7%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 153 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