Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/178,902

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 06, 2023
Examiner
WOLDEGEORGIS, ERMIAS T
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
526 granted / 743 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
792
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.7%
+28.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 743 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
3DETAILED 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered. Status Of Claims Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled; Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 12 and 17 have been amended; and claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are currently pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). 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, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antoniadis et al. (USPN 5719467, hereinafter “Antoniadis”) in view of Tutt et al, (US 2011/0024770 A1, hereinafter “Tutt”) and Steiger et al. (EP3410208 A1, however, its equivalent US PG PUB 2022/0376180 A1 is used for the rejection below, hereinafter “Steiger”). In regards to claim 1, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate (203); a cathode (211) disposed on the substrate (203); an anode (201) facing the cathode (211); and an interlayer (205…209) comprising an emission layer (213), wherein the interlayer (205 … 209) is located between the cathode (211) and the anode (201), and wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”). Antoniadis is silent about an interlayer disposed on the cathode, and an anode disposed on the interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer. Tutt while disclosing an LED teaches (See, for example, Fig. 3) an interlayer (230) disposed on the cathode (100), and an anode (160) disposed on the interlayer (230), wherein the interlayer (230) comprises an emission layer (130). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the configuration of Tutt because this would help the device exhibit reduced air sensitivity during some of the process steps, as well as a better n-type semiconductor compatibility. Antoniadis as modified above is silent about an electron transport region located between the cathode and the emission layer; the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer; and wherein the electron transport layer comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide. Steiger while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) an electron transport region (2) located between the cathode (1) and the emission layer (3); the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer (2); and wherein the electron transport layer (2) comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide (See, for example, Pars [0049], [0050] and [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Antoniadis modified by Steiger because this would help enable the direct patterning of the metal oxide layers using precursors with a separate photo acid generator that would simplify the manufacturing process by eliminating the need for traditional photolithography processes that requires photoresist layers that incurs complexity and costs. In regards to claim 2, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) wherein the interlayer (205…209) further comprises a hole transport region (207) located between the emission layer (213) and the anode (201), the electron transport region (209) comprises a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof and the hole transport region (207) comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof. In regards to claim 3, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) the cathode comprises the photoacid generator, the emission layer comprises the photoacid generator, the hole transport region comprises the photoacid generator, the anode comprises the photoacid generator (See, for example, Abstract), or a combination thereof, the light-emitting device further comprises a photoacid generating layer comprising the photoacid generator, or a combination thereof. In regards to claim 5, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) wherein the photoacid generating layer (205) is: located between the cathode and the electron transport region; located between the electron transport region and the emission layer; located between the emission layer and the hole transport region; located between the hole transport region (207) and the anode (201); or a combination thereof. In regards to claim 7, Antoniadis as modified above discloses the electron transport region further comprises a photoacid generating layer, wherein the photoacid generating layer is in direct contact with the electron transport layer (See, for example Pars [0049], [0050], and [0059], Steiger). In regards to claim 12, Antoniadis as modified above discloses the metal oxide comprises a zinc-containing oxide (See, for example, Par [0014], Steiger). In regards to claim 16, Antoniadis as modified above discloses that the emission layer comprises one or more quantum dots (See, for example, Par [0011], Steiger). Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt and Steiger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2007/0077452 A1, hereinafter “Liu”). In regards to claims 13 and 14, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim1 above except that the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising an onium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising a nitrobenzyl, a compound comprising a sulfonic acid ester, a compound comprising a diazomethane, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof; and the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising a sulfonium ion, a compound comprising an iodonium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof, wherein the compound comprising the halogen-is a halogen triazine compound. Liu while disclosing organic light emitting devices teach (See, for example, Fig. 5) the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising an onium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising a nitrobenzyl, a compound comprising a sulfonic acid ester, a compound comprising a diazomethane, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof (See, for example, Par [0037]); and the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising a sulfonium ion, a compound comprising an iodonium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof, wherein the compound comprising the halogen-is a halogen triazine compound (See, for example, Par [0037]). . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system. In regards to claim 15, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that wherein the photoacid generator comprises at least one of Compounds PAG1 to PAG8. Liu discloses (See, for example, Par [0037]) that the photoacid generator comprises at least Compounds PAG1 (Triarylsulfonium sulfonates) or PAG4 (diphenyliodonium p-toluenesulfonate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system. Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view Liu et al. (US 2007/0077452 A1, hereinafter “Liu”). In regards to claim 17, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) a method of manufacturing a light-emitting device, the method comprising: forming a cathode (211) on a substrate (203); forming an electron transport region (209) on the cathode (211), forming an emission layer (213) on the electron transport region (211); and forming an anode (201) on the emission layer (213). Anotoniadis is silent about the electron transport region comprises a photoacid generator; However, Liu discloses (see, for example, Fig. 1) the electron transport region comprises a photoacid generator (“…latent activator material” refers to …photo acid generators…”, See, for example, Par [0024]; and “the latent activated layer may further include a material such …an electron transport material…”, See, Par [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system. Antoniadis as modified above is silent about the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer; and wherein the electron transport layer comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide. Steiger while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer (2); and wherein the electron transport layer (2) comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide (See, for example, Pars [0049], [0050] and [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Antoniadis modified by Steiger because this would help enable the direct patterning of the metal oxide layers using precursors with a separate photo acid generator that would simplify the manufacturing process by eliminating the need for traditional photolithography processes that requires photoresist layers that incurs complexity and costs. Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt and Steiger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (EP 1416549 A2, hereinafter “Lee”). In regards to claim 8, Antoniadis as modified above teaches all limitations of claim 6 above except that wherein the metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Formula 1: M.sub.xO.sub.y   Formula 1 wherein, in Formula 1, M is at least one metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, and x and y are each independently an integer from 1 to 5. However, Lee while disclosing an organic electroluminescent device teaches that a metal oxide represented by the below formula: MAxMByOz, where MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, MB is a group IV or V metal, X is a number of 1 to 2, y is a number of 1 to 2, and z is number of 2 to 3 (See, for example, Par [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Lee because this would help reduce the energy gap between a cathode and a light emitting. In regards to claim 9, Antoniadis as modified discloses that M comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb, Si, Mg, Ga, or a combination thereof (See, for example, Par [0015], Lee). In regards to claim 10, Antoniadis as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 6 except that the metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Formula 2: Formula 2 M1αM2βOγ   wherein, in Formula 2, M1 is metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, M2 is metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, M1 and M2 are different, and 0<α≤2, 0<β≤2, and 1<γ≤5. However, Lee while disclosing an organic electroluminescent device teaches that a metal oxide represented by the below formula: MAxMByOz, where MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, MB is a group IV or V metal, X is a number of 1 to 2, y is a number of 1 to 2, and z is number of 2 to 3 (See, for example, Par [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Lee because this would help reduce the energy gap between a cathode and a light emitting. In regards to claim 11, Antoniadis as modified above discloses that M1 comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb (See, MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, for example, Sr, Par [0014], Lee), or a combination thereof, and M2 comprises Ti, Sn, Si, Mg, Al, Ga, In (See, MB is a group IV or V metal, for example, Si, and Sn, Par [0014], Lee), or a combination thereof. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt and Steiger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suh (US 2010/0007270 A1, hereinafter “Suh”). In regards to claim 18, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim 1 but silent about an electronic apparatus, comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1. Suh while disclosing an OLED teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1 (See, for example, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Suh because this would help fabricate an organic light emitting display apparatus that can improve contrast without using a black matrix. In regards to claim 19, Antoniadis as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2, Suh) the substrate comprises a plurality of sub-pixel areas (130), and a pixel-defining film is located between the plurality of sub-pixel areas, wherein the pixel-defining film (132) comprises the photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”, Antoniadis), a photoacid generating layer comprising the photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”, Antoniadis) is located on the pixel-defining film (132), or a combination thereof. In regards to claim 20, Antoniadis as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2, Suh) further comprising a color filter (160), a color-conversion layer, a touchscreen layer, a polarizing layer (150), or a combination thereof. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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. /ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598902
Display Module and Display Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593457
MULTI-STATE FERROELECTRIC-RAM WITH STACKED CAPACITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588365
DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588398
TOUCH DISPLAY PANEL AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580019
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 743 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