Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/272,041

ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Priority
Feb 26, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0026796 +2 more
Examiner
SELLS, JAMES D
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
LG Chem Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
737 granted / 905 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
916
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 905 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh Jin (KR 10-2017-0037276) in view of Han Jin (KR 10-2020-0110226). Regarding claim 1, Oh Jin discloses an organic optoelectronic device including an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer positioned between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-III () (see claim 6) and a third compound represented by Chemical Formula 6-I () (see claim 11), and a light-emitting layer of the organic layer may include a second compound and a third compound (see claim 16). In addition, the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-III includes compound [D -2] () (see paragraph [0575]), which corresponds to the first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (A = substituted carbazolyl) of claim 1, and the third compound represented by Chemical Formula 6-I includes compound [G -1] () (see paragraph [0714]), which includes a benzene ring fused with two neighboring pentagonal rings of claim 1; L ′ 1, L ′ 2 = single bond; Ar ′ 1 = unsubstituted C9 heteroaryl containing heteroatom N; Ar ′ 2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl; R ′ 1, R ′ 2, R ′ 3 = hydrogen and a, c = 4, b = 2). However, Oh Jin does not disclose that a substituent represented by a circle is substituted in the compound. However, Oh Jin discloses that in the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-III, R37 May be a substituted or unsubstituted C3-5 heterocyclic group (including a pyridinyl group, a pyrimidinyl, or a triazinyl group) (claim 6; Referring to paragraphs [0069]-[0071]). Han Jin, which pertains to an organic light-emitting device, discloses a compound represented by chemical formula 1 (wherein A is a substituted or unsubstituted carbazolyl), which is the same as chemical formula 1 in claim 1, in a light-emitting layer between a positive electrode and a negative electrode (see claim 1), and thus the different feature could be readily derived by a person skilled in the art from a combination of Oh Jin and Han Jin. Claims 2 and 5-7 could be easily derived from the feature disclosed in D2 wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 or Chemical Formula 3, wherein R13 May be hydrogen, deuterium, or the like; R2 is an unsubstituted C6-60 aryl and the like; and R3 is a substituted C6-60 aryl or a substituted C6-60 heteroaryl containing one or more heteroatoms selected from N, O, and S (see claim 2). Regarding claims 3-4, Han Jin indicates that in chemical formula 1, L is a single bond or phenylene, and Ar1 and Ar2 May be independently phenyl, biphenylyl, and the like (see claims 4 and 5). Regarding claim 8, Han Jin discloses a compound (see claim 9), which is the same as the first compound of claim 8. Regarding claims 9-13, Oh Jin discloses compound [G -1] (see paragraph [0714]). Compound [G -1] is the same as in Chemical Formula 2-3 of claim 9 and Chemical Formula 2 of claims 10 and 12, L ′ 1, L ′ 2 = single bond; Ar ′ 1 = unsubstituted C9 heteroaryl including heteroatom N; Ar ′ 2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl; R ′ 1, R ′ 2, R ′ 3 = hydrogen and a, c = 4, and b = 2. The 72nd compound of claim 11 and claim 13 could be easily derived by a person skilled in the art through a simple design change of a heteroaryl group such as a quinoline group, which is a substituent in compound [G -1]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. JAMES D. SELLS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1745 /JAMES D SELLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742912
ANTI-FOGGING COMPOSITION
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733699
MULTIPLE LAYER GLOVE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735608
HIGH FREQUENCY WELDABLE POLYOLEFIN COMPOSITION
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729312
Novel Compound, Coating Composition Comprising Same, Organic Light-Emitting Device Using Same, and Manufacturing Method Therefor
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12733430
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
1y 12m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 905 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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