Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/382,858

ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Examiner
DIAZ, JOSE R
Art Unit
2815
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
799 granted / 922 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
948
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.3%
-3.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 922 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 § 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, 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 10658593). Regarding claim 1, Kim, in Figure 1 below, discloses an organic light emitting element (100), comprising: a first electrode (110); a second electrode (220); and an organic material layer (120/130/140/150/210) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode. PNG media_image1.png 352 455 media_image1.png Greyscale In addition, Kim discloses wherein the organic material layer (120) includes a compound represented by chemical formula 1 below: PNG media_image2.png 200 458 media_image2.png Greyscale R1 and R2 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; a cyano group; an alkyl group of C1-C5o; a haloalkyl group of C1-C5o; an alkoxy group of C1-C30; a haloalkoxy group of C1-C30; an aryl group of C6-C60; a haloaryl group of C6-C60; a heterocyclic group of C2- C60 including at least one heteroatom among O, N, S, Si and P; a haloheterocyclic group of C2-C60 including at least one heteroatom among O, N, S, Si and P; and malononitrile, R3 is each independently selected from the group consisting 99of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; a cyano group; a malononitrile group; an alkyl group of C1-C50; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; an alkoxy group of C1-C30; a haloalkoxy group of C1-C30; an aryl group of C6-C60; a haloaryl group of C6-C60; a heterocyclic group of C2-C60 including at least one heteroatom among O, N, S, Si and P; and a haloheterocyclic group of C2-C60 including at least one heteroatom among O, N, S, Si and P, X1 to X5 are each independently CRa or N, and at least two of X1 to X5 are CRa, wherein Ra is each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; an alkyl group of C1-C50; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; an alkoxy group of C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of Ci-C5o, and at least one of Ra is selected from the group consisting of a halogen; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of Ci-C50, X6 to X10 are each independently CRb or N, and at least two of X4 to X6 are CRb, wherein Rb is each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; an alkyl group of C1-C50; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; an alkoxy group of C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of Ci-C50, and at least one of Rb is selected from the group consisting of a halogen; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of C1-C50, and wherein in the alkyl group, the haloalkyl group, the alkoxy group, the haloalkoxy group, the aryl group, the haloaryl group, the heterocyclic group, and the haloheterocyclic group, at least one substituent selected from the group consisting of deuterium; a nitro group; a cyano group; an amino group; an alkoxy group of 100 C1-C20; a haloalkoxy group of C1-C20; an alkyl group of C1-C20; a haloalkyl group of C1-C20; an alkenyl group of C2-C20; an alkynyl group of C2-C20; an aryl group of C6-C20; an aryl group of C6-C20 substituted with deuterium; a fluorenyl group; a heterocyclic group of C2-C20; an alkylsilyl group of C3-C60; an arylsilyl group of C18-C60; and an alkylarylsilyl group of C8-C60 may be further substituted. For example, Kim discloses compound: A31, A32, B31 and B32 (see col. 71, ll. 36-56 and col. 86, ll. 20-39). PNG media_image3.png 298 326 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 266 324 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses compound A31 and A32 (see above), corresponding to chemical formula 2: PNG media_image5.png 206 416 media_image5.png Greyscale In addition, Kim discloses compound B31 and B32 (see above), corresponding to chemical formula 3: PNG media_image6.png 186 416 media_image6.png Greyscale R1 to R3 and X1 to X10 are the same as R1 to R3 and X1 to X10 defined in chemical formula 1. Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses compound A31 and A32 (see above), corresponding to chemical formula 4: PNG media_image7.png 234 519 media_image7.png Greyscale In addition, Kim discloses compound B31 and B32 (see above), corresponding to chemical formula 5: PNG media_image8.png 204 550 media_image8.png Greyscale RC and Rd are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; an alkyl group of C1-C50; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; an alkoxy group of 102 C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of C1-C50, wherein Re is each independently hydrogen; deuterium; or tritium, wherein Rf and Rg are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; tritium; a halogen; an alkyl group of C1-C50; a haloalkyl group of C1-C50; an alkoxy group of C1-C50; and a haloalkoxy group of C1-C50, wherein Rh is each independently hydrogen; deuterium; or tritium, and wherein R3 is the same as R3 defined in chemical formula 1. Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the organic material layer includes a first light emitting layer (140) and a first layer (120) and wherein the first layer (120) includes the compound [See Fig. 1, col. 61, lines 46-51, and col. 62, lines 25-27]. Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the first electrode (110) is an anode electrode, and the second electrode (220) is a cathode electrode, and wherein the first layer (120) is positioned between the first electrode (110) and the first light emitting layer (140) [See Fig. 1, col. 61, lines 46-51, and col. 62, lines 25-27]. Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the first layer is a hole injection layer [See Fig. 1, col. 61, lines 46-51, and col. 62, lines 25-27]. Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a display device (100) comprising the organic light emitting element of claim 1 [See Fig. 1, and col. 61, lines 46-51]. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/512662 (published as US 2024/0244959) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader and therefore anticipated by the patent claims. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/512743 (published as US 2024/0251659) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader and therefore anticipated by the patent claims. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 5, claims 5-6 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 6, claim 7 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 7, claim 8 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 8, claim 9 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 9, claim 10 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 10, claim 11 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 11, claim 12 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 12, claim 13 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 13, claim 14 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 14, claim 15 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 15, claim 16 of the co-pending application teaches the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1727. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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. /Jose R Diaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598759
HIGH-DENSITY METAL-INSULATOR-METAL CAPACITOR INTEGRATION WTH NANOSHEET STACK TECHNOLOGY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588251
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588226
Integrated Assemblies and Methods Forming Integrated Assemblies
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578645
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581667
MULTISTACK METAL-INSULATOR-METAL (MIM) STRUCTURE USING SPACER FORMATION PROCESS FOR HETEROGENEOUS INTEGRATION WITH DISCRETE CAPACITORS
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
87%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 922 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