Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/068,848

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 13, 2020
Examiner
KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
OA Round
6 (Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allow Rate
403 granted / 945 resolved
-22.4% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
992
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.6%
+12.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 945 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 11/28/2025. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 11/28/2025. In particular, original Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 17-19, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that at least one of R11 or R12 comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of PNG media_image1.png 158 158 media_image1.png Greyscale , unsubstituted PNG media_image2.png 150 348 media_image2.png Greyscale , adamantly, bicyclo[3,1,1]heptyl, spiroalkyl, and partially or fully deuterated variants thereof. The recitation of unsubstituted PNG media_image3.png 144 124 media_image3.png Greyscale in combination with the limitation “partially or fully deuterated variants thereof” renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if unsubstituted as applied to J includes deuterated variants of J or if deuterated variants are considered to be unsubstituted. Claim 17 recites that at least one of R11 or R12 comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of PNG media_image1.png 158 158 media_image1.png Greyscale , unsubstituted PNG media_image2.png 150 348 media_image2.png Greyscale , adamantly, bicyclo[3,1,1]heptyl, spiroalkyl, and partially or fully deuterated variants thereof. The recitation of unsubstituted PNG media_image3.png 144 124 media_image3.png Greyscale in combination with the limitation “partially or fully deuterated variants thereof” renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if unsubstituted as applied to J includes deuterated variants of J or if deuterated variants are considered to be unsubstituted. 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)(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 1-2, 6, 8, 17-19, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Gorohmaru et al (US 2019/0019956). Regarding claim 1, Gorohmaru et al discloses the following compound (Page 39): PNG media_image4.png 518 492 media_image4.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is two (2); y is one (1); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; R1, R2, R3, R11, RA, and RC are hydrogen; and R11 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 is a combination of alkyl and aryl; and R11 and R12 together comprise four (4) 6-membered aryls. Regarding claim 2, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA, RB, RC, RD and RE are hydrogen. Regarding claim 6, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that the compound disclosed by the reference can be relabeled such as follows: PNG media_image8.png 518 480 media_image8.png Greyscale , and therefore, R12 comprises three (3) aryl groups. Regarding claim 8, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that the compound disclosed by the reference can be relabeled such as follows: PNG media_image9.png 518 480 media_image9.png Greyscale . This compound has the formulas Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is one (1); and y is two (2). Regarding claim 19, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising an anode, a cathode, a luminescent layer, i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0307]-[0319] – Example 1), where the luminescent layer comprises the disclosed compound. Regarding claim 27, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R11 comprises aryl. Regarding claim 28, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R11 comprises unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 29, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R11 comprises unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 17, Gorohmaru et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, a luminescent layer, i.e. an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0307]-[0319] – Example 1). The luminescent layer comprises the following compound (Page 39 and [0313] – D-1): PNG media_image4.png 518 492 media_image4.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is two (2); y is one (1); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; R1, R2, R3, R11, RA, and RC are hydrogen; and R11 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 is a combination of alkyl and aryl; and R11 and R12 together comprise four (4) 6-membered aryls. Regarding claim 18, Gorohmaru et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that luminescent layer comprises the following compound ([0313] – H-2): PNG media_image10.png 230 288 media_image10.png Greyscale , i.e. a host comprising a carbazole moiety. In light of the above, it is clear that Gorohmaru et al anticipates the presently recited claims. Claims 1-2, 8, 17-19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Inbasekaran et al (US 2012/0049168). Regarding claim 1, Inbasekaran et al discloses the following compound (Page 23 Compound B): PNG media_image11.png 477 592 media_image11.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is two (2); y is one (1); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; and R1, R2, R11, RA, RB, and RC are hydrogen. Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale ; and R11 and R12 comprise two (2) C6 aryl groups. Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 23 – Compound C): PNG media_image12.png 404 592 media_image12.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is one(1); y is two (2); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; and R1, R2, R11, RA, RB, and RC are hydrogen. Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale ; and R11 and R12 comprise two (2) C6 aryl groups. Regarding claim 2, Inbasekaran et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA, RB, RC, RD and RE are hydrogen. Regarding claim 8, Inbasekaran et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a compound where x is one (1) and y is two (2). Regarding claim 19, Inbasekaran et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode and cathode and an organic layer, i.e. a light emitting layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0081]-[0082] – Device 2). The light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0084] – Green Dopant-1 and Page 23 Compound B). Regarding claim 29, Inbasekaran et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a compound where R12 comprises unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 17, Inbasekaran et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode and cathode and an organic layer, i.. a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0081]-[0082] – Device 2). The light emitting layer the following compound ([0084] – Green Dopant-1 and Page 23 Compound B): PNG media_image11.png 477 592 media_image11.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is two (2); y is one (1); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; and R1, R2, R11, RA, RB, and RC are hydrogen. Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale ; and R11 and R12 comprise two (2) C6 aryl groups. Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 23 – Compound C): PNG media_image12.png 404 592 media_image12.png Greyscale . This compound has the formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z, where x is one(1); y is two (2); and z is zero (0). Ligand LA corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where: Z1 is C; Z2 is N; and R1, R2, R11, RA, RB, and RC are hydrogen. Ligand LB corresponds to recited Formula II: PNG media_image7.png 230 146 media_image7.png Greyscale , where: Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RD, and RE are hydrogen; R12 corresponds to an unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale ; and R11 and R12 comprise two (2) C6 aryl groups. Regarding claim 18, Inbasekaran et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises the host compound ([0084 – Host 2 and Page 23): PNG media_image13.png 196 258 media_image13.png Greyscale , i.e. a host comprising a carbazole moiety. In light of the above, it is clear that Inbasekaran et al anticipates the presently recited claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 17-19, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margulies et al (US 2017/0365801). Regarding claim 1, Margulies et al discloses a compound with the formula: M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, where M is Ir; x is 1, 2, or 3; y is 0, 1, or 2, and z is 0, 1, or 2 ([0099] and [0105]-[0109]). Accordingly, when z is zero (0), the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(Lc)z, where x is one (1) or two (2); y is one (1) or two (2); z is zero (0) or one (1); and x + y + z = 3. Ligand L1, corresponding to recited ligand LA, is represented as ([0128]): PNG media_image14.png 343 251 media_image14.png Greyscale , where Ra is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]); Rb is H; and Rc is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]). Rd is a di-substitution where one (1) Rd is an aryl such as biphenyl. The second Rd includes the substituent R1 ([0119]) such as ([0119], [0095], and Page 14 – Substituent 92): PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale . Accordingly, ligand L1 of the reference corresponds to ligand LA of the claims: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Z1 is N; Z2 is C; R1 is H; R2 and R3 are alkyls; and RA and RF are H. Two (2) substituents RC join to form a ring; RB corresponds to Substituent 92: PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale , and R11 corresponds to biphenyl which encompasses the substituent unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Ligand L2, corresponding to recited ligand LB, is represented as ([0128]): PNG media_image16.png 456 212 media_image16.png Greyscale , where Ra, is a mono-substitution and is hydrogen ([0111]) and Rb, can represent a mono-substitution ([0111]). The reference discloses that at least one of Ra, Rb, Re and Rd includes substituent R1 ([0119]). For R1 the reference discloses the substituent (Page 11 - Substituent 25): PNG media_image17.png 90 112 media_image17.png Greyscale , i.e. an aryl ring. Accordingly, ligand L2 of the reference corresponds to ligand LB of the claims: PNG media_image18.png 253 165 media_image18.png Greyscale , where Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RE, and RD are H; and R12 is a phenyl group, i.e. an aryl group. From the above, R11 and R12 together comprise three (3) 6-membered aryl rings as required by the present claims. While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA, RC, RD, RE and RF are H; and RB is: PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale , i.e. a combination of alkyl and aryl. Regarding claim 4, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, for Rd, corresponding to the recited group R11, the reference discloses the following R1 substituent (Page 11 – Substituent 22): PNG media_image19.png 92 156 media_image19.png Greyscale i.e. an alkyl substituted partially deuterated cycloalkyl ring. Regarding claim 5, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses that at least one of Ra, Rb, Re and Rd includes substituent R1 ([0119]). Thus, in the ligand: PNG media_image16.png 456 212 media_image16.png Greyscale , Rb, corresponding to R12, can correspond to the following substituent ([0119], [0095], and Page 14 – Substituent 92): PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale , i.e. a biphenyl group. Thus, the reference discloses an embodiment where the recited group R12 comprises two (2) aryl groups as recited in the present claims. Regarding claim 6, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses that Rb can be an aryl such as triphenyl ([0051]).Thus, the reference discloses an embodiment where the recited group R12 comprises three (3) aryl groups as recited in the present claims. Regarding claim 8, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, x is one (1) and y is two (2). Regarding claim 9, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the ligand: PNG media_image20.png 270 206 media_image20.png Greyscale m where Ra and Rd represent from a mono substitution to the maximum number of possible substitutions ([0116]) and can be deuterium. Therefore, in the recited ligand LA: PNG media_image21.png 244 186 media_image21.png Greyscale Y1 is O; and RA3, RA4, RA1 and RA2 are deuterium. X2 and X3 are C; and X1 is N, while the claim requires that X1 to X3 are each C. However, the reference discloses the following formula ([0111]): PNG media_image22.png 280 218 media_image22.png Greyscale , where X5 to X8 can be C or N ([0112]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in the recited ligand X1 to X3 are C. Regarding claim 10, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the ligand L2 as ([0128]): PNG media_image23.png 375 177 media_image23.png Greyscale , where Ra and Rb are mono to the maximum number of substitutions, and where: Ra corresponds to RB1; and Rb corresponds to RB2 and R12. Ra and Rb can alkyls ([0117]). Accordingly, in recited ligand LB: PNG media_image24.png 168 129 media_image24.png Greyscale , RB1 and RB2 are alkyls and R12 is H. Regarding claim 12, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound with the formula Ir(LA)(LB)(LC). Ligand LB is: PNG media_image25.png 279 225 media_image25.png Greyscale where ArIV is an aryl group; RD, R2 and R4 are H. The reference discloses ligand L3, corresponding to recited ligand LC, as ([0128]): PNG media_image26.png 187 107 media_image26.png Greyscale , where Ra and Rb are H or an alkyl. This ligand corresponds to Formula V: PNG media_image27.png 215 170 media_image27.png Greyscale , where Z5 is N; Z6 is C; and RG and RH are H or alkyl. Regarding claim 14, Margulies et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound with the formula: PNG media_image28.png 253 322 media_image28.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 19, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device, i.e. consumer product (Figure 2): PNG media_image29.png 284 642 media_image29.png Greyscale , where layer 230 is the anode, layer 215 is the cathode and layer 225 is the emissive layer, i.e. organic layer, comprising the disclosed compound ([0037] and [0141]). Regarding claim 24, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the ligand: PNG media_image26.png 187 107 media_image26.png Greyscale , Ra, corresponding to RD, can be an alkyl; and Rb, corresponding to R4 can be an alkyl ([0011]). From the formula disclose by the reference it is clear that these substituents can be para to the ring containing Z4. Regarding claim 26, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a compound with the formula: M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, where M is Ir; x is 1, 2, or 3; y is 0, 1, or 2, and z is 0, 1, or 2 ([0099] and [0105]-[0109]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(Lc)z, where z is one (1). In the disclosed ligand: PNG media_image26.png 187 107 media_image26.png Greyscale , Ra corresponding to RD, can be an alkyl; and Rb, corresponding to R4 can be an alkyl ([011]). From the formula disclosed by the reference it is clear that these substituents can be para to the ring containing X4. As discussed above, in the reference ligand L3 can correspond to the formula: PNG media_image26.png 187 107 media_image26.png Greyscale , where Ra and Rb, corresponding to RG and RH are alkyls. As discussed above, the reference discloses the recited formula: As discussed above, the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula: PNG media_image28.png 253 322 media_image28.png Greyscale and from the formula disclosed by the reference it is clear that RG can be para to the ring substituted by RH and RH can be para to the bond to the ring substituted by RG as recited in the present claim. Regarding claim 27, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above R11 comprises an aryl group. Regarding claim 28, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above R11 comprises unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 29, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above R11 comprises unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 17, Margulies et al discloses the following organic light emitting device, i.e. consumer product (Figure 2): PNG media_image29.png 284 642 media_image29.png Greyscale , where layer 230 is the anode, layer 215 is the cathode and layer 225 is the emissive layer, i.e. organic layer ([0037]). The emissive layer comprises a compound with the formula: M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, where M is Ir; x is 1, 2, or 3; y is 0, 1, or 2, and z is 0, 1, or 2 ([0099] and [0105]-[0109]). Accordingly, when z is zero (0), the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula: Ir(LA)x(LB)y(Lc)z, where x is one (1) or two (2); y is one (1) or two (2); z is zero (0) or one (1); and x + y + z = 3. Ligand L1, corresponding to recited ligand LA, is represented as ([0128]): PNG media_image14.png 343 251 media_image14.png Greyscale , where Ra is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]); Rb is H; and Rc is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]). Rd is a di-substitution where one (1) Rd is an aryl such as biphenyl. The second Rd includes the substituent R1 ([0119]) such as ([0119], [0095], and Page 14 – Substituent 92): PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale . Accordingly, ligand L1 of the reference corresponds to ligand LA of the claims: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Z1 is N; Z2 is C; R1 is H; R2 and R3 are alkyls; and RA and RF are H. Two (2) substituents RC join to form a ring; RB corresponds to Substituent 92: PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale , and R11 corresponds to biphenyl which encompasses the substituent unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Ligand L2, corresponding to recited ligand LB, is represented as ([0128]): PNG media_image16.png 456 212 media_image16.png Greyscale , where Ra, is a mono-substitution and is hydrogen ([0111]) and Rb, can represent a mono-substitution ([0111]). The reference discloses that at least one of Ra, Rb, Re and Rd includes substituent R1 ([0119]). For R1 the reference discloses the substituent (Page 11 - Substituent 25): PNG media_image17.png 90 112 media_image17.png Greyscale , i.e. an aryl ring. Accordingly, ligand L2 of the reference corresponds to ligand LB of the claims: PNG media_image18.png 253 165 media_image18.png Greyscale , where Z3 is N; Z4 is C; R4, RE, and RD are H; and R12 is a phenyl group, i.e. an aryl group. From the above, R11 and R12 together comprise three (3) 6-membered aryl rings as required by the present claims. While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 18, Margulies et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer further comprises a host, where the host comprises a triphenylene containing benzo-fused thiophene or ben-fused furan ([0142]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a host comprising a triphenylene moiety as recited in the present claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15 and 21 are allowed over the “closest” prior art Nagayama et al (US 2014/0319505, hereafter Nagayama ‘505), Margulies et al (US 2017/0365801), Nagayama et al (US 2020/0274078, hereafter Nagayama ‘078), Gorohmaru et al (US 2019/0019956), and Inbasekaran et al (US 2012/0049168) for the reasons set forth below. Nagayama ‘505 discloses compounds such as: PNG media_image30.png 243 353 media_image30.png Greyscale and PNG media_image31.png 292 455 media_image31.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 15. Margulies et al discloses compounds such as: PNG media_image32.png 177 404 media_image32.png Greyscale and PNG media_image33.png 170 337 media_image33.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 15. Nagayama ‘078 discloses compounds such as: PNG media_image34.png 164 407 media_image34.png Greyscale and PNG media_image35.png 245 417 media_image35.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 15. Gorohmaru et al discloses compounds such as: PNG media_image4.png 518 492 media_image4.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 15. Inbasekaran et al discloses compounds such as: PNG media_image11.png 477 592 media_image11.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 15. In light of the above, it is clear that Nagayama ‘505, Margulies et al, Nagayama ‘078, Gorohmaru et al, and Inbasekaran et al, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the compounds as required by claim 15. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Applicants argue that Margulies does not disclose a compound recited in as-amended claims 1 and 17. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following ligand: PNG media_image14.png 343 251 media_image14.png Greyscale , where Ra is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]); Rb is H; and Rc is a mono-substitution and is an alkyl ([0117]). Rd is a di-substitution where one (1) Rd is an aryl such as biphenyl. The second Rd includes the substituent R1 ([0119]) such as ([0119], [0095], and Page 14 – Substituent 92): PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale . Accordingly, ligand L1 of the reference corresponds to ligand LA of the claims: PNG media_image5.png 266 210 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Z1 is N; Z2 is C; R1 is H; R2 and R3 are alkyls; and RA and RF are H. Two (2) substituents RC join to form a ring; RB corresponds to Substituent 92: PNG media_image15.png 129 214 media_image15.png Greyscale , and R11 corresponds to biphenyl which encompasses the substituent unsubstituted J: PNG media_image6.png 120 132 media_image6.png Greyscale . Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 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. /ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2020
Application Filed
Mar 15, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 03, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 18, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 02, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 10, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 28, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12559459
AROMATIC HETEROCYCLIC DERIVATIVE, AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, ILLUMINATION DEVICE, AND DISPLAY DEVICE USING AROMATIC HETEROCYCLIC DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543426
Organic Light Emitting Device and Display Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12528820
LUMINESCENCE DEVICE AND POLYCYCLIC COMPOUND FOR LUMINESCENCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12520653
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12497560
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND APPARATUS INCLUDING ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+35.3%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 945 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