Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/656,895

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 29, 2022
Examiner
YANG, JAY LEE
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
659 granted / 893 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
78 currently pending
Career history
971
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 893 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 . 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. Restriction/Election Requirement The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group II (directed to Formula II) in the Response filed 10/27/25. The election reads on Claims 1-20. It is the position of the Office that the prior art does not disclose or suggest an embodiment within the scope of several of the dependent claims wherein the compound comprises the structure of Formula II (Group II). The Office, in turn has used the prior art to read on claims directed to the patentably distinct species for compounds comprising the structure of Formula I (Group I). Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn from consideration. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification filed 03/29/22 the claim recites the following structures: PNG media_image1.png 180 520 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 178 482 media_image2.png Greyscale (pages 54-55) which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolutions. They need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds and atoms which are clearly drawn with solid lines. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the following structures: PNG media_image1.png 180 520 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 178 482 media_image2.png Greyscale which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolutions. They need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds and atoms which are clearly drawn with solid lines. Appropriate correction is required 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. Claim 15 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “Structure of PtA”; however, “A” is nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted A to correspond to integers from 1-66 for the purpose of this Examination. Correction is required. 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 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1). Regarding Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17-20, Lin et al. discloses the following compound: PNG media_image3.png 324 408 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 23) such that M = Pt, X1-4 = C, RA = no substitution, ĸ = O, Z1 = C, Z4 = N, ring B = 5-membered heterocyclic ring, RB = no substitution, L = CRR’ (with R = R’ = alkyl (methyl)), Z2 = C, RC = no substitution, ring C = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X5-6 = C, two REs = joined together to form a ring (benzene), Z3 = N, RD = no substitution, and ring D = 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine) of Applicant’s Formula I; RE’ = no substitution (in the formula as recited in Claim 14). Lin further disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) for the displays and the like comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120), hole-transporting layer (125), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), cathode (160), and barrier layer (170) (Fig. 1; [0036], [0043]); its inventive compounds serve as dopant material in the light-emitting layer, which is combined with host material including the following ([0088]-[0089]): PNG media_image4.png 194 380 media_image4.png Greyscale ([0094]). Regarding Claim 15, Lin et al. discloses another embodiment: PNG media_image5.png 328 402 media_image5.png Greyscale (page 23) such that Ro-u = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula Pt32. 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. 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. Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 2018/0212165 A1). Ji discloses compounds of the following form: PNG media_image6.png 234 242 media_image6.png Greyscale ([0016]) where L1-3 = independently linking groups such as O, C=O, and CRR’ (where R, R’ = H and others) (among others) and combinations thereof. Embodiments are disclosed: PNG media_image7.png 564 400 media_image7.png Greyscale (page 24) such that (for Compound 50) M = Pt, X1-4 = C, ᴋ = O, Z1 = Z4 = C, ring B = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), RB = no substitution, Z2 = C, ring C = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X5-6 = C, two REs = joined together to form a ring (benzene), RC = hydrogen, RA and RC = joined together to form a ring, Z3 = N, ring D = 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyrimidine), RD = no substitution, and L = alkyl(ene) (propylene) of Applicant’s Formula II; RE’ = no substitution (in the formula as recited in Claim 14). However, Ji does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Formula II, particularly in regards to the nature of RA. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound 50 as disclosed by Ji (above) such that RA = groups such as alkyl or acyl (with RC = hydrogen and RA and RC = joined together to form a ring). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one linking group (O) (dotted box) for a functional equivalent (C=O or CRR’, for example) selected from a highly finite list of viable linking groups (for any one of L1-3) in its general formula, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Ji further disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) for the displays and the like comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120), hole-transporting layer (125), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), cathode (160), and barrier layer (170) (Fig. 1; [0024], [0031]); its inventive compounds serve as dopant material in the light-emitting layer, which is combined with host material including the following ([0064]): PNG media_image4.png 194 380 media_image4.png Greyscale ([0065]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1). Lin et al. discloses the compound of Claim 1 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. The compound is shown below: PNG media_image3.png 324 408 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 23). Lin et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by the following formula: PNG media_image8.png 244 246 media_image8.png Greyscale ([0016]), “including all its variations” ([0026], [0107]), where X1-4 = independently C or N (only) ([0023]). Lin et al. discloses that variations can be produced from its particular examples and preferred embodiments ([0144]). However, Lin et al. does not explicitly disclose the compound as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the compound as disclosed by Lin et al. (above) such that exactly two of Z1-3 = N of Applicant’s Formula I. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one atom (C) for a functional equivalent (N) selected from a highly finite list of viable coordinating atoms to the Pt as taught by Lin et al., thus rendering the production during the normal course of experimentation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9, 12, and 16 are currently objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art is provided by Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form: PNG media_image8.png 244 246 media_image8.png Greyscale ([0016]). An embodiment is disclosed: PNG media_image3.png 324 408 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 23). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Lin et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses or suggests any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the tetradentate ligand coordinated to the metal M of any one of Applicant’s Formulae I and II. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm. 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 A 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. /JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604660
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598906
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590101
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE, COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE AND ORGANIC OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590085
Organic Light Emitting Compound And Organic Light Emitting Device Including Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588407
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
74%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+2.9%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 893 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