Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/659,967

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIAL AND DEVICE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 20, 2022
Examiner
DEGUIRE, SEAN M
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BEIJING SUMMER SPROUT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
159 granted / 267 resolved
-5.4% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
327
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 267 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-21 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers et al (US 2014/0131663) (Beers). In reference to claims 1-15, 17, and 28-29, Beers teaches a compound of the formula as shown below (Beers [0016]) PNG media_image1.png 212 304 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein in the formula, n is 1, R2, R3 and R4 are each H or alkyl, A6 is N, A1 to A2, A7 and A8 CH, A5 is CR1 wherein R1 is a combination of aryl and nitrile and X is O (Beers [0015]) or compound 3 with an additional substituent R1 (Beers [0025]). Beers discloses the formula that encompasses the presently claimed material, including wherein n is 1, R2, R3 and R4 are each H or alkyl, A6 is N, A1 to A2, A6 and A8 CH, A5 is CR1 wherein R1 is a combination of alkyl and nitrile and X is O or compound 1 with an additional substituent R1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Beers are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of the formula. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of the formula to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Beers and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. For Claim 1: Reads on a complex as claimed wherein m is 1, n is 2, Lb is PNG media_image2.png 134 78 media_image2.png Greyscale , Cy is pyridine, Rw is aryl, X is O, X5 is N, other X# are carbon or N atoms substituted with hydrogen or a bond to Rw, Cy or a metal. For Claim 2: Reads on the pyridine group row 1 column 6. For Claim 3: Reads on m is 1 n is 2 and q is 0, La is PNG media_image3.png 160 160 media_image3.png Greyscale , and Lb is PNG media_image2.png 134 78 media_image2.png Greyscale . For Claim 4: Reads on formula 3. For Claim 5: Reads on X is O. For Claim 6: Reads on wherein each of Y1 to Y4 is CH. For Claim 7: Reads on wherein one of X3 to X7 is N. For Claim 8: Reds on wherein each Rx is H. For Claim 9: Reads on Rw is arylene. For Claim 10: Reads on wherein Rw is e.g. A-42. For Claim 11: Reads on wherein each Ry is H. For Claim 12: Reads on wherein R6 is optionally alkyl. For Claim 13: Reads on wherein R6 is optionally alkyl. For Claim 14: Reads on La130. For Claim 15: Reads on Lb1. For Claim 17: Reads on Ir(La)2(Lb) wherein each of La130 and Lb1. For Claim 28: Reads on wherein Rw is phenylene. For Claim 29: Reads on Ir(La)2(Lb) wherein each of La130 and Lb1. In reference to claims 18-21 and 26-27, Beers teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is used in a device comprising an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes as a dopant at 10 to 15 parts by weight in an emission layer further comprising a host and emitting a green light (Beers [0030] [0026] [0080] [0055]). Given that Beers discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including an anode a cathode an emitting layer with a host that emits green light, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device, which is both disclosed by Hwang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. In reference to claims 24-25, the second host is an optional group and therefore the claims are rejected optionally not including the second host. Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers et al (US 2014/0131663) (Beers) in view of Kai et al (US 2010/0187977) (Kai). In reference to claims 22-23, Beers teaches the device as described above for claim 21 comprising a host. Beers does not expressly teach that the host material is one of the claimed materials. With respect to the difference, Kai teaches indolocarbazole host materials for phosphorescent dopants in OLED devices for example compound 3 (Kai [0038]) as shown below and further teaches that these host materials provide improved luminous efficiency (Kai abstract). In light of the motivation of using the host material of formula 3 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the host material of formula 3 as described by Kai in order to improv luminous efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11/25/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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. /Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2022
Application Filed
May 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604658
A PLURALITY OF HOST MATERIALS AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598909
HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593562
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593378
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577268
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
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
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+30.7%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 267 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