Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/899,899

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 31, 2022
Examiner
KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
OA Round
2 (Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
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

§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 All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 2/26/2026. 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 2/26/2026. In particular, original Claims 17, and 20 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 11-14 and 22 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 11 recites ligands such as LAi-1 and LAi-2: PNG media_image1.png 178 172 media_image1.png Greyscale and PNG media_image2.png 184 166 media_image2.png Greyscale , where if Y is O, S or Se, then i is an integer from 1 to 906, and the table for ligands LA1, LA2, etc., i.e. i=1, 2, etc. states that RC1 is F. This combination of limitations renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the proviso that if Y is O, S or Se, then RC1 is not F. Thus, claim 1 excludes RC1 from being F for variable RC1. However, for the ligands above, Y can be O, S or Se, and RC1 is F. Thus, the entries in table require that RC1 is F, which is excluded by proviso recited in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one can simultaneously satisfy the proviso in claim 1 that if Y is O, S or Se, then RC1 is not F and still obtain ligand corresponding LA1-1 and LA1-2 where RC1 is F as recited in claim 11. Claim 12 recites ligands such as: PNG media_image3.png 254 668 media_image3.png Greyscale , which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the proviso if Y is O, S or Se, then RC1 is not F. Thus, claim 1 excludes RC1 from being F for variable RC1 in Formula 1: PNG media_image4.png 250 208 media_image4.png Greyscale However, for the above ligands in claim 12, Y is O and RC1 is F, which is prohibited by the proviso in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one can simultaneously satisfy the proviso in claim 1 that if Y is O then RC1 is not F and still obtain the above ligand recited in claim 12 where RC1 is F. Claim 13 recites that the compound has the formula Pt(LA)(LB) and ligand LB includes structures such as: PNG media_image5.png 232 734 media_image5.png Greyscale , where K1’ is a direct bond or is selected from the group consisting of NRe, PRe, O, S and Se. The recitation of NRe, PRe, O, S and Se render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites that if the compound has the structure of Pt(LA)(LB) then Z1 and Z2 in the ligand: PNG media_image6.png 170 124 media_image6.png Greyscale are bonded to Pt by a direct bond. However in the above ligands in claim 13, Z1 is bonded directly to K1’ and not to Pt. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the ligands recited in claim 13 where K1’ is NRe, PRe, O, S or Se and still meet the requirement in claim 1 that Z1 and Z2 are bonded to Pt by a direct bond. 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 1-3, 6-10, 12, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 2023/0227485). Regarding claim 1, Yan et al discloses the following metal iridium complex ([0010] – I): PNG media_image7.png 361 504 media_image7.png Greyscale , where A is CR0 and R0 is H ([0012] and [0015]); R1 is an unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl ([0014]); R2 is hydrogen ([0015]); R3 can represent two (2) substitutions ([0013]) and includes a halogen e.g. fluorine ([0015] and Page 17 Compounds CPD98 and CPD99) and a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]); and R4 is a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]). The ligand: PNG media_image8.png 186 158 media_image8.png Greyscale , is exemplified as ([0027] – A5): PNG media_image9.png 134 254 media_image9.png Greyscale . From the above, the reference discloses a compound with the Formula Ir(LA)m(LC)n, where m is two (2) and n is one (1). Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image10.png 252 228 media_image10.png Greyscale where moiety A is a bicyclic fused ring structure comprising two (2) 6-membered aromatic rings; RC1 is hydrogen; RC is fluorine; Y is O; RB is a C1-10 alkyl; RC2 is a C1-10 alkyl; and RA is a C1-10 alkyl. Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image11.png 158 114 media_image11.png Greyscale , where R2, R7, and R5 are hydrogen; and R1, R2, R5 and R6 are C2 alkyls. 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, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RC is fluorine; RC2 is an alkyl; RC1 is hydrogen; RA is an alkyl; RB is an alkyl; R2, R7, and R5 are hydrogen; and R1, R3, R4 and R6 are alkyls. Regarding claim 3, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, moiety A is a bicyclic fused ring structure comprising two (2) 6-membered aromatic rings. Regarding claim 6, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RC2 is an alkyl. Regarding claim 7, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA is an alkyl. Regarding claim 8, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y is O. Regarding claim 9, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, recited ligand LC corresponds to the formula: PNG media_image12.png 166 112 media_image12.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 10, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand LA as: PNG media_image13.png 188 202 media_image13.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 12, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that “alkyl” encompasses isopropyl and isobutyl ([0057]). Accordingly, the reference discloses the ligand: PNG media_image14.png 228 204 media_image14.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 21, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that “alkyl” encompasses isobutyl ([0057]) and that the alkyl can be substituted with deuterium ([0014]-[001] and [0019]). Accordingly, the reference discloses the recited compound: PNG media_image15.png 218 260 media_image15.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 17, Yan et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0029]). The organic layer comprises the following metal iridium complex ([0029] and [0010] – I): PNG media_image7.png 361 504 media_image7.png Greyscale , where A is CR0 and R0 is H ([0012] and [0015]); R1 is an unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl ([0014]); R2 is hydrogen ([0015]); R3 can represent two (2) substitutions ([0013]) and includes a halogen e.g. fluorine ([0015] and Page 17 Compounds CPD98 and CPD99) and a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]); and R4 is a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]). The ligand: PNG media_image8.png 186 158 media_image8.png Greyscale , is exemplified as ([0027] – A5): PNG media_image9.png 134 254 media_image9.png Greyscale . From the above, the reference discloses a compound with the Formula Ir(LA)m(LC)n, where m is two (2) and n is one (1). Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image10.png 252 228 media_image10.png Greyscale where moiety A is a bicyclic fused ring structure comprising two (2) 6-membered aromatic rings; RC1 is hydrogen; RC is fluorine; Y is O; RB is a C1-10 alkyl; RC2 is a C1-10 alkyl; and RA is a C1-10 alkyl. Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image11.png 158 114 media_image11.png Greyscale , where R2, R7, and R5 are hydrogen; and R1, R2, R5 and R6 are C2 alkyls. 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, Yan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the emitting layer comprises CBP, i.e. 4,4’-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl, i.e. a host compound comprising a carbazole moiety ([00252]). Regarding claim 20, Yan et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0029]). The organic layer comprises the following metal iridium complex ([0029] and [0010] – I): PNG media_image7.png 361 504 media_image7.png Greyscale , where A is CR0 and R0 is H ([0012] and [0015]); R1 is an unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl ([0014]); R2 is hydrogen ([0015]); R3 can represent two (2) substitutions ([0013]) and includes a halogen e.g. fluorine ([0015] and Page 17 Compounds CPD98 and CPD99) and a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]); and R4 is a C1-10 alkyl ([0015]). The ligand: PNG media_image8.png 186 158 media_image8.png Greyscale , is exemplified as ([0027] – A5): PNG media_image9.png 134 254 media_image9.png Greyscale . From the above, the reference discloses a compound with the Formula Ir(LA)m(LC)n, where m is two (2) and n is one (1). Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image10.png 252 228 media_image10.png Greyscale where moiety A is a bicyclic fused ring structure comprising two (2) 6-membered aromatic rings; RC1 is hydrogen; RC is fluorine; Y is O; RB is a C1-10 alkyl; RC2 is a C1-10 alkyl; and RA is a C1-10 alkyl. Ligand LB corresponds to: PNG media_image11.png 158 114 media_image11.png Greyscale , where R2, R7, and R5 are hydrogen; and R1, R2, R5 and R6 are C2 alkyls. 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. Claims 1, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (EP 3508491). Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses an organometallic compound with the formula ([0008] – Formula 1): PNG media_image16.png 450 602 media_image16.png Greyscale where X1 is a chemical bond ([0024]); M is Pt ([0022]); T1 and T2 are single bonds ([0040]). The moiety PNG media_image17.png 174 204 media_image17.png Greyscale corresponds to CY2-1 ([0072]): PNG media_image18.png 144 112 media_image18.png Greyscale , where X51 is N ([003]); X2 is N (Page 4 Line 5); Z2 is deuterium (Page 4 Line 42); and R2 is hydrogen (Page 4 Line 26). Ring CY1 corresponds to ([0069] and Page 25): PNG media_image19.png 114 214 media_image19.png Greyscale , where X19 is O (Page 24 Lines 26); a16 is two (2) (Page 24 Line 34); R1 is -F and an C1-60 alkyl group (Page 4 Lines 26-29); and Z1 is deuterium (Page 4 Line 42). Ring CY3 corresponds to (Page 28): PNG media_image20.png 102 144 media_image20.png Greyscale , where Z3 is deuterium (Page 4 Line 42); R3 is hydrogen ([0049]); and X3 is C ([0029]). Ring CY4 corresponds to ([0078): PNG media_image21.png 108 132 media_image21.png Greyscale , where Z4 is deuterium (Page 4 Line 42); R4 is hydrogen ([0049]); and X4 is N ([0029]). From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand LA represented by Formula I: PNG media_image10.png 252 228 media_image10.png Greyscale where: moiety A is a polycyclic fused ring structure comprising one (1) 5-membered heterocyclic ring and one (1) 6-membered carbocyclic ring; Y is O; RC1 is a hydrogen; RA and RB are deuterium; RC is a fluorine atom; RC1 is an alkyl group, i.e. methyl. Ligand LB has the structure: PNG media_image22.png 152 108 media_image22.png Greyscale , where Z1 and Z2 are directly bonded to Pt; Z1is N; Z2 is C; RE and RF are deuterium; moieties E and F are 6-membered carbocyclic and heterocyclic rings, respectively. Ligands LA and LB join to form a tetradentate ligand. 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 13, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above the compound has the formula Pt(LA)(LB) where ligand LB corresponds to PNG media_image23.png 190 118 media_image23.png Greyscale , where K1’ is a direct bond; Y1 to Y8 are C; and Ra and Rb are deuterium. Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula: PNG media_image24.png 392 554 media_image24.png Greyscale , where moieties E and F are monocyclic ring structures comprising 6-membered carbocyclic and heterocyclic rings; Z1 and Z2 are N sand C respectively; K1 to K4 are direct bonds; L L1 to L3 are single bonds; and RE and RF are deuterium. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2018/0273563). Regarding claim 1, Choi et al discloses an organometallic compound with the following formula ([0044] – Formula 1): M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where M is iridium ([0045]); n1 is [1-3] ([0047]); and n2 is [0-4] ([0048]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the recited formula Ir(LA)m(LC)n, where m and n are 1 or 2 and m + n = 3. Ligand L1 corresponds to Formula (2A) ([0106]): PNG media_image25.png 342 264 media_image25.png Greyscale , where Y8 is C(R8) ([0108]); X1 is O or S ([0109] and [0016]); R3 to R8 are hydrogen, -F, or a C1-60 alkyl ([0109] and [0018]); and R11 to R18 are hydrogen ([0110]). This ligand corresponds to recited ligand LA represented by Formula I: PNG media_image10.png 252 228 media_image10.png Greyscale where: moiety A is a polycyclic fused ring structure comprising three (3) 6-membered aromatic rings; Y is O; RC1 is a fluorine atom; RA, RB, and RC are hydrogen; RC1 is an alkyl group, i.e. methyl; and LA is coordinated to the metal to comprise a 5-membered chelate ring. Ligand L2 is represented by Formula 3B ([0120]): PNG media_image26.png 88 106 media_image26.png Greyscale , where a11 is one (1) ([0125]); T11 is *-C(Z11)=C(Z12-C(Z13)=*’ ([0124]); Y11 is N(Z1) ([0122]); Y12 is N(Z3) ([0123]); Z1, Z3, Z11, Z12, and Z13 are hydrogen ([0129] and [0018]). This ligand corresponds to recited ligand LC: PNG media_image27.png 156 156 media_image27.png Greyscale , where Ra2 to Re2 are hydrogen 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 4, Choi teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ring A is a tricyclic fused ring structure comprising three (3) 6-membered aromatic rings. Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the formula ([0009] – Formula 2): PNG media_image28.png 226 204 media_image28.png Greyscale , where ring CY1 is a benzoisoquinoline ([0015]) and R10 can represent two (2) C2 alkenyl groups that link to form a C6 carbocyclic group ([0019] [0018] [0022]), i.e. a fused benzene ring. Accordingly, the reference discloses an embodiment where recited moiety A is a polycyclic fused ring structure comprising four (4) fused aromatic rings. Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, for ligand L1 the reference discloses the general formula ([0104] – Formula 2-1): PNG media_image29.png 332 268 media_image29.png Greyscale , where ring CY1 has the formula ([0100] and Page 16 – Formula CY1-8): PNG media_image30.png 160 246 media_image30.png Greyscale , where R15 can be a C1 alkyl substituted with at least one -F ([0110] and [0070]), i.e. CF3, and the remaining R-groups can be hydrogen ([0110] and [0069]). In the formula: PNG media_image31.png 138 230 media_image31.png Greyscale , R7 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5), where Q3 to Q5 are -CH3 ([0073]-[0075]), i.e. trimethylsilyl. R6 can be C1 alkyl substituted with at least one -F ([0110] and [0070]), i.e. CF3; and R3 can be a C1 alkyl. Accordingly, the reference discloses ligand LA32 of the claims: PNG media_image32.png 212 206 media_image32.png Greyscale . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims and Specification, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections as well as the objections to the Specification as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Kosuge et al, Cai et al, Choi ‘774, and Lee et al as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Applicants argue that Choi ‘563 does not disclose the compound as recited in amended claim 1. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses ligand L2 is as ([0120] – Formula 3B): PNG media_image26.png 88 106 media_image26.png Greyscale , where a11 is one (1) ([0125]); T11 is *-C(Z11)=C(Z12-C(Z13)=*’ ([0124]); Y11 is N(Z1) ([0122]); Y12 is N(Z3) ([0123]); Z1, Z3, Z11, Z12, and Z13 are hydrogen ([0129] and [0018]). This ligand corresponds to recited ligand LC: PNG media_image27.png 156 156 media_image27.png Greyscale , where Ra2 to Re2 are hydrogen 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

Aug 31, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+35.3%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
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