Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/060,590

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Dec 01, 2022
Examiner
VISCONTI, GERALDINA
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1146 granted / 1325 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1325 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claim 1-16 in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal has been found persuasive. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Groups I, II, and III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 29 December 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 17-20 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. However, the Election of Species set forth in the office action mailed on 29 December 2025 is maintained. Applicant’s election without traverse of the following compound in Inventive Example 1 ([0222], p. 142 of USPGPub) in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged: PNG media_image1.png 435 376 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite a “compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I”, (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by a “first” ligand is not clear, especially as each of the claims do not recite complete formula for the compound. Claims 1-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product. The Examiner notes that this rejection can be easily remedied by amending the claim to delete “first”, and by reciting that the compound is represented by formula M(LA)p(LB)q(Lc)r. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “LA is coordinated to a metal M through the indicated dashed lines“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “coordinated” is not clear. The claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim how a metal M is bonded to the ligand LA, particularly absent the recitation of a complete formula for the claimed compound. Claims 1-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein M may be coordinated to other ligands” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “coordinated” is not clear, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for “other” ligands. Also, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim how a metal M is bonded to any ligand absent the recitation of a complete formula for the claimed compound. Claims 1-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein LA may be joined with other ligands to comprise” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, in part as there is insufficient antecedent basis for “other” ligands. Claims 1-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein any two substituents may be joined or fused to form a ring” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by and the antecedent basis of “any two substituents” is not clear absent the recitation of a complete formula for the claimed compound. Also, the delineation between “joined” and “fused” is not clear. Claims 1-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product. Claim 5 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “R1 and R2 is independently an alkyl, cycloalkyl, a monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings” (emphasis added); the antecedent basis of “monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings” is not clear. Claim 5 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Prior Art The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0303601, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application; Benitez et al., "Acetylides for the Preparation of Phosphorescent Iridium(III) Complexes: Iridaoxazoles and Their Transformation into Hydroxycarbenes and N,C(sp3),C(sp2),O-Tetradentate Ligands", 23 November 2022, Inorg. Chem., 61, 48, 19597-19611; and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0349277. Rejoinder The species elected 23 February 2026 is allowable. Upon review and search of the prior art, pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the election of species requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 29 December 2025, is hereby withdrawn and all species were hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the election of species requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the election of species requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Allowable Subject Matter Assuming arguendo that claims 1, 5, 17, and 20 are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, then claims rewritten to be limited to the compound represented by formula M(LA)p(LB)q(Lc)r characterized in that the ligand LA is represented by formula would be allowable. Claims 2-4, 6-16, and 18-19 are 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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. GERALDINA VISCONTI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1737 /GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595416
LC MIXTURES WITH NEGATIVE DELTA EPSILONCONTAINING CC-4-V1 AND COB(S)-N-OM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570900
POLYMERISABLE COMPOUND, POLYMERISABLE LC MATERIAL AND POLYMER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565617
POLYMERISABLE OLIGOMERIC LIQUID CRYSTAL, POLYMERISABLE MEDIUM AND POLYMERISED LIQUID CRYSTAL FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559679
OPTICALLY ANISOTROPIC LAYER, OPTICAL FILM, POLARIZING PLATE, AND IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559678
Liquid-crystal medium
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
86%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+1.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1325 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