Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/419,591

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
OA Round
3 (Non-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
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2025 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4-10, 14-18, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814). Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al discloses an organometallic complex with the formula ([0053]): M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A): PNG media_image1.png 218 132 media_image1.png Greyscale . Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61): PNG media_image2.png 198 164 media_image2.png Greyscale , where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159): PNG media_image3.png 282 328 media_image3.png Greyscale . Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls ([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale . From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula: PNG media_image5.png 182 186 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Y1 to Y11 are C; Rc and Rb are hydrogen. Ra corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale , where R1 and R5 are H; R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls, and R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom. Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim. 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, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of emitting light from a triplet excited state to a group singlet state at room temperature as recited in the present claim. Regarding claim 4, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula M(L1)n1(L2)n2 is Ir (Abstract). Regarding claim 5, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 is hydrogen. Regarding claim 6, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R2 an R3 are C1 alkyls; and R4 is tert-butyl. Regarding claim 7, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where n1 and n2 are independently 1 or 2, where n1+n2 is two (2) or three (3) ([0022]). Ligand L2 is ([0012] – Formula 2B): PNG media_image6.png 250 178 media_image6.png Greyscale . A specific example of this ligand is ([0137] – Formula 2B-1): PNG media_image7.png 260 166 media_image7.png Greyscale , where R1 to R3 are C1-10 alkyl groups ([0016]-[0017]); and R12 is C2-20 alkyl group ([0097]-0098]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula: M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)a, where x is 1 to 2; y is 2 or 1; and z is zero (0). Ligand L2 corresponds to: PNG media_image8.png 196 84 media_image8.png Greyscale , where Y1 to Y8 are C; Ra is a di-substitution representing silyl and an alkyl; and Rb is hydrogen. Regarding claim 8, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound with the formula Ir(L1)2(L2). Regarding claim 9, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound where ligand L1 corresponds to LAtype17: PNG media_image9.png 84 102 media_image9.png Greyscale , where R2 is hydrogen; R1 corresponds to R represented by Formula I of the claims; and G is an aromatic ring. Regarding claim 10, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses R corresponding to RA1: PNG media_image10.png 56 88 media_image10.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 19, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a compound, it is clear that the reference discloses a formulation as recited in the present claims. Regarding claim 14, Hwang et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0167] and [0172]-[0173]. The light emitting layer comprises an organometallic complex with the formula: M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A): PNG media_image1.png 218 132 media_image1.png Greyscale . Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61): PNG media_image2.png 198 164 media_image2.png Greyscale , where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159): PNG media_image3.png 282 328 media_image3.png Greyscale . Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls.([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale . From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula: PNG media_image5.png 182 186 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Y1 to Y11 are C; Rc and Rb are hydrogen. Ra corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale , where R1 and R5 are H; R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls, and R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom. Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim. 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 15, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the organic layer is a light emitting layer. Additionally, the compound is a dopant and emitting blue, green or greenish blue light ([0031] and [0161]). It is clear that the compound disclosed by the reference is an emissive dopant as recited by the present claims. Regarding claim 16, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host compound such as 4,4-‘bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl (CBP), i.e. a host compound comprising a carbazole moiety ([0209][0210]), Regarding claim 18, Hwang et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0167] and [0172]-[0173]. The light emitting layer comprises an organometallic complex with the formula: M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A): PNG media_image1.png 218 132 media_image1.png Greyscale . Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61): PNG media_image2.png 198 164 media_image2.png Greyscale , where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159): PNG media_image3.png 282 328 media_image3.png Greyscale . Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls.([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale . From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula: PNG media_image5.png 182 186 media_image5.png Greyscale , where Y1 to Y11 are C; Rc and Rb are hydrogen. Ra corresponds to recited Formula I: PNG media_image4.png 429 741 media_image4.png Greyscale , where R1 and R5 are H; R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls, and R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom. Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim. 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. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, 15-16 and 18-19 above, and in view of Ma et al (US 2010/0237334). The discussion with respect to Hwang et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 17, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emitter layer comprises a matrix material, the reference does not disclose the particular hosts recited in the present claims. Ma et al discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0098]). The light emitting layer comprises a triphenylene compound (Abstract and [0045] – Compound 1’), e.g. PNG media_image11.png 162 177 media_image11.png Greyscale . The reference discloses that triphenylene containing benzothiophenes are excellent host materials for OLEDs ([0104]). Given that both Takizawa et al and Ma et al are drawn to organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emitter layer formed from a host and a dopant, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the triphenylene host as taught by Ma et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such hosts in the device disclosed by Takizawa et al with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, 15-16 and 18-19 above, and in view of Lewis (see pages of Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary attached to previous Office Action) The discussion with respect to Hwang et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 20, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The reference does not explicitly disclose that the compound is a monomer. However, as evidenced by Lewis a monomer is a molecule or compound usually containing compound of relatively low molecular weight and simple structure that is capable of conversion to polymers with itself or other similar molecules or compounds. In light of the definition in Lewis of the term “monomer”, it is the Examiner’s position that compound disclosed by Hwang et al is a monomer capable of being converted to a polymer. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-13 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. If rewritten as indicated above claims 11-13 would be allowable over the “closest” prior art Takizawa et al (US 2012/0153816), Stoessel et al (US 2013/0112920), and Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814) for the reasons set forth below. Takizawa et al discloses the following organometallic complex (Page 31 – Compound 27): PNG media_image12.png 287 220 media_image12.png Greyscale . This organometallic complex comprises the substituent PNG media_image13.png 215 211 media_image13.png Greyscale , which corresponds to Formula I of the claims: PNG media_image14.png 275 293 media_image14.png Greyscale , where R1 and R5 are H; R2 is an alkyl; R3 and R4 are C2 alkyls that join to form a ring. However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the organometallic comprising the substituent RA1 to RA79 as required by claim 11. Stoessel et al discloses the following organometallic complex (Page 34 – Compound 39): PNG media_image15.png 332 246 media_image15.png Greyscale , as well as substituents with the formula: PNG media_image16.png 114 136 media_image16.png Greyscale . However, the reference does not disclose the organometallic complexes as required by claim 11. Hwang et al discloses organometallic compound where the ligands necessarily comprise a silyl moiety. However, none of the compounds recited in claim 11 comprise silyl moieties. Given that the reference discloses organometallic compounds outside the scope of the present claims, the reference does not disclose or suggest the organometallic compounds recited in claim 11. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above. 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. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Conclusion 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, 8:00 AM – 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

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 12, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (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
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