Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/792,897

ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 02, 2024
Priority
Apr 30, 2019 — provisional 62/840,706 +2 more
Examiner
AULAKH, CHARANJIT
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
1441 granted / 1787 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Minimal -14% lift
Without
With
+-14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
1817
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1787 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . According to paper filed on Aug. 28, 2026, the applicants have elected specific iridium compound as a species for further prosecution. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 4 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected species. The elected species is allowable over the prior art. Therefore, search has now been extended to additional species. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 7. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no written description for preparing instant compounds of formula (I) where metal represents all the metals listed in independent claims 1 and 15 as well as the metal is coordinated to every known ligand in the art. The only written description is for preparing and using instant compounds of formula (I) is where metal represents Iridium and the metal is coordinated to phenyl-isoquinoline ligand as shown on pages 75-77 of the specification. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 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. In independent claims 1 and 15, metal Cu is listed twice. In independent claims 1 and 15, variables RA, RB and RC are defined. However, claim also recites that two of RA, RB, and RC are NRR’, OR, SR or CO2R. The claim also recites that two substituents can be joined to form a fused ring. Therefore, it is not clear whether two RA, RB, and RC must represent NRR’, OR, SR or CO2R or not. If two substituents are joined to form a fused ring, then two RA, RB, and RC can not represent NRR’, OR, SR or CO2R. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (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. 11. Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Inoue (U.S. Patent 8,889,858, cited on applicant’s form 1449). Inoue discloses Iridium complexes and electronic devices using these complexes. The iridium complexes 100, 101, 103-105, 109 and 114 (see columns 11-14) disclosed by Inoue anticipate the instant claims when variables RA and RB represent alkyl and variable RC represents H in the instant compounds of formula (I) or variables RA and RC together form ring and variable RB represents H in the instant compounds of formula (I). IMPROPER MARKUSH GROUP 12. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: There is no common core present in compounds of formula (I). In compounds of formula (I), values of variables RA, RB, RC, type of metal and its coordination with other specific ligands is critical for the common core of these compounds. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARANJIT AULAKH whose telephone number is (571)272-0678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30. 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, Clinton A Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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. /CHARANJIT AULAKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747234
KINASE INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747263
ORALLY ACTIVE LEUKEMIA INHIBITORY FACTOR (LIF) ANTAGONISTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741948
BENZOTHIAZOLE AND QUINOLINE DERIVATIVES AND THEIR USE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740987
SOLUBLE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING SALTS OF DISUBSTITUTED 1, 2, 4-TRIAZINE COMPOUND
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735421
PLASMIN INHIBITOR, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND APPLICATION THEREOF
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-14.5%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1787 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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