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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 November 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 37 CFR 1.121 are required in this application because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first gas barrier layer does not cover the flexible structure” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking. See Page(s) 1-27.
The drawings are objected to because the same terminology is used to identify different parts illustrated in the drawings. While the drawings appropriately and consistently apply different particular reference characters to uniquely designate different structural features or parts in the figures, but improperly identify these different particular reference characters in the Specification and/or Claims using the same and/or substantially similar terminology. Specifically, reference characters "200" and "160" have both been used to designate “the flexible structures”. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). See FIGS. (7-15)e.
Different terminology is used to identify same parts in the drawings. While the drawings appropriately and consistently apply the same particular reference character to the same structural feature or part in the figures, but improperly identify this particular reference character in the Specification and/or Claims using different, inconsistent, and/or ambiguous terminology. Specifically, reference character “160” has been used to designate “a second partition wall [0027]” and “flexible structures [0027]”. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). See FIGS. 1-6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Encapsulation Structure Comprising Partition Walls Having Different Surface Energies Surrounding Electronic Elements.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “a ratio of a total thickness defined by the buffer layer and the first gas barrier layer to a height of the first partition wall have of 0.52:1 to 1:1“. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim 12 and depending claims 13-16 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. The claim recites the limitation of “wherein the first gas barrier layer does not cover the flexible structure”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure, see MPEP 2173.05(i). While there is support for the gas barrier layer not covering the entire surface of the flexible substrate or all of the electronic elements (Paragraphs 24 and 39), there is no explicit support in the specification for the gas barrier layer to not cover the flexible structure. The Figures only show a cross-sectional view and do not show the coverage of the gas barrier layer in and out of the page. Furthermore, Figure 7E shows the gas barrier layer 190 covering the side of the flexible structure 160.
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 15 and 16 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.
Claim 15 and 16 recite the limitations “the flexible substrate having a device region and a non-device region” in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only support for a flexible substrate, not one having a device region and a non-device region. It appears the claims were intending to read “wherein the flexible substrate comprises a device region and a non-device region”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (U.S. 2007/0114519) in view of Birnstock et al (U.S. 2004/0251822).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi discloses an encapsulation structure, comprising:
a substrate having a device region and a non-device region (substrate 10, Figure 1);
a plurality of electronic elements located in the device region of the substrate (elements 16, Figure 1);
a first partition wall surrounding one or more of the electronic elements (first partition wall 13 or/and 14, Figure 1, Paragraph 50);
a second partition wall surrounding the first partition wall, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall have at least one trench therebetween (second partition wall 14 or/and 13, Figure 1, Paragraph 50); and
a first gas barrier layer covering one or more of the electronic elements and a surface of the first partition wall (first gas barrier 20 and/or 18 and/or 192 and/or 191, Figure 1, Paragraph 39),
wherein the surface of the first partition wall has a higher surface energy than a surface of the second partition wall (Paragraph 50).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the substrate is flexible. Birnstock et al. discloses an OLED device wherein the substrate is flexible (Birnstock et al., Paragraph 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the substrate to be flexible in Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. in order to have simple and cost-effective manufacture (Birnstock et al., Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein a thickness of the first gas barrier layer and a height of the first partition wall have a ratio of 0.02:1 to 1:1 (Hayashi, first partition wall 13 and/or 14, first gas barrier 18, 191, 192, and/or 20, Figure 1, Paragraphs 39, 44, and 46-48. Please note that the Applicant has provided no special definitions to the terms “height” or “thickness”).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein the first gas barrier layer comprises a silicon oxynitride layer, a silicon nitride layer, or a multi- layered structure thereof (Hayashi, first gas barrier 18, 191, 192, and/or 20, Figure 1, Paragraph 44 and 48).
Regarding Claim 5, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses a buffer layer disposed between layers of the multi-layered structure of the first gas barrier layer, or disposed between the first gas barrier layer and the electronic elements (Hayashi, first partition wall 13 and/or 14, first gas barrier 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20, buffer layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein a thickness of the buffer layer and a thickness of the first partition wall have a ratio of 0.5:1 to 0.9:1, and a ratio of a total thickness defined by the buffer layer and the first gas barrier layer to a height of the first partition wall have of 0.52:1 to 1:1 (Hayashi, first partition wall 13 and/or 14, first gas barrier 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20, buffer layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192, Figure 1, Paragraphs 39, 42, 44, and 46-48. Please note that the Applicant has provided no special definitions to the terms “height” or “thickness”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein the first partition wall has a height of 0.1 µm to 5 µm, and the height of the first partition wall is equal to, higher than, or lower than a height of the second partition wall (Hayashi, first partition wall 13 and/or 14, second partition wall 13 and/or 14, Figure 1, Paragraphs 39 and 42).
Regarding Claim 9, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein a top view area that is covered by the first gas barrier layer and a total area of the device region and the non-device region have a ratio of 0.01:1 to 0.97:1 (Hayashi, first gas barrier layer 18 or 191 or 192 or 20, substrate 10, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses wherein the first partition wall does not surround all the electronic elements (Hayashi, element 16, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses a second gas barrier layer disposed between the flexible substrate and the electronic elements in the device region (Hayashi, second gas barrier layer 12, Figure 1, Paragraph 38).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (U.S. 2007/0114519) in view of Birnstock et al (U.S. 2004/0251822) as applied to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. does not explicitly disclose that the surface energy of the first partition wall is higher than the surface energy of the second partition wall by 5mN/m to 40mN/m. Hayashi et al. discloses that the first partition wall can be formed of a lyophilic material such as silicon dioxide (first partition wall 13 or 13/14, Figure 1, Paragraph 39) and that the second partition wall can be formed of a lyophobic material such as acrylic resin or polyimide (second partition wall 13/14 or 14, Figure 1, Paragraph 39). Silicon dioxide has a surface energy of 59 mN/m and polyimide has a surface energy of 45-50mN/m. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the surface energy of the first partition wall to be higher than the surface energy of the second partition wall by 5mN/m to 40mN/m in Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. as the disclosed ranges overlap. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (U.S. 2007/0114519) in view of Birnstock et al (U.S. 2004/0251822) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Masuda (U.S. 9,161,438)
Regarding Claim 8, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the second partition wall comprises a flexible structure, and the second partition wall has a Young's modulus of greater than or equal to 0.2 GPa and less than 2 GPa. However they disclose that the second partition wall comprises acrylic resin or polyimide (Hayashi, Paragraph 39). Masuda discloses a polyimide structure having a Young’s modulus of 1 to 5 GPa (polyimide structure 12, Figure , Column 5, Lines 13-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the second partition wall to have a Young's modulus of greater than or equal to 0.2 GPa and less than 2 GPa in Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al., further in view of Masuda in order to improve device reliability and because it was a known property of polyimide (Column 8, Lines 38-50). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (U.S. 2007/0114519) in view of Birnstock et al (U.S. 2004/0251822) and Masuda (U.S. 9,161,438).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayashi discloses an encapsulation structure, comprising:
a substrate (substrate 10, Figure 1);
a plurality of electronic elements located on the substrate (electronic element 16, Figure 1);
a first gas barrier layer covering sidewalls and a top surface of one or more of the electronic elements (gas barrier layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20, Figure 1); and
a flexible structure located on the substrate, wherein the first gas barrier layer is disposed between the flexible structure and one or more of the electronic elements (Hayashi, flexible structure 13/14 or 14, Figure 1, Paragraph 39),
wherein the first gas barrier layer does not cover the flexible structure (gas barrier layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20 do/es not cover flexible structure 13/14 or 14 from an underside, Figure 1, Paragraph 39).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the substrate is flexible or that the flexible structure has a Young’s Modulus of greater than or equal to 0.2GPa and less than 2GPa.
Birnstock et al. discloses an OLED device wherein the substrate is flexible (Birnstock et al., Paragraph 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the substrate to be flexible in Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. in order to have simple and cost-effective manufacture (Birnstock et al., Paragraph 2).
Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. further discloses that the second partition wall comprises acrylic resin or polyimide (Hayashi, Paragraph 39). Masuda discloses a polyimide structure having a Young’s modulus of 1 to 5 GPa (polyimide structure 12, Figure , Column 5, Lines 13-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the second partition wall to have a Young's modulus of greater than or equal to 0.2 GPa and less than 2 GPa in Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. and Masuda in order to improve device reliability and because it was a known property of polyimide (Column 8, Lines 38-50). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 13, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. and Masuda further discloses wherein the first gas barrier layer comprises a silicon oxynitride layer, a silicon nitride layer, or a multi- layered structure thereof (Hayashi, gas barrier layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20, Figure 1, Paragraphs 44 and 48).
Regarding Claim 14, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. and Masuda further comprising a buffer layer disposed between layers of the multi-layered structure of the first gas barrier layer when the first gas barrier layer comprises the multi-layered structure of the silicon oxynitride layer and the silicon nitride layer, or disposed between the first gas barrier layer and the electronic elements (Hayashi, buffer layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. and Masuda further discloses wherein the flexible substrate having a device region and a non-device region, the plurality of electronic elements located in the device region of the flexible substrate, and wherein a top view area that is covered by the first gas barrier layer and the total area of the device region and the non-device region have a ratio of 0.01 to 0.97 (Hayashi, first gas barrier layer 18 and/or 191 and/or 192 and/or 20, substrate 10, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Hayashi in view of Birnstock et al. and Masuda further discloses wherein the flexible substrate having a device region and anon-device region, the plurality of electronic elements located in the device region of the flexible substrate, and the encapsulation structure further comprises a second gas barrier layer disposed between the flexible substrate and the electronic elements in the device region (Hayashi, second gas barrier layer 12, Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 February 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the Hayashi reference fails to disclose “a surface of the first partition wall has a higher surface energy than a surface of the second partition wall” because “the four partition walls 13/14 in Hayashi seem to be identical” and if 13 and 14 are considered separately, they cannot meet the limitation of “a second partition wall surrounding the first partition wall, and first partition wall and the second partition wall have at least one trench therebetween”. However, bank layer 13 is lyophilic and bank layer 14 is lyophobic and therefore have different surface energies (Hayashi, Paragraph 50). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the surface of the first partition wall comprises every surface of said first partition wall…wherein the surface of the second partition wall comprises every surface of said second partition wall) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If considered together, first and second partition walls comprising both 13 and 14 have multiple surfaces comprising different surfaces energies, with those energies sometimes being different from that of the other partition wall. Additionally, 13/14 do not necessarily need to be considered together for each partition wall in order to meet the claim limitations and the partition walls, be them 13 alone, 14 alone, or 13/14 together, are all separated from one another by a trench. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 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 Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith, can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899