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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 8, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 2, and the cancellation of claims 3 – 6, 8 – 9, 13 – 14, & 16. Claims 17 – 24 have been withdrawn. Claims 1 – 2, 7, 10 – 12, 15, & 25 – 26 are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 7, 10 – 11, & 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0102324 A1), in view of Takeshi et al. (JP 2003-330004 A), Jang et al. (US 2014/0374704 A1), JP 2002-543563 A, Kaneshiro et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,158,268 B2), and Park et al. (US 2011/0062444 A1).
*As evidenced by Learn Civil Engineering (“Mechanics of Materials-Tension and Compression”)
With regard to claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic display device comprising a display panel including a light emitting diode (50) (Applicant’s “light emitting layer”) on a buffer layer (11) (Applicant’s “flexible substrate”). As shown in Figure 1 below, Lee teaches a plurality of layers between the light emitting layer (50) and the flexible substrate (11). Lee teaches the display panel is bendable under bending and torsion stress (paragraph [0015] & [0063]). Therefore, the plurality of layers between the light emitting layer and the flexible substrate are flexible layers. A barrier layer (20) (Applicant’s “base film”) disposed on the display panel and facing the light emitting diode with the buffer layer therebetween the barrier layer and the barrier layer and the light emitting diode (paragraphs [0007] – [0008] & [0028] – [0029], & Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, the barrier layer (20) comprises a stack of alternating metal layers (21) and alternating organic layers (22) such that a single metal layer (21) is disposed between a first polymer layer (22) and a second polymer layer (22) within the stack (paragraph [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches each organic layer (22) may be a stack of layers of polymer material (paragraph [0046]). In other words, in one direction along the thickness direction of the display panel, from the flexible substrate (11), in order: the organic layer (22) (i.e., “upper polymer layer”) above the metal layer (21) contains Applicant’s “upper second sub-polymer layer” contacting the flexible substrate (11) of the display panel, and “upper first sub-polymer layer” contacting the upper second sub-polymer layer and the metal layer (21). Furthermore, the organic layer (22) below the metal layer (21) contains Applicant’s “lower first sub-polymer layer” contacting the metal layer and “lower second sub-polymer layer.” This is shown in annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the stack organic layer (22) may be a stack of layers (“sublayers”) of at least one polymer material, such as polyethylene terephthalate and polyimide (i.e. “a second polymer sub-layer…including a different material from the first sub-layer”) (paragraph [0046]).
Lee teaches the buffer layer 11 (“flexible substrate”) is preferably an inorganic layer, such as silicon oxide. The buffer layer provides a flat surface for forming the pixel circuit, and prevents permeation of moisture and foreign particles into the pixel circuit and the organic light emitting diode 50 (paragraphs [0008], [0029] & [0049]). Glass is known to comprise silicon oxide. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the inorganic buffer layer is composed of glass.
Takeshi et al. teach a display device comprising a thin glass layer having high flexibility that serves to block moisture (i.e. a buffer layer) (overview, paragraphs [0053] & [0077]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Takeshi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a flexible glass layer as the inorganic buffer layer taught by Lee (‘324) because it has been known to be used for the same purpose of blocking moisture in a display device. It would have been obvious to substitute an art recognized equivalence known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee (‘324) teaches a stack of organic layers between each metal layer. The stack organic layers are not limited, but examples of the organic layers for providing insulation (i.e. dielectric) include at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyimide (paragraph [0046]). Lee (‘324) do not explicitly teach the stack organic layers include perylene.
Jang et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a metal-dielectric layer stack 114 (Applicant’s “base film”) formed of metal layers 114a and dielectric layers 114b formed as an alternating stack. The dielectric layer 114b may include at least one of perylene-based resin, polyimide resin, or an organic material having a dielectric characteristic (paragraph [0051] – [0053] & Fig. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form any of the organic layers 22 (i.e., “sub-polymer layers”) taught by Lee (‘324) of any known dielectric (i.e., insulating) layer for the separation of alternating metal layers in a display device, such as a polyimide or perylene-based dielectric layer. It would have been obvious to substitute an art recognized equivalence known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee teaches the metal layer of the barrier layer includes at least one of titanium and copper (paragraph [0046]). Lee does not teach the metal is stainless steel.
JP 2002-543563 A teaches a flexible composite barrier structure for a display device. The flexible composite barrier structure may comprise at least one barrier material sandwich between at least two layers of polymer films (pg. 5). The term “barrier” is intended to mean low permeability to oxygen and water vapor (pg. 3). Barrier materials include metals, such as aluminum, nickel, copper, tin, stainless steel, and alloys, adjacent to the polymer films (pg. 5). Polymer films may be chosen from a large selection of materials, such as polyimides and polyesters (e.g. polyethylene terephthalate) (pg. 4).
Therefore, based on the teachings of JP 2002-543563 A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute as the metal layer of the barrier layer taught by Lee any metal layer known in the art as an equivalent for the same purpose of providing barrier properties against oxygen and vapor (moisture), such as stainless steel. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee teaches the organic (sub) layers are deposited using spin coating. The polymer of the organic layer may include at least one of PET, PI, PC, an epoxy, a PE, and a polyacrylate (paragraph [0047]). Lee does not teach the upper first sub-polymer layer has an interfacial adhesive with the stainless steel material of about 1000 gf/in or greater relative adhesion strength of the (sub)-layers directly adhered to the metal substrate (Applicant’s “first sublayer”) compared to the (sub)-layers indirectly adhered to the metal substrate via another sublayer (Applicant’s “upper second sublayer”).
Kaneshiro et al. teach a metal coated polyimide film that is excellent in long-term adhesion reliability (Col. 2, Lines 25 – 31 & Col. 16, Lines 4 – 6) for electronic devices, such as flexible printed board (Col. 1, Lines 14 – 19). The metal layer A can be made from metal such as Ni, Cu, Mo, Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Co, or alloy of any of these metals (Col. 16, Lines 60 – 67). The metal coating is formed by physical vapor deposition sputtering metal onto polyimide film while vacuum suction is carried out (Col. 5, Lines 57 – 62, Col. 16, Lines 4 – 14). A polyimide resin having a thermoplastic block component makes it possible to solve various problems associated with a metal-coated film, such as bonding strength (Col. 2, Lines 25 – 31), wherein a metal layer is directly formed without using an adhesive (Col. 6, Lines 53 – 63). Table 2 shows a bonding strength after pressure cooker test (PCT) of reference example 1 with thermoplastic block component (4.3 N/cm) and comparative example 1 with no thermoplastic block component (2.5 N/cm), and different monomer ratios (4 – 4.6 N/cm) (examples 2 – 4) vs. comparative example 2 (2 N/cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the composition of the organic layers (“first sub-layer”) taught by Lee, such as the incorporation of thermoplastic blocks of adjustment of monomer ratios in a polyimide polymer chain, through routine experimentation in order to increase the bonding strength between the upper first sub-layer and the metal coating compared to the upper second sub-layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lee teaches the metal layer has a thickness of about 0.01 µm to about 10 µm (paragraph [0047]), which is less than 30 µm.
Lee fails to teach the thicknesses of the organic layers.
Park et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a multilayered flexible substrate (moisture barrier) (140) for a flexible display comprising at least two polymer layers: a first flexible layer and a second flexible layer (paragraphs [0029] – [0031]). The multilayered flexible substrate prevents moisture or oxygen into the display, resulting in an improved lifetime of the flexible display device (paragraph [0032]). The first flexible layer has a thickness of a few microns (paragraph [0029]), more specifically, a thickness of about 3 – 4 µm (paragraph [0044]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 4 µm to about 10 µm.
Furthermore, Park et al. teach a second flexible layer has a thickness of a few tens of micrometers (paragraph [0031]). The term “few” is defined as a plurality. Therefore, the Examiner interprets this disclosure as the second flexible layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 4 micrometers to about 20 micrometers.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Park et al., it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the stack of polymer layers in the moisture barrier taught by Lee et al. such that the thicknesses are in the range of a few micrometers to a few tens of micrometers in order to provide reinforcing strength to adjacent layers and provide sufficient moisture and oxygen barrier properties to the display for extending the lifetime of the flexible display unit. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above for claim 1, the upper first polymer-layer and upper second sub-polymer layer together define a layer (22) above the metal layer (21) (Applicant’s “upper polymer layer”); the lower first sub-polymer layer and the lower second sub-polymer layer together define a layer (22) below the metal layer (21) (Applicant’s “lower polymer layer”). Additionally, as discussed above for claim 1, at least one of the sublayers of the stack of layers of layer 22 is polyimide.
Lee (‘324) teach the organic layer 22 may be a single layer or a stacked layer of a polymer or plurality of polymers (paragraph [0046]). In other words, stacked layers means two or more layers. Therefore, an organic layer composed of two layers contains a lower first sub-polymer layer and a second sub-polymer layer, such that the lower first sub-polymer layer directly contacts the single metal layer, the lower second sub-polymer layer directly contacts the lower first sub-polymer layer, and the lower second sub-polymer layer being the layer which is furthest from the single metal layer in one direction.
With regard to claim 7, Park et al. teach the second flexible layer has a thickness greater than the first flexible layer for reinforcing the strength of the first layer. Park et al. teach ratio of 4:20 as described above for claims 5 – 6 is reduced to 1:5, which is overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1:1 to about 1:5.
With regard to claim 10, Lee fails to explicitly teach the ratio of a thickness of the metal layer to a total thickness of the upper polymer layer.
However, when considering the thickness of the metal layer taught by Lee, it follows that when considering the references of Lee and Park et al. in combination (as discussed above), the thickness ratio of a thickness of the metal layer to a total thickness of the one organic layer stack (Applicant’s “upper polymer layer”) is a ratio of about 10 µm to 24 µm, which is 1:2.5 and less than a ratio of 1:3.
With regard to claim 11, Lee teaches the display panel is bendable under bending and torsion stress (paragraph [0015] & [0063]). By definition, bending force is a combination of compression force of the inner surface and tensile force of the outer surface, as evidenced by Learn Civil Engineering*. Therefore, the display panel taught by Lee et al. is inherently bendable in a direction which applies a compressive force to the display panel and in a direction which applies a tensile force to the display panel.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to claim 25, as discussed above for claim 1, based on the teachings of Kaneshiro et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the composition of the organic layers (“first sub-layer”) taught by Lee, such as the incorporation of thermoplastic blocks of adjustment of monomer ratios in a polyimide polymer chain, through routine experimentation in order to increase the bonding strength between the first sub-layer and the metal coating. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 26, as discussed above for claim 1, Jang et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a metal-dielectric layer stack 114 (Applicant’s “base film”) formed of metal layers 114a and dielectric layers 114b formed as an alternating stack. The dielectric layer 114b may include at least one of perylene-based resin, polyimide resin, or an organic material having a dielectric characteristic (paragraph [0051] – [0053] & Fig. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layers 22 (i.e., the upper sub-polymers layers and lower sub-polymer layers) taught by Lee (‘324) of any known dielectric (i.e. insulating) layer for the separation of alternating metal layers in a display device, such as perylene-based dielectric layer. It would have been obvious to substitute an art recognized equivalence known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Claims 12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0102324 A1), in view of Takeshi et al. (JP 2003-330004 A), Jang et al. (US 2014/0374704 A1), JP 2002-543563 A, and Lee et al. (KR 10 20140140931 A1).
With regard to claim 12, Lee teaches a display panel comprises a light emitting layer (50) and a plurality of layers between the light emitting layer (50) and the flexible substrate (11) (Fig. 1 below). A barrier layer (20) (Applicant’s “base film”) is disposed on the display panel and facing the light emitting layer (50) with the flexible substrate (11) therebetween (paragraphs [0007], [0027], & Fig. 1). The barrier layer comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers comprising a thickness direction from the flexible substrate, in order, a first film layer (22), metal layer (21), and a second film layer (22).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
393
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
329
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the buffer layer 11 (“flexible substrate”) is preferably an inorganic layer, such as silicon oxide. The buffer layer provides a flat surface for forming the pixel circuit, and prevents permeation of moisture and foreign particles into the pixel circuit and the organic light emitting diode 50 (paragraphs [0008], [0029] & [0049]). Glass is known to comprise silicon oxide. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the inorganic buffer layer is composed of glass.
Takeshi et al. teach a display device comprising a thin glass layer having high flexibility that serves to block moisture (i.e. a buffer layer) (overview, paragraphs [0053] & [0077]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Takeshi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a flexible glass layer as the inorganic buffer layer taught by Lee (‘324) because it has been known to be used for the same purpose of blocking moisture in a display device. It would have been obvious to substitute an art recognized equivalence known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee (‘324) teaches a stack of organic layers between each metal layer. The stack organic layers are not limited, but examples of the organic layers for providing insulation (i.e. dielectric) include at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyimide (paragraph [0046]). Lee (‘324) do not explicitly teach the first film or second film (stack layers) contain perylene.
Jang et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a metal-dielectric layer stack 114 (Applicant’s “base film”) formed of metal layers 114a and dielectric layers 114b formed as an alternating stack. The dielectric layer 114b may include at least one of perylene-based resin, polyimide resin, or an organic material having a dielectric characteristic (paragraph [0051] – [0053] & Fig. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form any of the organic layers 22 taught by Lee (‘324) of any known dielectric (i.e. insulating) layer for the separation of alternating metal layers in a display device, such as polyimide or perylene-based dielectric layer. It would have been obvious to substitute an art recognized equivalence known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee teaches the metal layer of the barrier layer includes at least one of titanium and copper (paragraph [0046]). Lee et al. do not teach the metal is stainless steel.
JP 2002-543563 A teaches a flexible composite barrier structure for a display device. The flexible composite barrier structure may comprise at least one barrier material sandwich between at least two layers of polymer films (pg. 5). The term “barrier” is intended to mean low permeability to oxygen and water vapor (pg. 3). Barrier materials include metals, such as aluminum, nickel, copper, tin, stainless steel, and alloys, adjacent to the polymer films (pg. 5). Polymer films may be chosen from a large selection of materials, such as polyimides and polyesters (e.g. polyethylene terephthalate) (pg. 4).
Therefore, based on the teachings of JP 2002-543563 A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute as the metal layer of the barrier layer taught by Lee any metal layer known in the art as an equivalent for the same purpose of providing barrier properties against oxygen and vapor (moisture), such as stainless steel. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Lee fails to teach an adhesive layer between the metal layer and the first film layer and the second film layer, such that the adhesive layer includes a polymer layer and an adhesive material layer disposed on both of opposing surfaces of the polymer layer (commonly known as a double-sided adhesive tape).
Lee et al. (‘0931) teach a low elastic coverlay film for a flexible printed circuit board (pg. 2). The coverlay (100) comprises a thin metal layer (10), first adhesive layer (20), polyimide base layer (30) (Applicant’s “polymer layer”), second adhesive layer (40), and organic protector layer (40), in this order (pgs. 10 & 16). A cover lay film of this configuration improves the reliability of the layer when flexed (pgs. 2 & 5), such as flexibility without peeling (splitting) of the layers (pg. 15). The adhesive layers may be composed of polyimide resin (pg. 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
229
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al. (‘0931), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a double-sided adhesive between each of the metal and organic layers taught by (‘324) because the dual sided adhesive layer taught by Lee et al. (‘0931) prevents peeling (splitting) of the layers when the laminate is flexed.
Lee et al. (‘0931) teach the first adhesive layer preferably has a thickness of 1 - 10 µm, the second adhesive layer preferably has a thickness of 5 – 40 µm, and polyimide base layer preferably has a thickness of 5 – 25 µm (paragraphs [0022] -[0023]), and thus a total thickness of 11 – 75 µm, which is outside Applicant’s claimed range of about 4 micrometers to about 5 micrometers.
However, Lee et al. (‘0931) teach the thicknesses of the adhesive and polyimide base layers are not limited (paragraphs [0069], [0071]). The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 15, Lee et al. (‘0931) teach the first adhesive layer preferably has a thickness of 1 - 10 µm, the second adhesive layer preferably has a thickness of 5 – 40 µm, and polyimide base layer preferably has a thickness of 5 – 25 µm (paragraphs [0022] – [0023]). The minimum adhesive thickness is less than the largest polyimide base layer thickness. Therefore, the ranges taught by Lee et al. overlaps with Applicant’s claimed relative thickness.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Lee ‘324 provides no suggestion or motivation at which position a polyimide sub-layer would be disposed within a layer 22 among the second/first sub-polymer layers. Since Lee ‘324 is silent as to a perylene layer, Lee ‘324 especially provides no suggestion or motivation as which position among the second/first sub-polymer layers the polyimide sub-layer would be disposed relative to a perylene sub-layer.
“Even when Jang teaches both a perylene and a polyimide material for a dielectric material, Jang also provides no suggestion or motivation as to which position among the second/first sub-polymer layers (like in a layer 22 of Lee ‘324) the polyimide sub-layer would be disposed relative to a perylene sub-layer” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, based on the teachings of Jang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of art recognized equivalents, such as polyimide layers and perylene layers as the dielectric material of the organic layers 22 taught by Lee ‘324. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to us any combination of perylene layers and/or polyimide layers with the metal layer to form the recited base layer.
Second, Applicant’s specification fails to provide any suggestion or motivation as to which position among the second/first sub-polymer layers would be disposed relative to a perylene sub-layer. The specification lacks any teaching of perylene as a preferred embodiment of the recited layer (sub-layer) in contact with the metal layer or discussion of benefits. Furthermore, Applicant’s working examples do not contain any perylene whatsoever. The specification teaches the purpose of the polymer layers is merely to “solve or cure defects at the outer surface of the metal layer” (pgs. 21 – 22). Thus, Applicant’s specification fails to demonstrate unexpected results with regard to the position of a polyimide layer relative to a perylene layer.
The only mention of perylene in the specification is in the long list of possible compositions for the film/coating/polymer layer/sub-layer, which also includes polyimide. See originally filed specification, pgs. 3 – 4, 10, 20 – 21. In fact, Applicant’s specification would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that perylene and polyimide are functional equivalents, and therefore the relative order of the polyimide and perylene layers in the base layer is not critical to the recited invention.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the non-patent literature ‘Learn Civil Engineering’ does not remedy the deficiencies of Lee ‘324, Jang, Takeshi, JP ‘563, Kaneshiro and Park discussed above” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Applicant argues, “For all the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that Lee ‘324 in view of Jang, Takeshiro, JP ‘563 and Park fails to disclose, teach or suggest at least among the first film layer, the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the second film layer [in order]: each of the first film layer and the second film layer includes perylene, and each of the first adhesive layer and second adhesive layer includes a polyimide layer and an adhesive layer which is disposed on both of opposing surfaces of the polyimide layer of amended Claim 12” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Second, Applicant’s claim 1 recites a film layer comprising perylene and an adhesive layer comprising polyimide. As discussed above, based on the teachings of Lee et al. (‘0931), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a polyimide adhesive layer between a metal layer and a dielectric layer, such as a perylene dielectric layer.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that Lee ‘931 does not remedy the deficiencies of Lee ‘324, Jang, Takeshi, JP ‘563 and Kaneshiro discussed above” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights