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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 2, 4, 10, & 12. Claims 17 – 24 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3, 5 – 6, 8 – 9, 14, & 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 2, 4, 7, 10 – 13, 15, & 25 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the thickness of the metal layer is recited twice. 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.
Claims 12 – 13 & 15 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.
With regard to claim 12, Applicant’s claim amendment recites “at least one layer among the first film layer, the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer and the second film layer which includes perylene,…” Pgs. 18 – 19 of the specification teaches “In the first adhesive layer 780, the polymer layer 782 may include at least one of polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyether naphthalate, polyamide, polyphenylene sulfide, and polyarylene ether ketone… Similarly, in the second adhesive layer 790, the polymer layer 792 may include at least one of polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyether naphthalate, polyimide, polyphenylene sulfide, and polyarylene ether ketone.” The specification does not teach or suggest a first adhesive layer or a second adhesive layer comprising perylene.
Claims 13 & 15 are dependent on claim 12 and therefore also rejected.
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 12 – 13 & 15 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.
With regard to claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one layer among the first film layer, the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer and the second film layer which includes perylene,” and the claim also recites “wherein among the first film layer, the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer and the second film layer within the base film, each of the first film layer and the second film layer includes perylene,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 13 & 15 are dependent on claim 12 and therefore also rejected.
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 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 the organic layer 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 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 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 “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 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).
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).
Claims 12 – 13 & 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, 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 the organic layer 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 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).
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 13, Lee et al. (‘931) teach the adhesive layers may be composed of polyimide resin (paragraphs [0063] – [0065], [0069], & [0072]).
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, “The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, as not being amended to be consistent with the labeling of the layer and the sub-layers in the amended claims.
“Substitute Specification paragraph at page 6, line 41 to page 7, line 13 and page 8, lines 22 -34 are herein above amended to be consistent with the labeling of the sub-layers in the amended claims” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendments of the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claims 2 and 4 are amended to provide proper antecedent basis in the claims.
“Claim 12 is hereinabove amended to better set forth relationship of the perylene layer relative to the base film layers” (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendments of claims 1 – 2 & 4, the previous rejection of claims 2 & 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Similar to Lee’s structure, Jang discloses a layer 11 facing ‘light emitting layer 120 with layer 112 therebetween. However, none of Jang’s layer 111 or 112 in similar position to that of Lee’s barrier layer 20 ‘base film’ are disclosed as having perylene. Instead the metal-dielectric stack 114 of Jang is within the display panel, not in a similar position to that of Lee’s out-of-display panel barrier layer 20 ‘base film.’
“As such, Applicant respectfully submits that there exists no suggestion or motivation to modify Lee’s out-of-display panel barrier layer 20 ‘base film’ (metal layer 21 + organic layer 22) facing light emitting diode 50 ‘light emitting layer’ with buffer layer 111 ‘flexible substrate’ therebetween, with Jang’s in-display panel metal-dielectric stack ‘base film’ 114, to teach at least among the upper second sub-polymer layer and the upper first sub-polymer layer in order in the one direction, the upper first sub-polymer layer includes perylene…” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant appears to be asserting that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a dielectric material in a metal-dielectric stack for another known dielectric film taught by a secondary reference understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to serve the same purpose of electrical insulation between metal layers because the secondary reference does not teach other limitations of Applicant’s claim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is not necessary for the metal-dielectric stack of the secondary reference to be in the same location of the display apparatus for numerous reasons.
First, the primary reference already teaches the location of the metal-dielectric stack as recited in Applicant’s claims.
Second, Applicant has mischaracterized the modification suggested in the rejection with the teachings of Jang et al. The rejection did not suggest substituting the entire metal-dielectric stack taught by Jang et al. The rejection suggested it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the dielectric material of the organic layers with an art recognized equivalent.
Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any known material for use as a dielectric layer in a stack of metal and dielectric layers would serve the intended use, regardless of where the metal-dielectric stack is located within the display apparatus.
Applicant argues, “Secondly, as suggested in the instant Office action, Lee’s general organic layer 22 may include a stack of layers disposed relative to a metal layer 21. Even when Lee’s list of materials suggest the stack of layers includes different materials, Lee provides no suggestion or motivation of a particular material layer based on the order of the stack of material layers relative to the metal layer 21.
“Jang generally teaches dielectric (insulating, perylene-based, paragraphs 0051 – 0053 and Figure 3) layers 114b between metal layers 114a. Similarly to Lee, Jang provides no suggestion or motivation of where perylene would be located along a stack of layers relative to a metal layer 114a.
“As such, Applicant respectfully submits that since both Lee and Jang are silent as to where a specific material is located along a stack of material layers relative to a metal layer, there exists no suggestion or motivation to modify Lee’s organic layer 22 in ‘base film’ 20 to have the sub-layer of the organic layer 22 which is closer to the metal layer as Jang’s generally taught dielectric (insulating, perylene-based) layer, to teach at least among the upper second sub-polymer layer and the upper first sub-polymer layer in order in the one direction, the upper first sub-polymer layer includes perylene…of Amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 12 – 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, in the instant case, the primary reference of Lee et al. suggests a group of example polymers may be used in any of the disclosed dielectric organic layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said dielectric organic layers comprising disclosed polymers (and the art recognized equivalents for a dielectric polymer material taught by the cited secondary reference of Jang et al.) in any of the disclosed dielectric organic layers, including the layer taught by Lee et al. which corresponds to Applicant’s claimed “upper first sub-polymer layer.”
Second, Applicant’s specification (pg. 4, lines 1 – 5) teaches perylene as an example amongst a plurality of polymers which may be chosen to form the upper first sub-polymer layer. Therefore, Applicant’s specification fails to demonstrate criticality or unexpected results with regard any specific material, such as perylene, in a specific dielectric layer of the recited base film.
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 and Kaneshiro discussed above” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that Lee ‘391 does not remedy the deficiencies of Lee ‘324, Jang, Takeshi, JP ‘563 and Kaneshiro discussed above” (Remarks, Pg. 14).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781