DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reopening of Prosecution
In view of the appeal brief filed on 6/16/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief pages 3-7, filed 6/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 13 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of further analysis which clarifies the Examiner’s position with regards to what the prior art teaches and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 13, 15-23, 28-29, and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20080238301 A1 (Shim et al hereinafter Shim) in view of US 20080102223 A1 (Wagner et al hereinafter Wagner) and US 20090186187 A1 (Lee et al hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Shim discloses a first product (FIG. 3, organic electro luminescence device 100, ¶ [0041]) comprising: a substrate (FIG. 3, substrate 110, ¶ [0041]); a device (FIG. 3, light emission unit 112 disposed over the substrate, ¶ [0041]) disposed over the substrate, the device having a device footprint (FIG. 3, the area taken up by light emission unit 112); and a barrier film (FIG. 3, passivation film 120 disposed over light emitting unit 112, ¶ [0041]) disposed over the device and substantially along at least a first side (FIG. 3, the right side of light emitting unit 112) of the device footprint, and at least a portion of at least a first surface of the substrate forms an interface at the substrate (FIG. 3, the outer edges of the upper surface of substrate 110 interface with passivation barrier film 120, where light emission unit 112 does not cover substrate 110).
Shim does not explicitly disclose that over at least a portion of at least a first surface of the substrate to form an interface at the substrate, the barrier film having an index of refraction that varies across a thickness of the barrier film; wherein a ratio of the index of refraction of the bulk of the barrier film and the index of refraction of a portion of the barrier film that is within 10 nm of the interface is 0.9993 to 0.9247, such parameters regarding the refractive index at various parts of the barrier film not being described in detail by Shim.
However, Wagner discloses a hybrid layer comprising a mixture of a polymeric and a non-polymeric material (¶ [0010]) to be used as a protective coating over the surface of a device (¶ [0005]) which has a number of beneficial features such as a process of making it that is simple to adjust for achieving desired levels of parameters such as flexibility and impermeability (¶ [0024-0025]). Wagner also teaches that the hybrid layer may comprise polymeric silicone for the polymeric material and silicon oxide as the non-polymeric material (¶ [0018]), and that a plurality of hybrid layers may be formed which vary in their compositions (¶ [0026]). Wagner further makes mention of (¶ [0004]) multilayer barrier coatings similar to that disclosed by Shim, teaching that they can be costly or complex to produce.
Shim and Wagner both pertain to the field of encapsulating barriers for light-emitting devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the hybrid layer of Wagner to function as the barrier film in the device of Shim, in order to employ a less costly and complex barrier film whose flexibility and impermeability can be adjusted in a simple manner. A person of ordinary skill would further have found it obvious to select polymeric silicone and silicon oxide as the materials of the barrier layer, since they were explicitly suggested by Wagner (such materials are also suggested as suitable for forming the barrier film in present application’s specification ¶ [0141]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would also have found it obvious to adjust the composition of the barrier film, taking into consideration the uniformity of the barrier film material, which affects its index of refraction throughout both the bulk and the portion with 10 nm of the interface; a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the uniformity of the barrier film material, and correspondingly of the index of refraction in the barrier film, would affect light-scattering properties of the barrier film (see for example Lee ¶ [0005-0007], which explains that uniformity of refractive index of materials in a barrier structure reduces reflecting and scattering in said barrier structure), the uniformity therefore constituting a result-effective variable. Increasing the uniformity of the barrier film would reduce a light-scattering property, which a person of ordinary skill in the art may find beneficial based on the desired optical properties for the device. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to, when in the process of optimizing the uniformity of the barrier film, arrive at a configuration wherein a ratio of the index of refraction of the bulk of the barrier film and the index of refraction of a portion of the barrier film that is within 10 nm of the interface is 0.9993 to 0.9247, because the claimed range includes levels of uniformity which can reach less than 0.1% variance between the bulk of the barrier film’s refractive index and the interface-portion of the barrier film’s refractive index, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find beneficial in minimizing a light-scattering phenomenon in the barrier film to achieve desirable optical properties.
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, but does not explicitly state that the bulk diffusion coefficient of the barrier film is less than 10^-13 cm^2/s.
However, the hybrid layer of Wagner comprising a mixture of a polymeric and a non-polymeric material (¶ [0010]) is taught to have a weight ratio of the polymeric to non-polymeric material in the range of 5:95 to 95:5 (¶ [0012]).
A person of ordinary skill would further have found it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the weight ratio of the polymeric to non-polymeric material of the barrier film of Wagner with the various disclosed techniques (¶ [0013]), and in so doing (on account of Wagner disclosing the same materials and ranges of mixture as the present application; compare ¶ [0006 and 0012] of Wagner which disclose silicone polymer and silicon oxide as the polymeric and non-polymeric materials, and weight ratio ranges of 5:95 – 95:5 between the polymeric and non-polymeric materials respectively to ¶ [0114 and 0042] of the present application, which disclose the same respectively) would arrive at a mixture wherein the bulk diffusion coefficient of the barrier film is less than 10^-13 cm^2/s, in order to minimize the permeability of unwanted material.
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the barrier film is a mixture of polymeric and non-polymeric material (Wagner ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 17, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above, and Wagner further discloses that the barrier film comprises a mixture of polymeric silicon and inorganic silicon (polymeric silicone is detailed as a polymeric material for the mixture, and silicon oxide is detailed as an inorganic non-polymeric material for the mixture, Wagner ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above, but they do not explicitly state that the mixture is substantially uniform.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to ensure that the mixture is substantially uniform, in order to ensure that the sealing properties of the barrier film are consistent throughout the film (additionally, since this claim depends on claim 13, which requires the barrier film having a non-uniform refractive index, it is understood that the claimed condition of substantial uniformity does not require the barrier film to have perfectly uniform composition and properties throughout, e.g. variability on the order of magnitude of 0.1% would be acceptable and within the clamed range of ratios from claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and further discloses that at least a portion of the barrier film disposed over the device comprises a single-layer barrier film (Wagner discloses that a single hybrid layer is formed of the mixture of polymeric and non-polymeric material ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and further discloses that the barrier film comprises a uniform material (Wagner discloses that a single hybrid layer is formed of the mixture of polymeric and non-polymeric material ¶ [0024]; since this claim depends on claim 13, which requires the barrier film having a non-uniform refractive index, it is understood that the claimed condition of uniformity does not require the barrier film to have perfectly uniform composition and properties throughout, e.g. variability on the order of magnitude of 0.1% would be acceptable and within the clamed range of ratios from claim 13).
Regarding claim 21, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the barrier film comprises a mixture of an oxide and polymeric silicone (the hybrid layer may comprise polymeric silicone for the polymeric material and silicon oxide as the non-polymeric material, Wagner ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, but they do not explicitly disclose that the barrier film comprises at least 40% inorganic silicon.
However, the hybrid layer of Wagner comprising a mixture of a polymeric and a non-polymeric material (¶ [0010]) to be used as a protective coating over the surface of a device (¶ [0005]) has a number of beneficial features such as a process of making it that is simple to adjust for achieving desired levels of parameters such as flexibility and impermeability (¶ [0024-0025]). Wagner also teaches that a weight ratio of the polymeric to non-polymeric material may be in the range of 5:95 to 95:5 (¶ [0012]), and that the non-polymeric material may be inorganic silicon (silicon oxide, ¶ [0018]).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the concentration of inorganic silicon in the hybrid layer of Wagner, in order to employ a less costly and complex barrier film whose flexibility and impermeability can be adjusted in a simple manner, since the composition of the hybrid layer has been demonstrated to be a result-effective variable which influences flexibility and impermeability. A person of ordinary skill would further have found it obvious to have the barrier film comprises at least 40% inorganic silicon, as such a proportion was detailed in the ranges disclosed by Wagner.
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and further discloses a conductive layer disposed over an active area of the device (a conductive anode/cathode electrode is disposed in an OLED light emitting unit 112, Shim ¶ [0005]), wherein a portion of the barrier film is disposed at least partially over the conductive layer (Shim FIG. 3, first organic film 121 entirely covers light emitting unit 112 ¶ [0006]; this configuration does not change when the film of Shim is replaced by the film of Wagner).
Regarding claim 28, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and further discloses that the device comprises an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (Shim ¶ [0041], light emission unit 112 comprises a light emitting diode since device 100 is an organic electro luminescence device).
Regarding claim 29, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, and further discloses that the first product comprises any one of: a consumer device, a solar cell, a thin film battery, an organic electronic device, a lighting panel or a lighting source having a lighting panel, a display or an electronic device having a display, a mobile phone, a notebook computer, a tablet computer, a television, or an OLED (Shim FIG. 3, device 100 is an organic electro luminescence device and therefore comprises an OLED, ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 32, Shim in view of Wagner and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above, but they do not explicitly state that the index of refraction of the portion of the barrier film that is within 10 nm of the interface is in the range 1.35 to 1.459.
However, since Wagner has taught that the composition of the barrier film is variable (¶ [0012]), it is a result-effective variable which may be adjusted to modify flexibility and impermeability (¶ [0024-0025]), and may be the same material as that disclosed as the barrier film in the present application (compare ¶ [0006 and 0012] of Wagner which disclose silicone polymer and silicon oxide as the polymeric and non-polymeric materials, and weight ratio ranges of 5:95 – 95:5 between the polymeric and non-polymeric materials respectively to ¶ [0114 and 0042] of the present application, which disclose the same respectively), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to vary, thorough routine optimization, the composition of the barrier film and arrive at a configuration wherein the index of refraction of the portion of the barrier film that is within 10 nm of the interface is in the range 1.35 to 1.459, in order to adjust the flexibility and impermeability of the barrier film (as taught by Wagner ¶ [0024-0025]).
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure US patent publications US 20140246665 A1 (notably ¶ [0041]), US 20120162586 A1 (notably ¶ [0066]), US 20100276071 A1 (notably ¶ [0065]), US 20070222372 A1 (notably ¶ [0055]), and US patent US 7784954 B1 (notably Col. 18 lines 11-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights