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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung et al. (US20010052394A1).
Examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments that Ashe does discloses claimed density range. However, applicant’s IDS with associated fee (August 19, 2025) discloses Jung et al. (US20010052394A1). Jung et al. replaces the Ashe reference in the rejection.
Jung discloses it is known in the art to perform a CVD method that utilizes high density plasma where, a couple of electron volts (eV), can produce the high density plasma of 1.times.10.sup.11.about.2.times.10.sup.12 ions/cm.sup.3, at a RF current frequency between about 100 KHz from about 100 MHz. (¶7) Jung’s invention adjusts the configuration of the antenna coil to produce a more uniform plasma over the substrate.
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) 1,2,5,7-11,13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (US20050287686 A1; Won) in view of Lu et al. (US 20060148270 A1; Lu), and further in view of Jung et al. (US 20010052394 A1; Jung).
Regarding claim 1, Won discloses a method for depositing a barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN) comprising: placing a substrate (Fig. 3, 301; ¶26-29) in a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chamber …; and depositing the barrier layer over the substrate using…the high density plasma arrangement at a temperature of less than about 250 degrees Celsius (Fig. 3, ¶34) , a power frequency of about 2 MHz to about 13.56 MHz (¶48),
Won is silent on an ion bombarding energy of less than about 102 eV and, comprising a high density plasma arrangement; and a plasma density of about 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3.
Jung discloses it is known in the art to perform a CVD method that utilizes high density plasma where, a couple of electron volts (eV), can produce the high density plasma of 1.times.10.sup.11.about.2.times.10.sup.12 ions/cm.sup.3, at a RF current frequency between about 100 KHz from about 100 MHz. (¶7) Jung’s invention adjusts the configuration of the antenna coil to produce a more uniform plasma over the substrate.
Lu discloses a method of forming a barrier material on a substrate using high density plasma with a density of 10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3 (¶56 for producing a more stable film)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use low energy ions to achieve high deposition efficiency.
While, Lu does not expressly teach the range of 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3 some of its value ”10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3” fall within the claim range of 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) is a first barrier layer or a second barrier layer of a thin film encapsulation structure.
Regarding claim 5, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) is deposited using an inductively coupled plasma power frequency of about 2 MHz to about 13.56 MHz.(¶48 Won)
Regarding claim 7, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) , and silicon oxide, and wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms (¶28 Won), a refractive index between about 1.45 and 1.95 (¶49 Won), but is silent on and an absorption coefficient of about zero.
Applicant discloses the absorption coefficient is a function of the barrier layer thickness. Above 3000 angstroms leads to higher than desired coefficient. Applicant’s solution is to make the barrier layer thickness less than 3000 angstroms. Won discloses the claimed thickness and disclosed materials.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to interpret Won as disclosing the claimed absorption coefficient.
Regarding claim 8, Won discloses a thin film encapsulation structure, comprising: a first barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) deposited using a … CVD chamber, the first barrier layer comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, and silicon oxide, wherein the first barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms (¶28 Won), a refractive index between about 1.45 and 1.95 (¶49 Won), and an absorption coefficient of about zero; a buffer layer (¶28 Won) disposed on the first barrier layer; and a second barrier layer (¶28 Won) disposed on the buffer layer.
Won is silent on using a high density CVD process; an ion bombarding energy of less than about 102 eV.
Lu discloses a method of forming a barrier material on a substrate using high density plasma. (¶56 for producing a more stable film)
Jung discloses it is known in the art to perform a CVD method that utilizes high density plasma where, a couple of electron volts (eV), can produce the high density plasma of 1.times.10.sup.11.about.2.times.10.sup.12 ions/cm.sup.3, at a RF current frequency between about 100 KHz from about 100 MHz. (¶7) Jung’s invention adjusts the configuration of the antenna coil to produce a more uniform plasma over the substrate.
Won discloses the encapsulation layer comprises a stack in paragraph 28. “Exemplary materials of the encapsulating layer 305 of the invention include inorganic nitride film, inorganic oxide film, and polymer-type organic film deposited in the thickness range of about 500 .ANG. to about 20000 .ANG.. For example, silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxynitride (SiON), and silicon oxide (SiO), among others, can be used as the encapsulating material.”
Applicant discloses the absorption coefficient is a function of the barrier layer thickness. Above 3000 angstroms leads to higher than desired coefficient. Applicant’s solution is to make the barrier layer thickness less than 3000 angstroms. Won discloses the claimed thickness and disclosed materials.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use low energy ions for creating strong bonds between layers. Also, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a high density CVD process for producing a more stable barrier layer; interpret Won as disclosing the claimed absorption coefficient.
Regarding claim 9, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the first barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) comprises silicon nitride and has a refractive index between about 1.91 and about 1.95. (¶49 Won)
While, Won does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.91 and about 1.95 some of its value ”about 1.7 to about 1.9” fall within the claim range of about 1.91 and about 1.95, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “about 1.7 to about 1.9”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the second barrier layer (Fig. 1, 110; ¶18 stacks of silicon nitride Won) comprises silicon nitride (¶28 Silicon Nitride with Oxygen , SiON Won) and has a refractive index between about 1.91 and about 1.95. (¶49, about 1.7 to about 1.9 Won)
Paragraph 49 discloses silicon nitride films (SiN or SiON) exhibit film properties having a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 1.9. Examiner interprets a value of 1.9 is about 1.95.
Accordingly, while Won does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.91 and about 1.95 some of its value ”about 1.7- about 1.9” fall within the claim range of about 1.91 and about 1.95, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “about 1.7- about 1.9”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the first barrier layer or the second barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiON Won) comprises silicon oxynitride and has a refractive index between about 1.47 and about 1.84.
Paragraph 49 discloses silicon nitride films (SiN or SiON) exhibit film properties having a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 1.9. Examiner interprets a value of 1.9 is about 1.95.
Accordingly, while Won does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.47 and about 1.84 some of its value ”about 1.7 to about 1.9” fall within the claim range of about 1.47 and about 1.84, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “about 1.7- about 1.9”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the second barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiO Won) is deposited using the high density plasma CVD chamber (¶56 Lu), the second barrier layer comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, and silicon oxide.(¶28 SiON or SiO Won)
Therefore before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a high density CVD process for producing a more stable barrier layer
Regarding claim 14, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 13, wherein the second barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms (¶28 Won), a refractive index between about 1.45 and 1.95 (Fig. 3; ¶49 Won), and an absorption coefficient of about zero.
Applicant discloses the absorption coefficient is a function of the barrier layer thickness. Above 3000 angstroms leads to higher than desired coefficient. Applicant’s solution is to make the barrier layer thickness less than 3000 angstroms. Therefore since Won discloses the claimed thickness and disclosed materials. It is interpreted to possess the claimed absorption coefficient.
Regarding claim 15, Won discloses a method for depositing a barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN), comprising: placing a substrate (Fig. 3,301; ¶26-29) in a CVD chamber comprising…; and depositing the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN) over the substrate using the …at a temperature of less than about 250 degrees Celsius (Fig. 3, ¶34), an inductively coupled plasma power frequency of about 2 MHz to about 13.56 MHz (¶48), …, wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms (¶28), a refractive index between about 1.45 and 1.95 (¶49), and an absorption coefficient of about zero.
Won is silent on an ion bombarding energy of less than about 102 eV , using a high density plasma arrangement; and a plasma density of about 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3.
Jung discloses it is known in the art to perform a CVD method that utilizes high density plasma where, a couple of electron volts (eV), can produce the high density plasma of 1.times.10.sup.11.about.2.times.10.sup.12 ions/cm.sup.3, at a RF current frequency between about 100 KHz from about 100 MHz. (¶7) Jung’s invention adjusts the configuration of the antenna coil to produce a more uniform plasma over the substrate.
Applicant discloses the absorption coefficient is a function of the barrier layer thickness. Above 3000 angstroms leads to higher than desired coefficient. Therefore since Won discloses the claimed thickness and disclosed materials. It is interpreted to possess the claimed absorption coefficient.
Accordingly, while Won does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.45 and about 1.95 some of its value ”about 1.7 to about 1.9” fall within the claim range of about 1.45 and about 1.95, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “about 1.7 to about 1.9”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Lu discloses a method of forming a barrier material on a substrate using high density plasma with a density of 10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3 (¶56)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use low energy ions for creating strong bonds between layers.
While, Lu does not expressly teaches the range of 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3 some of its value ”10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3” fall within the claim range of 1011 cm3 to about 1012 cm3, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “10.sup.12-10.sup.14 ion/cm.sup.3”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won ) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, and silicon oxide. (¶28 Won)
Regarding claim 17, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) is deposited over a light emitting device (Fig. 3, 300; ¶26 Won)
Regarding claim 18, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305; ¶28,34,48,49 SiN Won) is a first barrier layer or a second barrier layer of a thin film encapsulation structure.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (US 20050287686 A1; Won) in view of Lu et al. (US 20060148270 A1; Lu), Jung et al. (US20010052394 A1; Jung), and further in view of Chung et al. (US 20170330923 A1; Chung).
Regarding claim 3, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the barrier layer is a passivation layer of a thin film transistor.
Chung discloses forming a barrier layer (Fig. 11, 110; ¶57 silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride) that is a passivation (a buffer layer is a passivation layer) layer (Fig. 11, 110; ¶147) in a TFT by HDP-CVD.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the passivation layer as a passivation layer for its suitability as a thin film dielectric.
Regarding claim 4, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the barrier layer is a gate insulation layer of a thin film transistor.
Chung discloses forming a barrier layer (Fig. 11, 130; ¶131 silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride) that is a gate insulation layer (Fig. 11, 130; ¶147)in a TFT by HDP-CVD.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer as a gate insulation layer for its suitability as a thin film dielectric.
Regarding claim 19, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the barrier layer is a passivation layer of a thin film transistor.
Chung discloses forming a barrier layer (Fig. 11, 110; ¶57 silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride) that is a passivation (a buffer layer is a passivation layer) layer (Fig. 11, 110; ¶147) in a TFT by HDP-CVD.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the passivation layer as a passivation layer for its suitability as a thin film dielectric.
Regarding claim 20, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the barrier layer is a gate insulation layer of a thin film transistor.
Chung discloses forming a barrier layer (Fig. 11, 130; ¶131 silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride) that is a gate insulation layer (Fig. 11, 130; ¶147) in a TFT by HDP-CVD.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer as a gate insulation layer for its suitability as a thin film dielectric.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US 20180331328 A1; Won) in view of Lu et al. (US 20060148270 A1; Lu), Jung et al. (US20010052394 A1; Jung), and further in view of Ito et al. (US11283043 B2; Ito).
Regarding claim 6, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the thin film encapsulation structure comprises a buffer layer (Fig. 3, 305 middle layer inorganic oxide film; ¶28) disposed on the first barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305 inorganic nitride film; ¶28) and the second barrier layer (Fig. 3, 305 polymer-type organic film; ¶28) disposed on the buffer layer, but is silent on wherein the buffer layer comprises an organosilicon compound
Ito discloses an encapsulation barrier layer comprising a buffer layer (Fig. 4, 102; column 14 lines 1-9) comprised of organosilicon compound for blocking gas..
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an organosilicon compound for use as a gas blocking layer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US 20180331328 A1; Won) in view of Lu et al. (US 20060148270 A1; Lu), Park et al. (US 20170236892 A1; Park), Jung et al. (US20010052394 A1; Jung), and further in view of Kwasnick et al. (US 5463225 A; Kwas).
Regarding claim 12, Won in view of Lu and Jung discloses the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, but is silent on wherein the first barrier layer or the second barrier layer comprises silicon oxide and has a refractive index of about 1.46.
Park discloses a display substrate where a silicon oxide barrier layer (Fig. 2, 105; ¶83) is formed by HDP-CVD. (Fig. 2, 105; ¶198). Park does not specifically state the refractive index of silicon oxide.
Kwas discloses forming a silicon oxide barrier layer (Fig. 1, 152; column 5 lines 5-7) having an index of refraction between 1.4-1.5, which is about 1.46.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use silicon oxide with an index of refraction of about 1.46 to provide robust barrier properties and optimal optical coupling.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on August 19, 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 LAWRENCE C TYNES JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-7606. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, 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 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.
/LAWRENCE C TYNES JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2899