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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 21, 2026 has been entered.
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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 of claims 8-14 is made in view of Song ( US-20160343990-A1; Song).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song ( US-20160343990-A1; Song).
Regarding claim 8, Song disclose a thin film encapsulation structure, comprising: a substrate (Fig. 2, 100; ¶43); a light emitting device (Fig. 2, 200; ¶43) disposed over the substrate; a capping layer (Fig. 2, 400; ¶48) is disposed over the light emitting device and having a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 1.8 (1.6-3.0 ;¶77); a first barrier layer (Fig. 2, 311; ¶60-63) deposited over the capping layer the first barrier layer comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride , and silicon oxide (¶63), wherein the first barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms (10nm-50nm;¶67), a refractive index between about 1.4 to about 2.1 (1.5-2.0; ¶65), and an absorption coefficient of about zero (at the 10nm-50nm the UV absorption coefficient of a SiN layer in an optical device will be about zero); a buffer layer (Fig. 2, 321; ¶67) disposed on the first barrier layer, the buffer layer comprising an organosilicon compound or a polymer composed of hydrocarbon compounds;(polyethylene; ¶64) and a second barrier (Fig. 2, 312; ¶60-63) layer disposed on the buffer layer, the second barrier layer comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, and silicon oxide, (¶63) wherein the second barrier layer has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms, (10nm-50nm;¶67) and a refractive index between about 1.4 to about 2.1. (1.5-2.0; ¶65)
Regarding claim 9, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the first barrier layer (Fig. 2, 311; ¶60-63) comprises silicon nitride and has a refractive index between about 1.91 and about 1.95. (1.5-2.0; ¶65)
Regarding claim 10, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the second barrier layer (Fig. 2, 312; ¶60-63) comprises silicon nitride and has a refractive index between about 1.91 and about 1.95. (1.5-2.0; ¶65)
Regarding claim 13, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the second barrier layer (Fig. 2, 312; ¶60-63) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, and silicon oxide.
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) 12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song ( US-20160343990-A1; Song).
Regarding claim 12, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, wherein the first barrier layer (Fig. 2, 311; ¶60-63) or the second barrier layer (Fig. 2, 312; ¶60-63) comprises silicon oxide and has a refractive index of about 1.46. (1.5-2.0; ¶65)
The claimed “about 1.46” overlaps with 1.5. Therefore, while, Song does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.46 some of its value ” 1.5-2.0” fall within the claim range of about 1.46, 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 “1.5-2.0”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 13, wherein the second barrier layer (Fig. 2, 312; ¶60-63) has a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms, (10nm-50nm;¶67) a refractive index between about 1.45 and 1.95, (1.5-2.0; ¶65) and an absorption coefficient of about zero.
At the 10nm-50nm and index of refraction of 1.5-2.0, the UV absorption coefficient of a SiN layer in an optical device will be about zero.
Also, while, Song does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.45 and 1.95 some of its value ” 1.5-2.0” fall within the claim range of about 1.45 and 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 “1.5-2.0”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song ( US-20160343990-A1; Song), in view of Guo (US-20190198809-A1; Guo).
Regarding claim 11, Song disclose the thin film encapsulation structure of claim 8, but is silent on wherein the first barrier layer or the second barrier layer comprises silicon oxynitride and has a refractive index between about 1.47 and about 1.84.
Guo discloses an encapsulation structure comprising silicon oxynitride (Fig. 1, 30; ¶27-28) and has a refractive index between about 1.47 and about 1.84.(1.7-1.9; ¶27)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to us silicon oxynitride with an encapsulation layer due to it suitability as a known material in the art for protecting optical devices from damage. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP2144.07
Also, while, Guo does not expressly teaches the range of about 1.47 and about 1.84 some of its value ” 1.7-1.9” 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 “1.7-1.9”, as disclosed in prior art, to arrive at the recited limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of references (US US-20050287686-A1, US- 20060148270-A1, US-20010052394-A1) is persuasive. Accordingly, the prior art is replete with high density CVD applications performed in CVD chamber comprising showerheads, a power frequency of about 2 MHz to about 13.56 MHz, and at temperatures less than about 250 degrees Celsius. However, the art is silent on performing the method steps as claimed to form the claimed barrier layers of an encapsulation structure. Therefore, the art is silent on the limitations cited below in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 1, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: " an ion bombarding energy of less than about 102eV, a plasma density of about 1011 cm3 to about 1012cm3”, as recited in Claim 1, with the remaining features.
Regarding claim 15, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: " an ion bombarding energy of less than about 102eV, a plasma density of about 1011 cm3 to about 1012cm3”, as recited in Claim 15, with the remaining features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights