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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
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 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a display device comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a bank layer, an emissive layer, a second electrode, an encapsulation layer, where the encapsulation layer comprises at least one inorganic film and at least one organic film, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein an absorbance of the organic molecules of the organic film is measured in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction using Fourier transformation infrared spectrometer (FT-IR), and wherein the ratio between the absorbance of the organic molecules in the first direction and the absorbance of the organic molecules in the second direction is equal to or greater than 1.4”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. This is not information on how the films are made and that method of FT-IR is used to measure the absorbance. The method used to make the film can have a big effect on the structure and can have a large effect on the FT-IR spectrum. The method used could lead to different orientation’s of the molecules, if the molecules polymerize, and how thin the film is. The specification indicates that the orientation of the compound matters and it one direction the compound would be longer, but it unclear how the film is produced to get all the compound to align in a preferred way. It is unclear if the compound is polymerizing leading to an longer chain and this would appear in the FT-IR spectra as the polymerization of the compound would lead to an increase in C-H alkane bonds. The specification does not provide enough information to make a film to arrive at the applicant’s claimed ratio.
The Office also points out that the results in the specification are unclear as the application suggests that compound 2 meets the ratio, yet the error bars overlap with the absorbance in each direction could be the same and not meet the ratio. It is unclear from the specification what is the cause of the absorbance seen by the applicant as the results do not provide significant information to suggest the claimed films lead to the claimed ratio.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a display device comprising a substrate, a first electrode, a bank layer, an emissive layer, a second electrode, an encapsulation layer, where the encapsulation layer comprises at least one inorganic film and at least one organic film, does not reasonably provide enablement for the organic film containing organic molecules having an oval shape and where the organic molecules comprise formula 1 and formula 2. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification does not provide any information on how the oval organic compounds are made or the structure of the oval compounds. The specification indicates that the oval compounds are comprised of formula 1 and formula 2, but there formulas are directed to monomers and would not make oval structures. Even if the monomers could make the oval compounds, the specification does not provide any detail on how this occurs. There are no methods in the specification to show how this would occur or what the structure of the monomer needs to be to get the oval shape. The monomers of formula 1 and 2 would not just make ovals structures there would need to be other compounds present or solvents and there is no information in a specification mentioning the presence of other compounds or solvents. Furthermore, if the oval compounds are made from polymers derived from monomers of formula 1 and/or formula 2 then this is not clear in the specification and is not mention. It is known in the art that polymers when mixed with other polymers (depending on the properties of all the polymers) can self-assemble into different shapes and structures and could lead to the formations of ovals, but this is not trivial and there needs to be multiple polymers present and have different properties that would case the oval structure to be formed. The specification does not provide any information if polymers are present and if polymers are present the properties of the polymers needed to create the oval structure. Properties would be the size of the polymers, if the polymers are block copolymers, copolymers, homopolymers, the hydrophobicity, etc. The specification does not provide any of this information; therefore, one of ordinary skill it the art would not know how the create the oval organic compounds.
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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the oval organic molecules" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also regarding claim 28, it is unclear the makeup of the oval organic compounds. It is unclear if the oval organic compound is a single compound is a conglomerate of several compounds that are the compounds are the same or different. It is unclear if the compounds are small molecules or polymers. It is unclear if it is as single organic compound that needs to be an oval structure or the combination of several compounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 18, 21-26, and 30-32 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious the applicant’s claimed display device. The closest prior art, Lee et al. (US 2019/0155428) (hereafter “Lee”), teaches a display device comprising a substrate, a first electrode disposed on the substrate, a bank layer disposed on the substrate and comprising an opening exposing the first electrode, an emissive layer disposed on the first electrode exposed by the bank layer, a second electrode disposed on the bank layer and the emissive layer, an encapsulation layer disposed on the second electrode, and a touch layer disposed on the encapsulation layer (paragraphs [0043], [0044], and [0055]-[0069], Fig. 2).
Lee does not teach the structure of the encapsulation layer.
The prior art Nam et al. (US 2015/0364690) (hereafter “Nam”) teaches an encapsulation layer for use over an organic light emitting device and for use in display devices (paragraph [0006]). Nam teaches that the encapsulation layer comprises at least one inorganic film and one organic film (paragraph [0024]). Nam teaches that the organic film comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
74
173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1 can be CH12 (paragraphs [0020] and [0104]).
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious the applicant’s claimed dielectric constant of the material used. The applicant showed in the specification that the chemical structure is important to the dielectric constant and the prior art does not teach or make obvious that the dielectric constant of the taught materials will fall within the applicant’s claimed range. Given the lack of teachings in the prior art claims 12, 18, 21-26, and 30-32 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759