DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 12 are not persuasive. Regarding claim 12, applicant’s argument on page 14 that Do and Kim do not teach the recited amendment of the fabrication method of forming the polymer thin film that “by coating the photo-curable precursor on the surfaces of the hydrophobic oil and the partition wall followed by a curing reaction, or by filling the housing structure with a liquid in which the photo-curable precursor is mixed with the hydrophobic oil followed by a curing reaction of a phase-separated photo-curable precursor” because Do and Kim do not teach the later alternative that requires the phase separated photo-curable precursor. However, Do and Kim do teach the former alternative that only requires coating and curing of the photo-curable precursor.
Fig. 1 of Do discloses the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) is formed by coating on the surfaces of the hydrophobic oil 9 and the partition wall 8. Do does not disclose a photo-curable precursor, followed by a curing reaction. However, Kim discloses a photo-curable precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]), followed by a curing reaction (“photocured”, par [0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim. Thus, claim 12 remains rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (KR 20050006558A) (“Do”), Kim et al. (US 2022/0275260) (“Kim”), and Keite-Telgenbuscher et al. (US 2015/0240134) (“Keite”).
With regard to claim 1, fig. 1 of Do discloses an encapsulated organic light emitting device 100 comprising: a plurality of organic light emitting devices 100 formed on a substrate 1; a partition wall 8 disposed to separate the plurality of organic light emitting devices 100; a hydrophobic oil 9 filling a housing structure 8 defined by the partition wall 8; a polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) formed on surfaces of the hydrophobic oil 9 and the partition wall 8; and a multi-film (“multilayer film”, par [0039]) laminated on the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]).
Do does not disclose a photo-curable precursor, wherein the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous fluorine-based oil.
However, Kim discloses a photo-curable precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]).
Kim does not disclose wherein the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous fluorine-based oil.
However, Keite discloses that the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous (“amorphous rubberlike copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene”, par [0031]) fluorine-based oil (“tetrafluoroethylene”, par [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the liquid oil of Do with the tetrofluoroethylene as taught in Keite in order to prevent permeate. See abstract of Keite.
With regard to claims 3 and 14, fig. 2 of Do discloses that the hydrophobic oil 9 has a refractive index of 1.29 to 1.6 (“perfluoropolyether oil”, par [0041], refractive index of ~1.29), a contact angle with water of 90 degrees or more, and a specific gravity of 1.2 or more (“perfluoropolyether oil”, PAR [0041]; specific gravity of ~1.86),
Do and Kim do not disclose the amorphous fluorine-based oil comprises tetrafluoroethylene, trifluoroethylene, difluoroethylene, 2,2-bisfluoromethyl-4,5-difluoro-1,3-dixole, and chlorotrifluoroethylene.
However, Keite discloses the amorphous fluorine-based oil comprises tetrafluoroethylene (“amorphous rubberlike copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene”, par [0031]), trifluoroethylene, difluoroethylene, 2,2-bisfluoromethyl-4,5-difluoro-1,3-dixole, and chlorotrifluoroethylene.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the liquid oil of Do with the tetrofluoroethylene as taught in Keite in order to prevent permeate. See abstract of Keite.
With regard to claim 4, fig. 2 of Do discloses that the polymer thin film (“organic film”, par [0039]) has a thickness of 1 m or less (“.001 um the organic layer”, par [039]).
Do does not disclose that the polymer thin film is formed by coating the photo-curable precursor on the surfaces of the hydrophobic oil and the partition wall followed by a curing reaction, or by filling the housing structure with a liquid in which the photo-curable precursor is mixed with the hydrophobic oil followed by a curing reaction of a phase-separated photo-curable precursor.
Applicant's claim 4 does not distinguish over the Do reference regardless of the process used to form the polymer thin film because only the final product is relevant, not the process of making such as by coating the photo-curable precursor on the surfaces of the hydrophobic oil and the partition wall followed by a curing reaction, or by filling the housing structure with a liquid in which the photo-curable precursor is mixed with the hydrophobic oil followed by a curing reaction of a phase-separated photo-curable precursor.
Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974), In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The use of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 5, Do does not disclose that the photo-curable is a mixture in which one or more of a reactive precursor, a photoinitiator, and an additive are combined.
However, Kim discloses that the photo-curable precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]) is a mixture in which one or more of a reactive precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]), a photoinitiator, and an additive (“photoreactive siloxane additive”, par [0079]) are combined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 6, Do does not disclose that the reactive precursor has a specific gravity of 1.0 to 1.2 and has less miscibility and specific gravity than the hydrophobic oil, and the reactive precursor comprises one or more of 1,6-hexandiol diacrylate (HAD), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), 2-ethylheeth acrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), methyl methacrylate (MMA), methacrylate (MA), isobornyl acrylate (IOBA), 2-(2-ethoxyethoxy) ethyl acrylate (EOEOEA), triethylopropane triacrylate (TMPTA), trimethylolpropane dially ether (TMPDE), tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate (TPGDA), pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDA), triethylopropane trimethacrylate (TMPTMA), 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate (2-PEA), trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate (TMPEOTA), tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate (THFA), and urethane diacrylate.
However, Kim discloses that the reactive precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]) has a specific gravity of 1.0 to 1.2 (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate has a specific gravity of about 1.1) and has less miscibility and specific gravity than the hydrophobic oil (1.1 less than 1.86), and the reactive precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]) comprises one or more of 1,6-hexandiol diacrylate (HAD), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), 2-ethylheeth acrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA) (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]), methyl methacrylate (MMA), methacrylate (MA), isobornyl acrylate (IOBA), 2-(2-ethoxyethoxy) ethyl acrylate (EOEOEA), triethylopropane triacrylate (TMPTA), trimethylolpropane dially ether (TMPDE), tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate (TPGDA), pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDA), triethylopropane trimethacrylate (TMPTMA), 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate (2-PEA), trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate (TMPEOTA), tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate (THFA), and urethane diacrylate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 7, Do does not disclose that the photoinitiator has a weight of 0.1% to 10% of the polymer thin film and is a mixture of two or more UV curing agents.
However, Kim discloses that the photoinitiator has a weight of 0.1% to 10% (“photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total sum of the urethane-based resin”, claim 11) of the polymer thin film (“urethane-based resin”, claim 11) and is a mixture of two or more UV curing agents (“polyol and an isocyanate-based curing agent”, claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 8, Do does not disclose that the curing reaction uses ultraviolet rays having a wavelength in a range of 300 nm to 400 nm, and uses photocuring energy of 20 mJ to 2000 mJ.
However, Kim discloses that the curing reaction (“photocured”, par [0080]) uses ultraviolet rays (“light source (black light)”, par [0080]) having a wavelength in a range of 300 nm to 400 nm (black light has a wavelength around 365-400nm) and uses photocuring energy of 20 mJ to 2000 mJ (“700 mJ/cm.sup.2”, par [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 9, fig. 1 of Kim disclose that the multi-film (11, 10) is formed by laminating an encapsulation layer 11 on an adhesive sheet 10 comprising one of a double-sided adhesive 10 made using a double-sided adhesive film 10 and the double-sided adhesive film 10, and the encapsulation layer 11 is one of an encapsulation film 11 which is a film in which plastic and inorganic material are laminated or a multilayer film formed by laminating only the inorganic material (“inorganic layer”, par [0008]), and a glass substrate (“glass”, par [0040]).
With regard to claims 10 and 18, fig. 1 of Kim discloses that the double-sided adhesive film 10 is coated with an adhesive layer 10 comprising only one polymer of acrylate (“acrylate-based resin”, par [0034]) and epoxy-based polymers, and the double-sided adhesive 10 is formed by repeating a structure in which the adhesive layer 10, a support for supporting the adhesive layer 10, and the adhesive layer 10 are laminated.
With regard to claims 11 and 19, fig. 1 of Kim discloses that the encapsulated organic light emitting device further comprises a moisture absorption layer (“moisture absorption layer”, par [0034]) for absorbing moisture and oxygen in the atmosphere between the encapsulation layer 11 and the adhesive sheet 10, or a moisture absorbent is added (“adhesive sheet with an absorbent is added”, par [0035]) to the double-sided adhesive.
With regard to claim 12, fig. 1 of Kim discloses a fabrication method of fabricating an encapsulated organic light emitting device 10, the fabrication method comprising: forming a plurality of organic light emitting devices 100 on a substrate 1; forming a partition wall 8 disposed to separate the plurality of organic light emitting devices 100; filling a housing structure 200 defined by the partition wall 8 with a hydrophobic oil 9; forming a polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) on surfaces of the hydrophobic oil 9 and the partition wall 8; and laminating a multi-film (“multilayer film”, par [0039]) on the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]), wherein the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) has a thickness of 1 um or less (“.001 um the organic layer”, par [039]), and the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) is formed by coating on the surfaces of the hydrophobic oil 9 and the partition wall 8.
Do does not disclose a photo-curable precursor, followed by a curing reaction.
However, Kim discloses a photo-curable precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]), followed by a curing reaction (“photocured”, par [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 16, Do does not disclose that the photo-curable precursor is a mixture in which one or more of a reactive precursor, a photoinitiator, and an additive are combined, the reactive precursor has a specific gravity of 1.0 to 1.2 and has less miscibility and specific gravity than the hydrophobic oil, and the photoinitiator has a weight of 0.1% to 10% of the polymer thin film and is a mixture of two or more UV curing agents.
However, Kim discloses that the photo-curable precursor is a mixture in which one or more of a reactive precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]), a photoinitiator (“photoinitiator”, par [0056]), and an additive are combined, the reactive precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]) has a specific gravity of 1.0 to 1.2 (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate has a specific gravity of about 1.1) and has less miscibility and specific gravity than the hydrophobic oil (1.1 less than 1.86), and the photoinitiator has a weight of 0.1% to 10% (“photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total sum of the urethane-based resin”, claim 11) of the polymer thin film (“urethane-based resin”, claim 11) and is a mixture of two or more UV curing agents (“polyol and an isocyanate-based curing agent”, claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
With regard to claim 17, fig. 1 of Do discloses that the multi-film (11, 10) is formed by laminating one of a double-sided adhesive 10 made using a double-sided adhesive film 10 and the double-sided adhesive film 10 on an encapsulation layer 11, and the encapsulation layer is one of an encapsulation film and a glass substrate.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (KR 20050006558A) (“Do”), Kim et al. (US 2022/0275260) (“Kim”), Keite-Telgenbuscher et al. (US 2015/0240134) (“Keite”), and Liu (US 2021/0066412).
With regard to claims 2 and 13, Do, Kim, and Keite do not disclose that the height of the partition wall is 0.5 um to 5 um, and the partition wall is a trapezoidal pixel defining layer (PDL) with a lower portion wider than an upper portion.
However, fig. 1 of Liu discloses that the height of the partition wall 2 is 0.5 um to 5 um (“1 um to 5 um”, par [0014]), and the partition wall 2 is a trapezoidal pixel defining layer (PDL) 2 with a lower portion wider than an upper portion (trapezoidal shape of 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first member of Do with the pixel defining layer as taught in Liu in order to fabricate a conventional organic light emitting device with inkjet printing ink. See par [0004] of Liu.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (KR 20050006558A) (“Do”), Kim et al. (US 2022/0275260) (“Kim”), Keite-Telgenbuscher et al. (US 2015/0240134) (“Keite”), and Kwak et al. (US 2015/0014663) (“Kwak”).
With regard to claim 20, fig. 1 of Do discloses a display comprising: an encapsulated organic light emitting device 100; wherein the encapsulated organic light emitting device 100 comprises: a plurality of organic light emitting devices 100 formed on the substrate 1; a partition wall 8 disposed to separate the plurality of organic light emitting devices 100; a hydrophobic oil 9 filling a housing structure 200 defined by the partition wall 8; a polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]) formed on surfaces of the hydrophobic oil 9 and the partition wall 8; and a multi-film (“multilayer film”, par [0039]) laminated on the polymer thin film (“organic layer”, par [0036]).
Do does not disclose a thin film transistor (TFT) inserted between a substrate of the encapsulated organic light emitting device and an organic light emitting device; using a photo-curable precursor, wherein the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous fluorine-based oil.
Do does not disclose using a photo-curable precursor.
However, Kim discloses using a photo-curable precursor (“2-hydroxyethyl acrylate”, par [0078]).
Kim does not disclose a thin film transistor (TFT) inserted between a substrate of the encapsulated organic light emitting device and an organic light emitting device, wherein the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous fluorine-based oil.
However, Keite discloses that the hydrophobic oil is fluorine oil including an amorphous fluoropolymer, or amorphous (“amorphous rubberlike copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene”, par [0031]) fluorine-based oil (“tetrafluoroethylene”, par [0031]).
Keite does not disclose a thin film transistor (TFT) inserted between a substrate of the encapsulated organic light emitting device and an organic light emitting device.
However, fig. 8 of Kwak discloses a thin film transistor (TFT) TFT inserted between a substrate 100 of the encapsulated organic light emitting device 1000f and an organic light emitting device 220.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic layer of Do with the resin as taught in Kim in order to provide a surface protective film having reduced peel strength and an improved adhesive strength retention rate. See par [0002] of Kim.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the liquid oil of Do with the tetrofluoroethylene as taught in Keite in order to prevent permeate. See abstract of Keite.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the organic light emitting device of Do with the TFT as taught in Kwak in order to drive the organic light emitting device. See par [0049] of Kwak.
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 BENJAMIN T LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at 571 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN TZU-HUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893