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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-10, and 14-21 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
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, 6-10, 14, 15,17, 18, and 22-24 (all pending claims) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-43058 (herein referred to as “LG”) in view of WO2015/151224 (herein referred to as “Lintec”) and WO 2018/179213 (herein US 2019/0363290 is relied upon as an English Equivalent of said document and is referred to as “Watanabe”)
With regards to claims 1 and 6, LG teaches (fig. 8) a display device (0058)comprising:
an active area AA (corresponding to "display area") having a plurality of pixels (0025); a non-active area NA (corresponding to "frame area") surrounding the active area AA (0024); a drive transistor TD (corresponding to "thin-film transistor layer") (0026);
a light emitting-element layer (0009) which comprises a plurality of light emitting elements (0002) formed on the drive transistor TD in the active area AA (0009). The light emitting element includes a first electrode, a light-emitting layer, and a second electrode (0037) and emit light of a different color (0040);
and an encapsulation unit 150 (corresponding to "sealing layer") sealing the light emitting element layer and disposed on the light emitting layer. The sealing unit 150 comprises a first inorganic sealing layer 152 (corresponding to "first inorganic sealing film") disposed on the light emitting layer and an organic sealing layer 154 (corresponding to "organic sealing film") disposed on the first inorganic sealing layer 152 (0059).
LG teaches the encapsulation unit may further include a second inorganic sealing layer 156 (corresponding to "second inorganic sealing film") disposed on the organic sealing layer 154 (0060). The first inorganic sealing layer 152 and the second inorganic sealing layer 156 each including at least one of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy; x>y), and silicon nitride-oxide (SiNxOy; x>y).
With regards to claims 7, LG teaches the polymer compounds may be an acrylic-based polymer (0061).
With regards to claims 18 and 24, LG teaches the invention comprises an OLED (002); the light emitting elements are therefore understood to be organic light emitting diodes.
With regards to claim 19, LG teaches the encapsulation unit may further include a second inorganic sealing layer 156 (corresponding to "second inorganic sealing film") disposed on the organic sealing layer 154 (0060)
With regards to claims 20 and 21, LG teaches the first inorganic sealing layer 152 and the second inorganic sealing layer 156 each including at least one of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy; x>y), and silicon nitride-oxide (SiNxOy; x>y).
LG is relied upon as above, but fails to teach the acryl polymer used in the sealing layer should comprise an acryl polymer and a cyclic compound. However, Lintec teaches a (meth)acrylic composition useful for making tables and touchscreens wherein the (meth)acryl composition comprises cyclodextrin (abstract, 0009) such compositions have good balance between dielectric constants and improved resistance to moisture and whitening (abstract, 0008). Lintec teaches the claimed (meth)acrylate ester (for present claims 8-10) wherein m is 1-20 (0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the composition of Lintec as the acyl composition disclosed in LG. The motivation for doing so would have been Lintec’s composition comprising (meth)acryl resin and a cyclodextrin has improved dielectric constants, and resistance to moisture and whitening.
LG also does not teach the claimed thicknesses of the inorganic and organic encapsulation layers. However, Watanabe teaches a display device comprises a stack of in organic and organic encapsulation layers (107). Watanabe teaches the inorganic layers have a moisture proof function to inhibit the infiltration of moisture (0108) and the organic layer is used as a buffer layer to relieve stress in the inorganic layers (109). The organic layer has a thickness greater than the inorganic layers (0111), which has a thickness of 500-1500nm (0145). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the inorganic and organic encapsulation films disclosed n LG. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the moisture barrier properties and stress relief properties of the encapsulation film
With regards to claim 17, Lintec teaches the amount of cyclodextrin is a result effective variable (0049) controlling the dielectric constant, moisture resistance, whitening resistance, and adhesion (0049). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative amount of cyclodextrin added to the composition in order to optimize the dielectric constant, moisture resistance, whitening resistance, and adhesion of the composition.
With regards to claims 22 and 23, LG is relied upon as above, but does not teach the claimed thicknesses of the inorganic and organic encapsulation layers. However, Watanabe teaches a display device comprises a stack of in organic and organic encapsulation layers (107). Watanabe teaches the inorganic layers have a moisture proof function to inhibit the infiltration of moisture (0108) and the organic layer is used as a buffer layer to relieve stress int eh inorganic layers (109). The organic layer has a thickness greater than the inorganic layers (0111), which has a thickness of 500-1500nm (0145). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the inorganic and organic encapsulation films disclosed in LG. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the moisture barrier properties and stress relief properties of the encapsulation film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regards to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as allegedly being unpatentable for obviousness over LG (Japanese Publication No. JP2020-43058, hereinafter "LG")
in view of Lintec (International Publication No. WO2015/151224, hereinafter "Lintec"), applicant argues Amended independent claim 1 recites “the organic sealing film has a thickness of 0.2 µm to 2.3 µm, both inclusive” which was previously recited in dependent claim 16. Applicant argues the Office Action concedes that LG fails to disclose such a feature and Lintec was not cited in such a capacity and relies upon the combination of LG and Lintec with Watanabe to render obvious the limitations of claim 16.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the examiner’s position. Specifically, applicant argues Watanabe (in the sections cited by the examiner) does not describe any actual values of the thickness of the organic layer 32. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as the examiner never relied upon Watanabe to recite actual thickness values. Rather, the examiner took the position Watanabe teaches the thickness of said layer are result effective variables that could have been optimized by the skilled artisan. Applicant notes Watanabe, in paragraph [0147], provides an exemplary thickness. Said argument is not persuasive, however, as a reference may be relied upon for all that it fairly teaches and is not limited to exemplary or preferred embodiments disclosed therein. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims remain rejected for the reasons noted herein.
Newly Added Claims 22-24
Said claims are not allowable for the reasons noted in the rejection above.
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights