DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s rely and request for continued examination (RCE), filed 7 July 2026 in response to the Final Office action mailed 7 April 2026, has been entered and fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-14 are pending, wherein: claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claims 2-9 and 11-14 are as originally filed.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 July 2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US PGPub 2016/0118620) in view of Okazaki (US PGPub 2004/0171867).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-10, Yoo teaches encapsulated organic electronic devices (OEDs) comprising a multi-layer encapsulation film which comprises, in top-down stacking order (instant claim 9), a moisture barrier layer (instant third layer), a crack barrier layer (instant second layer) and a further separate laminating layer (instant first layer) ([0014]-[0016]; [0021]-[0024]; [0070]-[0071]; Figs), and wherein the encapsulation film is applied to the top surface of an OED, preferably an organic light emitting diode (OLED), on a substrate ([0015]; [0091]; Fig4).
Yoo further teaches the moisture barrier layer (instant third layer)) contains a moisture absorbent ([0040]-[0046])(instant hygroscopic getter), including CaO ([0044])(instant claim 3).
Yoo teaches the moisture barrier layer, the crack barrier layer, and the laminating layer comprise polymer base resins selected from the same encapsulating resins which may be the same for each layer ([0024]; [0027]-[0032]; [0049]). Yoo teaches preferred encapsulating resins include olefin-based resins and elastomers, preferably polyisobutylene resins or elastomers ([0028]; [0031])(instant claims 4-5 and 8), said teaches the resins as having a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,000,000 ([0032])(instant claims 6-7).
Yoo teaches the encapsulating film as noted and teaches selection/inclusion of a curable resin ([0033]) that can be cured to exhibit adhesive characteristics ([0034]-[0035]) and teaches the crack barrier layer (instant second layer) can include such curable materials ([0050]-[0051]). Yoo does not specifically teach compounds represented by instant Formula 1 (instant claim 1) or instant Formulas 2 thru 7 (instant claim 10). However, Okazaki teaches curable compounds, suitable for use as curable coating agents, comprising a carboxylic group-containing acrylate monomer modified by a small amount of lactones of VIII-3 ([0012]; [0050]-[0053]; [0145]-[0147]):
PNG
media_image1.png
164
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein R, R1, R2 and R3 are hydrogen or methyl, R4 and R5 are hydrogen or an alkyl of 1-12 carbons, ‘j’ is an integer of 2-6, ‘x’ is an integer of 4-7, R9 is a residual group of the carboxylic acid, ‘m’ is an integer of 1-3 and ‘n’ is not less than 1 (instant claim 1). Okazaki teaches VIII-3 is obtained by modifying a hydroxyalkyl(meth)acrylate with lactones, where the hydroxyalkyl(meth)acrylate is preferably hydroxyethyl(meth)acrylate and the lactone is ε-caprolactone (abstract; [0020]; [0084]-[0085]), followed by modification with a carboxylic acid or anhydride ([0146]) selected from carboxylic acids including tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, etc. and anhydrides thereof ([0722])(instant claim 10: F3, F4, F7). Okazaki teaches these compounds are advantageous in that they improve adhesion to resins and inorganic compounds ([0732]). Okazaki and Yoo are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable acrylic-based resin materials capable of being cured by ultraviolet rays or electron beams. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the compounds of VIII-3 of Okazaki as the curable materials of Yoo and would have been motivated to do so as Yoo invites the inclusion of curable materials in the crack layer for the purpose of imparting adhesive properties as well as improving layer durability and processability ([0035]; [0051]) and further as Okazaki teaches such compounds advantageously improve resin adhesion ([0732]).
Yoo does not specifically state that the crack barrier layer (instant second layer) will have selective permeability that transmits moisture and blocks oxygen. However, Yoo in view of Okazaki renders obvious the crack barrier layer comprising the compounds of Okazaki. The instant specification states that it is the compounds of instantly claimed Formula 1 (met by Okazaki) that are directly responsible for imparting to the layer properties of blocking oxygen and transmitting moisture (instant original specification [0078]). It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 2, Yoo in view of Okazaki render obvious the device as set forth above. Yoo further teaches thicknesses of the layers included in the encapsulation film are not limited and further teaches preferably the thickness of the crack barrier layer is approximately 1 to 20 µm (instant second layer thickness) and the thickness of the moisture barrier layer is approximately 5 to 200 µm (instant third layer thickness). Yoo teaches the crack barrier layer or the laminating layer are the layers that are in contact with the OED upon encapsulation and when the laminating layer is present it is below the crack barrier layer (i.e. is the layer directly in contact with the OED) ([0017]; [0040]; [0049]), where the crack layer is of smaller thickness than the moisture barrier layer to balance damage factor and moisture preventability of the moisture barrier layer ([0076]). As such it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a laminating layer thickness from the same range as the crack barrier thickness given the laminating layer is present for a similar reason as the crack layer and is subject to similar size and effect considerations, and may further comprise the same materials. In addition or in the alternative, it would be obvious to change the size/proportion of the laminating layer of Yoo as changes in size/proportion are found to be prima facie obvious and do not render the instant claims patentable (see MPEP 2144.04; see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USQP 237 (CCPA 1955); see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 11, Yoo in view of Okazaki render obvious the device as set forth above. As Okazaki teaches compounds which read upon the compounds of Formula 1, it is held that the compounds of Okazaki will have weight average molecular weights that substantially overlap with and render taught or obvious the claimed weight average molecular weight, absent evidence to the contrary (MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 12, Yoo in view of Okazaki render obvious the device as set forth above. Yoo further teaches the encapsulating film may further comprise a first base/release layer film upon which the encapsulating film is formed and/or may further comprise a second cover film that is form on the encapsulating film ([0067]-[0068]; [0073]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Yoo in view of Okazaki render obvious the device as set forth above. Yoo further teaches the formation of a transparent electrode on the substrate, an organic material layer formed thereon comprising, a second electrode formed on the organic material layer and the encapsulating film applied to the top surface of the OED to cover its entire surface ([0084]-[0091]; FIG 4)(the location of the OED on the substrate being readable over ‘a display area’ and the remainder of the substrate being readable over ‘a non-display area’ as claimed). As taught by Yoo the lowest layer (crack barrier layer or laminating layer) is the layer which fully contacts the OED and the additional layers are present above (see above; Fig 4+Fig 2).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn a as result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-14 as unpatentable over Yoo (US PGPub 2016/0118620) in view of Okazaki (US PGPub 2004/0171867) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 6-9) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 6-7) that neither Yoo nor Okazaki teach or render obvious the as-amended claimed properties of ‘selective permeability that transmits moisture and blocks oxygen’. The Examiner notes that the instant specification states that it is the compounds of instantly claimed Formula 1 (met by Okazaki) that are directly responsible for imparting to the layer properties of blocking oxygen and transmitting moisture (instant original specification [0078]). It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)). As such, a layer comprising the noted compounds will necessarily have the properties of selective permeability in transmitting moisture and blocking oxygen, as demonstrated by the instant specification.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 8-9) the Examiner’s analysis of Okazaki is ‘chemically unsound’ and ignores the ‘mandatory carboxyl group’ and further that the instant formula ‘consists of an alkyl or aryl group A substituted only with a hydroxyl group’. This is not persuasive, Applicant’s interpretation of the claimed formula is improperly narrow, and the Examiner in no way ignores the formula of Okazaki nor does the Examiner ignore Okazaki’s explanation of formula VIII-3. As noted previously, claim 1 requires only that the A group of instant Formula 1 contain an OH group bond, and A is not limited in terms of substituted/unsubstituted/etc., nor is the OH group limited to a terminal location or as being the ‘only’ substituent of A. Okazaki teaches that Formula VIII is obtained by modifying a hydroxyalkyl(meth)acrylate (i.e. hydroxyethyl(meth)acrylate) with a lactone (i.e. ε-caprolactone)(see [0020], [0084]-[0085]) followed by further reaction with a carboxylic acid or anhydride (note: tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, etc.) ([0146]; [0722]). In the VIII-3 formula of Okazaki, the R9 group is taught to be a residual group of the carboxylic acid/anhydride used in the modification step, which includes carboxylic acids, or anhydrides thereof, whose residue would include at least one -OH group (again noting, tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, etc. of [0722]) thus meeting the instant recitation of an -OH group bound to an ‘A’.
It is again further noted that the method of Okazaki to produce the compounds of VIII-3 is substantially the same as the instantly described method wherein 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (i.e. a hydroxyalkyl(meth)acrylate) is reacted with ε-caprolactone (i.e. a lactone) and the result of that then reacted with gluconic acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, salicylic acid, lactic acid, or malic acid (i.e. a carboxylic acid) (see preparation examples 1-6, instant original specification pages 17-19) thus rendering A of instant formula I a residual group of a carboxylic acid. As such, Applicant’s argument that the compounds of the instant Formula I and Okazaki Formula VIII-3 are structurally and chemically different is not found persuasive.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights