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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2018/0153006) hereinafter “Ishida” in view of Zhai et al. (US 2019/0067643) hereinafter “Zhai”.
Regarding claim 31, Figs. 2 and 6 of Ishida teaches a display device (Paragraph 0001) comprising: a light emitting element (Item 14); a first inorganic encapsulation layer (Combination of Items 35 and 38) disposed on the light emitting element to cover the light emitting element, and including a first encapsulation layer (Item 35), a plasma treatment layer (Item 38; Paragraph 0118 where the layer is formed by plasma discharge; See Examiner’s Note below) disposed on the first encapsulation layer (Item 35), and a second encapsulation layer (Item 39) disposed on the plasma treatment layer (Item 38); an organic encapsulation layer (Item 32) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (Combination of Items 35 and 38); and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (Item 133) disposed on the organic encapsulation layer (Item 32); wherein the plasma treatment layer (Item 38) includes hydrogen-plasma-treated silicon oxynitride (Paragraph 0118 where hydrogen is present in the formation of the layer and Paragraph 0058 where the material of the first inorganic encapsulation layer is silicon oxynitride).
Ishida teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the second encapsulation layer includes: a high-oxygen region making direct contact with a bottom surface of the organic encapsulation layer; and a low-oxygen region located under the high-oxygen region, and wherein an average oxygen content per unit volume of the second encapsulation layer in the high-oxygen region is greater than an average oxygen content per unit volume of the second encapsulation layer in the low-oxygen region.
Zhai teaches where a silicon oxynitride layer (Item 50) has an oxygen gradient (Paragraph 0060) such that a high oxygen region and a low oxygen region exist in a same layer, where a oxygen content increases in gradient towards an outside of the device (Paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second encapsulation layer includes: a high-oxygen region making direct contact with a bottom surface of the organic encapsulation layer (which in Ishida is closer to an outside of the device than the second encapsulation layer); and a low-oxygen region located under the high-oxygen region, and where an average oxygen content per unit volume of the second encapsulation layer in the high-oxygen region is greater than an average oxygen content per unit volume of the second encapsulation layer in the low-oxygen region because this results in prevention of total reflection when light enters the device (Zhai Paragraph 0060).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that Item 38 in Fig. 6 of Ishida is a layer with the same characteristics (thickness, materials) as Item 34 in Fig. 6 (See Paragraph 0131)., Therefore, Ishida’s teaching of the formation of Item 34 is the same way in which Item 38 would be formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection of claims of 1, 3-11, 13-22, 24-26 and 28-30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the lower inorganic film 31 of Ishida includes first inorganic layer 34 and second inorganic layer 35 and thus, based on the characteristics of the respective layers and the goals in Ishida the combination does not teach the claimed structure. However, the Examiner does not find this argument persuasive as the Examiner did/does not identify the second encapsulation layer as being Item 35 but instead identifies the Item 35 as being the first encapsulation layer and Item 39 is identified as the second encapsulation layer. Item 39 does have similar structural characteristics to the Applicants claimed second encapsulation layer in that it is made of silicon oxynitride and contacts a bottom surface of an organic encapsulation layer (Item 32).When combined with Zhai in the manner stated in the rejection of claim 31 above the high oxygen content portion of Item 39 will be directly contacting the organic encapsulation layer and the low oxygen portion of Item 39 will be under the high oxygen portion. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive and the combination of Ishida and Jung teaches all of the elements of claim 31.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22, 24-26 and 28-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first encapsulation layer includes silicon oxynitride, wherein the first encapsulation layer includes :a first buffer region; and a first encapsulation region located over the first buffer region and under the first plasma treatment layer, and wherein an average oxygen content per unit volume of the first encapsulation layer in the first buffer region is greater than an average oxygen content per unit volume of the first encapsulation layer in the first encapsulation region along with the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 3-11 and 13-19 are also indicated as allowable as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first encapsulation layer includes silicon oxynitride, wherein the first encapsulation layer includes :a first buffer region; and a first encapsulation region located over the first buffer region and under the first plasma treatment layer, and wherein an average oxygen content per unit volume of the first encapsulation layer in the first buffer region is greater than an average oxygen content per unit volume of the first encapsulation layer in the first encapsulation region along with the other limitations of claim 20.
Claims 21, 22, 24-26 and 28-30 are also indicated as allowable as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
. Jung et al. (US 2017/0084635) also teaches a gradient in a silicon oxynitride buffer layer (Paragraphs 0084-0086). However, the gradient taught by Jung is opposite that of the Applicant’s claimed gradient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights