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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed 5/14/2026 are entered and have
been fully considered. Applicant has cancelled claim 5 and amended claim 1 to incorporate claim 5. Due to the amendment of claim 1, the previous rejections over Yoshida (JP2012241147) and Hasegawa (WO2020196240) have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the method claims 12-16 to overcome the 112b rejection, therefore it is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1 because it states the epoxy resin comprises a bisphenol structure, which is an aromatic structure, whereas claim 1 states the epoxy resin comprises a hydrogenated BPA epoxy, which is alicyclic. It appears claim 3 is changing the species of the epoxy in claim 1 and therefore does not further limit claim 1. For the purposes of evaluating the claim against the prior art, examiner presumes the epoxy resin of claim 1 comprises the hydrogenated BPA epoxy resin and further comprises an epoxy resin with a bisphenol structure.
Claim 4 does not further limit claim 1 because it states the epoxy resin comprises an alicyclic epoxy resin, whereas in claim 1, the hydrogenated BPA epoxy resin already has an alicyclic structure.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al, CN112292435A.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hasegawa teaches sealant compositions for sealing electronic components which have a storage modulus of 108Pa (0.1GPa) or greater after curing, ¶[0025]. Specifically Hasegawa teaches in example 11, ¶[0361], a phenoxy resin ZX-1356-2 with a Tg of 72°C is mixed with an epoxy resin, which Hasegawa states is the same epoxy as examples 10, 9, and 8, and example 8 states that it is a hydrogenated BPA diglycidyl ether type resin, ¶[0355], which reads on the claimed epoxy and phenoxy resins.
In table 1 of the original document, the storage modulus of example 11 is shown at 23°C (in the uncured state) and at -20°C and 90°C in the cured state (table 1 page 24). The storage modulus is 4x109 Pa to 1x109 Pa which is equal to 4 Gpa and 1 GPa for those temperatures. Hasegawa teaches in ¶[0377] that the storage modulus at room temperature (23°C) after curing will be the midpoint of the two, which means for example 11 the midpoint is 2.5 GPa, anticipating the claimed range in addition to the measurements at -20°C and 90°C falling within the claimed range.
Hasegawa does not explicitly state the glass transition temperatures of the cured sealant, however when the claimed composition and prior art composition are substantially the same, the properties of the composition would be expected to be inherent. Hasegawa teaches the same epoxy, phenoxy resins, and other ingredients such as the curing catalysts and silane coupling agent as applicant, therefore one of ordinary skill is reasonably suggested that the cured compositions of Hasegawa have the claimed Tg because applicant's examples have a Tg greater than 60°C.
The phrase “for a flexible device” in the preamble is an intended use of the resin composition; Hasegawa teaches the resin composition as claimed but does not specify it is for a flexible device, because it is an intended use, it satisfies the claim. Additionally Hasegawa teaches that the product can be rolled up for storage or transport ¶[0220], which suggests it is flexible and can therefore be applied to flexible substrates.
Regarding claim 2, the Hydrogenated BPA diglycidyl ether of examples 8 and 11 has a molecular weight of 357 g/mol ¶[0355], the equivalent is 357/2 = 178.5 g/eq.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hasegawa teaches adding a silane coupling agent ¶[0189-0208], photoinitiators ¶[0184], and cationic initiators ¶[0355]; and that it can be cured by infrared radiation which reads on the energy ray of claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-11, Hasegawa teaches the sealant has excellent adhesive strength after curing, ¶[0240] which reads on the adhesive, and Hasegawa teaches the sealant layer is formed as a sheet in between two release films, ¶[0219] comprising the sealant composition, which reads on the film-like adhesive. The phrase “for a flexible device” is an intended use of the adhesive, as such, Hasegawa’s film-like adhesive satisfies the claim. This also reads on the adhesive sheet of claim 9 because the release films are flexible substrates, such as plastic/resin films and polyethylene-paper laminates ¶¶[0226, 0264]. The sealant composition is applied to the substrate by casting ¶[0231] in a thickness of 1-50µm ¶[0221], which reads on the thickness of claims 10-11. Hasegawa further teaches laminating the sealant onto metal foil film and bonding them using a laminator, ¶[0333].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al, CN112292435A.
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa teaches the invention according to claim 1 explained above. Hasegawa further teaches epoxy resins with bisphenol A structures ¶[0084] and teaches that the cyclic ether compounds can be used in combination of two or more ¶[0107]. The limitation of a bisphenol structure is interpretated to mean the aromatic version of bisphenol such as bisphenol A or F, and not the alicyclic type that is already a part of hydrogenated BPA.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined an epoxy resin with a bisphenol structure (the aromatic version) with the hydrogenated bisphenol A and phenoxy resin of example 11 with the motivation of producing the predictable result of another permutation of a sealant composition for sealing electronics with a storage modulus of 108 or greater as taught by Hasegawa.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al, CN112292435A in view of Bae et al, US 20180171188A1.
Regarding claims 12-14, Hasegawa teaches the invention according to claims 1, 8, and 9 as explained above. Hasegawa further teaches producing a device comprising removing the release films on the adhesive sheet, and then disposing the sheet composed of the sealant composition of claim 1 to a substrate on one side, such as a metal foil film, resin film, thin-film glass, or other gas barrier film, ¶[0257, 0263], then attaching the other side of the sealant layer to the object to be sealed, ¶[0257]. Then heating and curing the composition to seal the object, which includes organic EL elements, organic EL display elements, liquid crystal display elements, and solar cell elements, ¶¶[0254, 0257].
Hasegawa is silent as to whether the disclosed device is flexible.
Bae discloses an adhesive composition for a flexible OLED device with excellent durability and humidity resistance, abstract, ¶¶[0003-0005]. The adhesive composition comprises epoxy resins such as hydrogenated BPA type epoxies, ¶¶[0023-0024], and phenoxy resins ¶[0041]. The adhesive composition is applied to a substrate where the OLED is also present on the substrate, the adhesive covers the OLED and there is a cover substrate applied to the other side of the adhesive layer, ¶[0064], also see Fig. 2. The substrate and cover film can be polymer films ¶[0059], and the adhesive layer is disposed between them and heat cured, ¶¶[0100-0102]. Bae therefore discloses that compositions similar to Hasegawa’s comprising hydrogenated epoxy resins and phenoxy resins are suitable as adhesive films used in flexible electronic devices.
Bae and Hasegawa are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of adhesive compositions for electronic devices comprising epoxy and phenoxy resins.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Hasegawa but producing a flexible electronic device comprising the adhesive sheet between the structural layers constituting the flexible device because it is the selection of a known material suitable for its intended use and would do no more than produce the predictable results of a flexible electronic device with an adhesive layer between the flexible substrate layers as disclosed by Bae.
Regarding claims 15-16, Hasegawa teaches applying the adhesive sealant sheet to an organic EL element to seal it, ¶[0333], and teaches the composition is for sealing organic EL displays, LCD elements, and solar cell elements, ¶[0254]. Bae also discloses encapsulating the organic electronic element/device, ¶¶[0011,0025].
Regarding claims 17, Hasegawa teaches the sealant is bonded to a metal foil film on one side and an organic EL element on the other side ¶[0333], which reads on the claimed support base material because it is a layer comprising the adhesive sheet that supports the metal foil film and supports the organic EL element. Bae discloses the adhesive sheet is adhered to a substrate containing the OLED, encapsulating it, ¶[0064], which reads on the claimed support base material because it is a layer comprising the adhesive sheet that supports the OLED.
Regarding claims 18-19, Hasegawa teaches curing the adhesive sealant sheets, ¶¶[0056, 0059, 0176, 0333]. Bae discloses heat curing the adhesive sheet ¶¶[0098-0100].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/14/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Due to the amendment of claim 1, the previous rejections over Yoshida (JP2012241147) and Hasegawa (WO2020196240) have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hasegawa et al CN112292435A under 102 and 103, and over Hasegawa in view of Bae under 103.
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 VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights