DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 05/13/2026, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending. Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 20-21 are withdrawn. Claims 1-18 are considered in this Office 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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka (JP 2015191799 A) in view of Yokose (JP 2005270959 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ishizaka teaches a method of manufacturing an encapsulation film (sealing layer 3), comprising:
preparing a solventless type encapsulation composition by mixing an encapsulation resin and a moisture adsorbent in a single step ([0031]: the resin composition for sealing elements, which constitute the sealing layer 3, comprises (A) a polyisobutylene resin, and (B) a hygroscopic filler; [0063]: a method for obtaining a film-like sealing layer 3 without using organic solvents, the sealing layer 3 can be obtained by melting the organic EL element encapsulation resin composition at a high temperature, extruding it using a generally known method such as a hot melt coater, and then cooling it); and
preparing an encapsulation layer by extruding the encapsulation composition [at a temperature of 135 °C or more] ([0063]: a method for obtaining a film-like sealing layer 3 without using organic solvents, the sealing layer 3 can be obtained by melting the organic EL element encapsulation resin composition at a high temperature, extruding it using a generally known method such as a hot melt coater, and then cooling it).
Ishizaka does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e.,
preparing an encapsulation layer by extruding the encapsulation composition [at a temperature of 135 °C. or more], but Yokose teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Yokose teaches a gas-absorbing molded body and its application to an organic electroluminescent (EL) element ([0001]). Yokose teaches that oxygen absorbent powder and polyethylene were mixed, heated, and melt-kneaded at 190 °C, and then T-die formed into a sheet by an extruder to obtain a sheet ([0073]).
Both Ishizaka and Yokose teach a method of making a film/sheet/layer by extruding a composition comprising a polyolefin resin and an inorganic filler (Ishizaka: [0037]; Yokose: [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the mixing/extrusion method of the polyisobutylene composition to be performed by known film-processing method of being mixed, heated, and melt-kneaded at 190 °C, and then T-die formed into a sheet by an extruder as taught by Yokose in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a polymer film comprising an inorganic filler dispersed therein. Upon the modification, the disclosed temperature 190 °C anticipates the recited temperature of 135 °C or more.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the preparing a solventless type encapsulation composition by mixing an encapsulation resin and a moisture adsorbent in a single step is performed at a temperature of 50° C. or more (Yokose: [0073]: e.g., at 190 °C), but does not specifically teach that a pressure of 5 bar or more. However, through routine optimization and experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to determine the temperature and/or pressure during the mixing/heating/melt-kneading in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of homogeneously mixing all components of the encapsulation composition by melting at least one the encapsulation resin (thus, the temperature and pressure condition should be higher than a melting condition of the resin but should be low enough not to decompose any components included therein) and facilitating flowing the molten resin composition for further forming processing by extrusion.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the preparing the encapsulation composition by the extruding is performed at a pressure of 5 bar or more. However, through routine optimization and experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to determine the temperature and/or pressure during the extruding in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of homogeneously mixing and maintaining all components of the encapsulation composition flowable during extrusion and properly filling a die for production of a sheet.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the encapsulation layer is a single layer or a multi-layered structure comprising two or more encapsulation layers (Ishizaka: [0025-0027], fig. 1; [0068-0069], figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that “the encapsulation layer has a gel content of 60% or more as measured by General Equation 1 below: Gel content (%)=A/B×100 wherein, B is an original mass of the encapsulation layer sample, and A is a dry mass of an undissolved content of the encapsulation layer sample, wherein the undissolved content is a portion that does not pass through a 200-mesh net after the sample is immersed in toluene at 60 °C for 24 hours and then filtered through the net” (claim 7), and “the encapsulation composition has a viscosity measured at 170° C. and a shear rate of 50 s−1 in a range of 1,000 to 2,000 Pa·s” (claim 17).
In this case, the encapsulation layer/composition of modified Ishizaka is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the encapsulation composition of modified Ishizaka comprises (A) polyisobutylene resin having Mw of 300,000 or more, (B) moisture-absorbing filler such as CaO, BaO, and MgO, and (C) tackifier such as a hydrogenated terpene-based compound (Ishizaka: [0031-0032]: (A); [0037]: (B); [0052]: (C)), and each of the components is consistent with the ones disclosed in Instant Specification (Instant Specification: see, e.g., [0100], as published). Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., the gel content of the encapsulation layer and the viscosity of the encapsulation composition) by modified Ishizaka. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the encapsulation resin comprises an olefinic resin (Ishizaka: [0031-0035]: polyisobutylene resin).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the encapsulation resin is included in an amount of 10 wt. % or more in the encapsulating material layer (Ishizaka: [0055]: if the proportion of polyisobutylene resin (A) is less than 20, the gas barrier properties may be reduced (i.e., the proportion of A should be at least 20; [0092-0094]: Tables 1-3 – Examples 1-28; of note, here, the mixing ratio of the encapsulation composition of the solvent-based film forming process as listed in Tables 1-3 would be compatible with the mixing ratio of the resin composition for the solventless extrusion-based process, except the inclusion of solvent, since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film ([0062] of Ishizaka) and the solventless mixing and extrusion process of the encapsulation resin composition is disclosed as an known alternative method ([0063] of Ishizaka)). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishizaka teaches the he method of claim 1, wherein the moisture adsorbent is a chemically reactive adsorbent (Ishizaka: [0037]; of note, the disclosed moisture adsorbent is the same as the one of Instant Specification (see [0060], as published), e.g., CaO, MgO, BaO, and it is intrinsically implied that the common adsorbent is chemically reactive).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the moisture adsorbent is included in an amount of 90 parts by weight or more relative to 100 parts by weight of the encapsulation resin (Ishizaka: [0046]: amount of hygroscopic filler (B) added is characterized by being 10% to 60% by weight of the total weight of the resin composition; [0092-0094]: Tables 1, 3 – Examples 1-2, 6-8, 21, 24, 27; of note, here, the mixing ratio of the encapsulation composition of the solvent-based film forming process as listed in Tables 1-3 would be compatible with the mixing ratio of the resin composition for the solventless extrusion-based process, except the inclusion of solvent, since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film ([0062] of Ishizaka) and the solventless mixing and extrusion process of the encapsulation resin composition is disclosed as an known alternative method ([0063] of Ishizaka)). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the encapsulation composition further comprises a tackifier (Ishizaka: [0052-0055]: tackifier C).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the tackifier is included in a range of 15 to 200 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the encapsulation resin (Ishizaka: [0052-0055]: the mixing ratio (A):(C) of the polyisobutylene resin (A) and the tackifier (C) is not particularly limited, but is preferably 90: 10 to 20:80 by mass; [0092]: Table 1 – Examples 1-2, 4, 6-8; of note, here, the mixing ratio of the encapsulation composition of the solvent-based film forming process as listed in Tables 1-3 would be compatible with the mixing ratio of the resin composition for the solventless extrusion-based process, except the inclusion of solvent, since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film ([0062] of Ishizaka) and the solventless mixing and extrusion process of the encapsulation resin composition is disclosed as an known alternative method ([0063] of Ishizaka)). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 18, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer is in direct contact with an organic electronic element (Ishizaka: [0068-0069]: sealing layer 3 or 7 in direct contact with an organic EL element 6; figs. 2-3).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka (JP 2015191799 A) and Yokose (JP 2005270959 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bredahl (US 6,166,110).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the extruding is performed using a twin-screw extruder.
Bredahl teaches a continuous solventless hot melt process for preparing a pressure sensitive adhesive composition, and the process comprises providing a continuous compounding device having twin screw therein (abstract, claims 1, 11, col. 3 lines 32-37, figs. 1-5).
Both modified Ishizaka and Bredahl teach a solventless hot melt process for preparing a polymer thin film by extruding a melt polyolefin resin-based composition (Ishizaka: [0031, 0063]; Bredahl: abstract, claims 1, 11, col. 13 lines 1-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention the extrusion of modified Ishizaka to be performed by a known extrusion device such as twin-screw extruder as taught by Bredahl in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of performing a series of processes such as mixing, compounding, conveying, and extruding in high throughput and better control.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 4, but does not specifically teach that the twin-screw extruder has a screw rotation speed in a range of 100 to 400 rpm. However, through routine optimization and experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to determine the optimum rotation speed of the screw of the twin-screw extruder in consideration various factors such as throughput requirement, thermal sensitivity of the material therein, or torque limits of the screw, etc.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka (JP 2015191799 A) and Yokose (JP 2005270959 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of KR 939 (KR 20210140939 A, hereinafter “KR 939”).
Regarding claims 14-16, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the encapsulation composition further comprises an active energy ray polymerizable compound (claim 14) and the active energy ray polymerizable compound is included in a range of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the encapsulation resin (claim 15), or the encapsulation composition further comprises a radical initiator (claim 16).
KR 939 teaches a method of forming an encapsulation film capable of forming a structure that blocks moisture or oxygen from entering an organic electronic device from the outside ([0001, 0005-0006]). KR 939 teaches that the encapsulation composition comprises an encapsulation resin ([0017]: olefin-based resin such as butylene-based monomer or polymer) and a moisture adsorbent ([0028]), and further comprises an active energy ray polymerizable compound ([0019, 0041-0045]) and the active energy ray polymerizable compound is included in a range of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the encapsulation resin ([0044]: active energy beam polymerizable compound in an amount of 3 to 30 parts based on 100 parts by weight of the encapsulation resin; here, although the disclosed range does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 3 to 10 % by weight; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I)), or the encapsulation composition further comprises a radical initiator ([0047]).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing an encapsulation film of an organic electronic device, comprising common components of a polyolefin-based resin and a moisture adsorbents (Ishizaka: [0001, 0031]; KR 939: [0001, 0017, 0028]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the encapsulation composition of modified Ishizaka to further comprise an active energy ray polymerizable compound with a corresponding radical initiator as taught by KR 939 in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a encapsulation film with a encapsulation resin composition which can form a specific cross-linked structure so as to provide excellent moisture barrier properties with dimensional stability and high-temperature durability (KR 939: derived from [0005, 0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot. It is noted that the applicant has modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 05/13/2026, and wherein the arguments are based upon these changes.
The Applicant argues (see pages 6-10 of Remarks) that modified Ishizaka does not teach or suggest that “preparing a solventless type encapsulation composition by mixing an encapsulation resin and a moisture adsorbent in a single step, and preparing an encapsulation layer by extruding the encapsulation composition at a temperature of 135 °C or more” as (1) Ishizaka does not actually perform to prepare a solventless type encapsulation composition, (2) KR 641 does not teach extrusion performed a temperature of 135 °C or more, and (3) the cited references do not teach or suggest improved dispersity of the moisture adsorbent in the central portion in the thickness direction of the encapsulation film.
Regarding the argument (1), the Examiner respectively disagrees with this argument. Ishizaka explicitly discloses the solventless-type encapsulation resin can be obtained by melting ([0031]: the resin composition for sealing elements, which constitute the sealing layer 3, comprises (A) a polyisobutylene resin, and (B) a hygroscopic filler; [0063]: a method for obtaining a film-like sealing layer 3 without using organic solvents, the sealing layer 3 can be obtained by melting the organic EL element encapsulation resin composition at a high temperature, extruding it using a generally known method such as a hot melt coater, and then cooling it), and the absence of exemplary conditions does not negate the teaching of the preparing an encapsulation composition via a solventless process. Moreover, the mixing ratio of the encapsulation composition of the solvent-based film forming process as listed in Tables 1-3 would be compatible with the mixing ratio of the resin composition for the solventless extrusion-based process, except the inclusion of solvent, since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film ([0062] of Ishizaka) and the solventless mixing and extrusion process of the encapsulation resin composition is disclosed as an known alternative method ([0063] of Ishizaka).
Regarding the argument (2), the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but moot because the new ground of rejection has been made due to the newly added features form the applicant’s latest amendment. When Yokose is applied to Ishizaka, modified Ishizaka teaches all the claimed limitation and the motivation to combine (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the argument (3), the Examiner respectively disagrees with this argument.
At first, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improved dispersibility of the moisture adsorbent concentrated in a central portion in a thickness direction of the encapsulation film) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, the claimed limitation(s) and range(s) have not established criticality of the alleged unexpected features of the invention.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d)). Furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outsides the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 716.02(d) II.).
Here, regardless of the resolution whether the recited limitations result in unexpected results in the film, the proffered evidence as the unexpected results (Instant Specification: [0100-0111] and Table 1: Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1-5) does not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations. For example, Examples 1-3 only represent three (3) test points within the recited extrusion temperature range (i.e., 160, 170, and 180 °C) for only one specific composition (i.e., comprising a butyl rubber resin, a tackifying resin, a multifunctional acrylate, CaO, and a photoinitiator), and Comparative Example 3 represents only one (1) test point out of the recited extrusion temperature range (i.e., 120 °C). On the other hand, the claimed limitations recite the conditions much broader than what is disclosed – e.g., a resin and a moisture adsorbent without any specific respective contents and any other components, as being extruded at 135 °C or more. Moreover, Comparative Examples 2 and 4-5 also represent to be within the recited ranges of being extruded at 135 °C or more, but the Comparative Examples 2 and 4-5 perform as comparable to Comparative Example 3, which the Applicant alleged to be inferior compared to the unexpected improvement of Examples 1-3. Thus, the claimed limitation covers a broader range of the technical features than as disclosed in Instant Specification, and the claimed ranges do not demonstrate a nexus to the alleged unexpected results.
In addition, the proffered results do not fully resolve whether the recited limitations results in unexpected results in the film (Instant Specification: [0100-0111] and Table 1: Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1-5). “A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 716.02(a) I.). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967) (MPEP 716.02(c) II.). Comparative Examples 3 may show somewhat inferior test results in view of swelling index, storage elastic modulus, moisture permeation distance, and/or metal pressure sensitive adhesion force compared to the test results of Examples 1-3 and/or Comparative Examples 2 and 4-5. However, it is not clear whether the test results of Examples 1-3 and/or Comparative Examples 2 and 4-5, which are satisfying the recited limitation(s) and range(s), show “a greater than the expected results” beyond the expected results.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claims 1-18 remain rejected.
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.
Chatzigiannakis (Chatzigiannakis et. al., “Melt fracture of polyisobutylenes,” Polymer Testing, 60, 2017, 30-38) teaches that typical extrusion processing temperatures of polyisobutylene are in the range of 130 - 200 °C (pg. 30, 1. Introduction).
Enlow (US 20010052385 A1) teaches a process for making a protective and decorative surfacing film comprises extrusion coating a solventless polymeric material from an extruder die to form an optically clear layer (abstract, fig. 1).
Nishijima (US 20090023867 A1) teaches a process for producing an encapsulating material for solar cell (abstract).
Ivan (US 20110033689 A1) teaches a process for manufacturing of very thin monolithic layers of TPU (abstract, figs. 1-3).
Yoo (US 20170077440 A1) teaches an encapsulation film including a pressure-sensitive composition (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights