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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II or III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be corrected to “by the extruding” (line 3).
Claim 7 should be corrected to “wherein[[,]] B is [[the]]an original mass of [[the]]an encapsulation layer sample, and A is [[the]]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” (lines 7-10).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the preparing the encapsulation composition by extruding” in line 3. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) “preparing a solventless type encapsulation composition by mixing” (claim 1 line 3), or (2) “preparing an encapsulation layer by extruding” (claim 1 line 5). In the latter case, claim 2 would possibly be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as the scope of a following limitation “at a temperature of 50 °C or more” (claim 2 lines 3-4) fails to include all the limitation of claim 1 reciting that the extruding is performed at “a temperature of 90 °C or more” (claim 1 line 6). On the other hand, Instant Specification supports the former case (see [0019], as published in US 20250135701 A1). For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the preparing the encapsulation composition by the mixing.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an encapsulating material” (lines 3-4). There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) “a solventless type encapsulation composition” (i.e., the encapsulation composition) (claim 1 line 3), (2) “an encapsulation layer” (claim 1 line 5), or (3) another new encapsulating material. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim. See Instant Specification [0057], as published.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 KR 641 (KR 20120121641A, hereinafter “KR 641”).
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 90° 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 90° C. or more], but KR 641 teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
KR 641 discloses a method for manufacturing an encapsulation material sheet, comprising the steps of: mixing, with respect to 100 parts by weight of EVA resin having no additives, 0.1 part by weight of a polymerizable light stabilizer, 0.3 part by weight of an ultraviolet absorber, 0.7 part by weight of a first cross-linking agent, 0.5 part by weight of a second cross-linking agent, and 0.5 part by weight of a silane coupling agent; and manufacturing a sheet with an extruder temperature at 90°C and a T-die temperature at 100°C ([0026, 0036]).
Both Ishizaka and KR 641 teach a method for manufacturing an encapsulation film by extruding a melt polyolefin resin-based composition (Ishizaka: [0031, 0063]; KR 641: abstract, [0001, 0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the extruding temperature of the extrusion-based hot melt coater of Ishizaka to be about 90 °C to 100 °C as taught by KR 641 in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of melting the polymer composition to have a low enough viscosity to flow and be processible against the risk of degradation of components such as the polymer. Thus, the temperature range of modified Ishizaka anticipates the recited temperature range.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Ishizaka teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the preparing the encapsulation composition by extruding is performed at a temperature of 50° C. or more and a pressure of 5 bar or more (claim 2), or that the preparing the encapsulation layer by extruding is performed at a pressure of 5 bar or more (claim 3). 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 pressure during the mixing and extruding 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 enclosed therein) and facilitating flowing the molten resin composition for further forming processing by extrusion.
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 the mass of the encapsulation layer sample, and A is the dry mass of an undissolved content of the encapsulation layer, wherein after the sample is immersed in toluene at 60 °C for 24 hours, and then filtered through a 200-mesh net, the undissolved content does not pass 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 ([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 an encapsulating material (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 of the solventless extrusion-based process since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film and as supported by [0062-0063] 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 of the solventless extrusion-based process since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film and as supported by [0062-0063] 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 of the solventless extrusion-based process since the solvent would be completely removed from the encapsulation layer after forming the film and as supported by [0062-0063] 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 KR 641 (KR 20120121641A, hereinafter “KR 641”) 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 KR 641 (KR 20120121641A, hereinafter KR “641”) 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]).
Conclusion
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