DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/26 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.
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(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2016/0133872, “Yoo”) in view of Haraguchi et al. (JP 3603428 B2, hereafter “Haraguchi” a machine translation of which is provided and is used as the citation copy) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0072927, “Lee”) and further in view of Nishijima et al. (US 2009/0023867, “Nishijima”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo teaches an encapsulation film comprising an encapsulation layer (e.g., [0010], Fig. 1), wherein components that constitute the encapsulation layer include an encapsulation resin and a moisture adsorbent ([0018]), the encapsulation layer can be formed as a single layer, and an area of the encapsulation layer close to an organic electronic device may contain a lower content of moisture adsorbent ([0018], [0031], [0032]). Yoo teaches that a metal oxide may be used as a moisture adsorbent ([0034], [0035]) but does not explicitly teach an encapsulation film comprising, in the thickness direction, a first region, a second region and a third region which have different concentrations of a moisture adsorbent. However, Haraguchi discloses a composite having a component gradient structure of a metal oxide is formed in the thickness direction of an organic polymer (including, e.g., having a medial higher concentration and lower concentrations toward the surfaces, and thus having first, second, and third regions within the layer, see Fig. 13, [0093]) in order to improve heat resistance, mechanical properties, and chemical resistance (e.g., [0001] - [0006], [0029], [0032] and [0033], Fig. 13). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the encapsulation film disclosed in Yoo by applying the known technique of a component gradient structure of a metal oxide in the thickness direction of a composite resin structure in order to improve heat resistance, mechanical properties, and chemical resistance (e.g., [0001] - [0006], [0029], [0032] and [0033], Fig. 13). While Yoo teaches embodiments wherein no solvent is included and therefore may be considered to be solventless ([0018], the Examiner notes that if the material is exclusively a curable adhesive then it would be considered to be solventless). Nevertheless, while Yoo does not strictly teach the inclusion of a solvent in its encapsulation film, Yoo does not recite a positive limitation against the inclusion of a solvent in the to the encapsulation film. But such a feature is well known in the prior art. In the same field of endeavor of encapsulation films, however, Lee teaches that it is known to make an encapsulation film including a reactive diluent so as to make solvents unnecessary and thus improve the process of providing an encapsulation film or layer ([0042], [0064]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have made the encapsulation film of Yoo without a solvent in order to eliminate the need for unnecessary additional process and, for example, to prevent unhelpful off-gassing of solvents (see Lee [0042], [0064]). While Yoo teaches that the method of application of the encapsulation film is not particularly limited (Yoo, [0062]), Yoo fails to specifically teach that it is an extruded product (though note that the film may be applied by laminated a pre-processed film, [0062], and a common method of producing a film is via extrusion and thus the application of an extruded film would not be inconsistent with the teachings of Yoo). In the same field of endeavor of encapsulation films for us in electronic applications ([0001] – [0005]), Nishijima teaches that it is known to use an extruded encapsulation film as a commonplace method of providing an encapsulation film for electronics (Nishijima, [0003]). Nishijima teaches that it is useful to extrude such layers in order to provide them in irregular shapes (Nishijima, [0018]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have extruded the material of modified Yoo (Nishijima, [0018]).
Regarding claims 2-4, the encapsulation film of modified Yoo, in that it has different regions or sections having different amounts of adsorbent, has different regions and may have first, second, and third regions such that the second region has the greatest amount of adsorbent (i.e., the middle portion of the layer, Haraguchi at [0093] and Fig. 13, showing highest region of component in the middle of the film). Modified Yoo additionally teaches to include a gradient distribution of the adsorbent in such that it has a Gaussian distribution (Haraguchi, e.g., Fig. 13, [0093]) and it would have been obvious to have adjusted the adsorbent to within a region of two standard deviation or sigma values along the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 7, Yoo additionally teaches that the encapsulation film may include a resin comprising an olefinic resin (e.g., [0019]).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11, and 13, Yoo additionally teaches that the moisture adsorbent may be included in an amount of from 1 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of resin ([0037]), the inclusion of a tackifier in an amount of from 5 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of resin ([0039]), and the inclusion of a polymerizable compound (or curing agent, [0045]), in an amount of from 1 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of resin ([0045], [0040] – [0050]). Therefore, because Yoo teaches the inclusion of an embodiment having only these components ([0018]), Yoo teaches that the amount of resin may be greater than 10% of the encapsulation layer ([0018], [0037], [0039], [0045]). The Examiner notes that 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). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Yoo additionally teaches the inclusion of an initiator ([0045], [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Yoo fails to specifically teach the gel content of the encapsulation layer, however in the same field of endeavor of encapsulation layer materials ([0001] – [0005]), Nishijima teaches that a suitable gel content for such a material is within the range of greater than 70% (Nishijima, [0055]) and that such a gel content is associated with an encapsulation layer that improves mechanical properties and with less blistering ([0022], [0055], [0075], [0018]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the encapsulation film of Yoo with a gel content of greater than 70% so as to make an encapsulation layer that improves mechanical properties and with less blistering ([0022], [0055], [0075], [0018]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Haraguchi in view of Lee as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2016/0149131, “Shim”).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo fails to specifically teach a suitable adhesion force for the encapsulation film. However, in the same field of endeavor of encapsulation films (e.g., [0001] – [0004]), Shim teaches a suitable adhesive peel strength for an encapsulation film is on the range of greater than 3500 gf/in ([0099]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted such a peel strength in order to ensure the effective adhesion of the encapsulation layer to the underlying substrate (see Shim, [0099], [0100]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Schicktanz et al. (US 2016/0079563) discloses a notable encapsulation film similar to that presently claimed.
Xu et al. (US 2020/0216647) discloses notable and similar extrusion-created encapsulation films (Xu, [0015], [0077] – [0080]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/16/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Haraguchi’s process for creating a gradient of metal oxides in a film is incompatible with the goal of the encapsulation film of Yoo. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Haraguchi teaches broadly similar polymers for use in its film (see e.g., Yoo, [0019], [0020], various acrylates, styrenes; and see Haraguchi [0019], [0020], styrene and acrylic resins) and Haraguchi teaches that various methods for forming such a gradient in a polymeric film are appropriate ([0048]). Finally, Haraguchi teaches that its polymeric composition is intended to be used in electronic parts and thus would be considered to be suitable for similar applications. The Examiner therefore maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the encapsulation film disclosed in Yoo by applying the known technique of a component gradient structure of a metal oxide in the thickness direction of a composite resin structure in order to improve heat resistance, mechanical properties, and chemical resistance (e.g., [0001] - [0006], [0029], [0032] and [0033], Fig. 13).
Applicant argues Nishijima does not teach the inclusion of an adsorbent. However, such a feature is taught by Yoo (Yoo, [0018]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights