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.
Response to Amendment
The previously applied 112 rejection is withdrawn based on Applicant’s clarifying remarks regarding the definition of the location distribution. Please see Applicant’s Remarks 1/9/26, pp. 5-6.
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, and 15 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”).
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 wherein the composite having a component gradient structure of a metal oxide is a composite in which a concentration 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]).
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]).
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]).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 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 Nishijima et al. (US 2009/0023867, “Nishijima”).
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]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoo fails to specifically teach that the encapsulation layer is extruded, however 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/9/26 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 Yoo is directed toward a different type of encapsulation film than the present invention. However, 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., that the technical problems that the encapsulation film of Yoo are directed toward are different than those envisioned by the present inventors) 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).
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected as described above.
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 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