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 .
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 13-25, and 27 are pending.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 26, and 28-30 have been canceled by applicants.
Claim Interpretation
Known alternate terms for “stress relaxation layer” include stress reduction liner and buffer layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 19, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAKAHASHI (US 2017/0133638 A1).
Re 1, TAKAHASHI teaches of a method for sealing an organic EL element (see [0044, 0073, 0155]), comprising:
forming a stress relaxation layer by at least applying a polymer material that contains an organic group in its structure onto a base material (base member 40) (see teaching of stress relaxation layer being provided and can be of various resins including “various resins such as monomers, oligomers, and polymers of those based on epoxy, acrylic, methacrylic, vinyl ether, oxetane, urethane, melamine, urea, polyester, polyolefin, phenol, cross-linking type liquid crystal, fluorine, silicone, polyamide, etc.”, see [0061]), on which the organic EL element is provided, to cover the organic EL element; and
forming a barrier layer by at least applying an inorganic material on the stress relaxation layer (see teaching of gas barrier layer, see [0062], and also see gas barrier member 300 having first film and having inorganic materials including “metal oxide, metal nitride, metal oxynitride, metal sulfide, and metal carbide, and it is more preferable to use inorganic oxide, inorganic nitride, and inorganic oxynitride, such as silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, indium oxide, tin oxide, titanic oxide, copper oxide, cerium oxide, and tantalum oxide”, see [0150], and also first film 60 which have inorganic material of “inorganic oxide, inorganic nitride, inorganic oxynitride, inorganic sulfide, or inorganic carbide”, see [0105]), thereby forming a multilayer sealing film that includes the stress relaxation layer and the barrier layer. (see teaching of applying stress relaxation layer between respective layers, see [0145-0147], and with barrier layer).
Re 13 (upon 1), wherein the polymer material includes polydimethylsiloxane. (see TAKAHASHI, [0078]).
Re 19 (upon 1), wherein the inorganic material includes perhydropolysilazane.
(see teaching [0095, 0155] of TAKAHASHI).
Re 24 (upon 1), wherein the multilayer sealing film includes the stress relaxation layer and the barrier layer, which are alternately laminated in a plurality of layers. (see TAKAHASHI teaching of alternating layers, see [0145-0147]).
Re 27 (upon 1), wherein the stress relaxation layer and the barrier layer are formed under a nitrogen atmosphere. (see teaching by TAKAHASHI of formation of the film and under nitrogen gas, see [0111-0114]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13, 19, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2019/230617 (from IDS).
Re 1, WO2019/230617 teaches in paragraphs [0010], [0055], [0056], [0088], [0093], [0096], [0101], [0102], [0109]-[0112], [0117], [0122], [0172], [0176], [0208], [0219], [0226], and [0227], and fig. 2, 3, 6, and 7) that describes an "organic EL element sealing method" comprising:
forming a first sealing layer 8 on a flexible base material F provided with an organic EL element by pattern-forming in the form of coating the organic EL element with a first sealing layer forming ink that contains a polydimethylsiloxane by means of an inkjet head 30; and
forming a second sealing layer 9 by pattern-forming in the form of covering the first sealing layer 8 with a second sealing layer forming ink that contains a perhydropolysilazane by means of the ink jet head 30 (hereinafter, referred to as "cited invention").
Upon comparison between the cited invention and the present invention 1, the "organic EL element", the "flexible base material F", the "polydimethylsiloxane", the "first sealing layer 8", the "perhydropolysilazane", the "second sealing layer 9", and the "organic EL element sealing method" of the cited invention correspond to the "organic EL element", the "base material", the "polymer material", the "stress relaxation layer", the "inorganic material", the "barrier layer", and the "organic EL element sealing method".
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the polymer material and the inorganic material are applied onto the base material by inkjet printing. See teaching of the ink jet head 30, see also teaching of inkjet printing [0197, 0200, 0201, 0206].
Re: 6, see sealing of sides, see Figs. 1-3, 6-9, 15-16.
Re: 13, includes teaching of polydimethylsiloxane, see [0176].
Re: 19, includes teaching of perhydropolysilazane, see [0176, 0227].
Re: 22, regarding the curing with vacuum ultraviolet rays with light at wavelength of 172 nm, see [0227].
Re: 27, regarding the layers formed under a nitrogen atmosphere, wherein the atmosphere using a dry inert gas, dry nitrogen gas, see [0117].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHASHI as applied to claims 1 and 24 above.
Re 20 (upon 1), wherein a thickness of the barrier layer is 50 nm or more and 300 nm or less. (See teaching of TAKASHI of barrier layer that is 5 nm to 20 micrometers, [0157]).
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 25 (upon 24), wherein a number of repeated layers of the stress relaxation layer and the barrier layer is 2 or more and 4 or less.
Wherein, the teaching by TAKAHASHI of the alternating layers would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for modification in the multiples.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHASHI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MAKASHIMA (US 2020/0266381 A1).
Re 14 (upon 1), wherein TAKAHASHI does not specifically teach of a thickness of the stress relaxation layer is 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less.
See teaching by MAKASHIMA of buffer layer as 0.1-100 nm, [0234].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified TAKAHASHI with the teachings from MAKASHIMA
Whereby, although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 16 (upon 1), wherein the stress relaxation layer includes a solid film of the polymer material that is irradiated with vacuum ultraviolet rays including light with a wavelength of 172 nm, see TAKAHASHI of curing using UV ray, see UV lamp 25, [0103, 0104, 0142, 0175, 0176], see also teaching of application of film that includes operating in a vacuum chamber 11, see [0106, 0108],
Further, see teaching by MAKASHIMA of the wavelength of 172 nm, see [0391], and see teaching of irradiating vacuum ultraviolet rays, see claims 1 and 6.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the curing of TAKAHASHI with the wavelength taught by MAKASHIMA as known manner for curing the layers, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 17 (upon 16), wherein an accumulated light amount of the vacuum ultraviolet rays radiated onto the solid film is 15000 mJ/cm2 or more.
See teaching by MAKASHIMA of claim 6 of the radiation dose of 0.1-10 J/cm2.
Re 22 (upon 1), see teaching above in claim 16 as similar reasons.
Re 23 (upon 22), see teaching above for claim 17 as similar reasons.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHASHI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SENOO (US 2018/0219172 A1).
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein the multilayer sealing film seals the organic EL element by covering upper and side surfaces of the organic EL element.
Re 7 (upon 6), wherein the multilayer sealing film has a three-dimensional shape tapered in a direction away from a main surface of the base material.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the TAKAHASHI reference fails to teach of the upper and side surfaces and the three-dimensional shape.
However, as seen in the sealing in SENOO, see Fig. 2, the
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill I the art to have modified TAKAHASHI with the sealing method of SENOO regarding sealing of the portions including the sides and three dimensional orientations, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/230617 (from IDS) as applied to claim 1 above.
Re 10 (upon 1), wherein the polymer material is applied using a solvent in which the polymer material has a higher solubility than that of the organic EL element.
Re 18 (upon 1), wherein the inorganic material is applied using a solvent in which the inorganic material has a higher solubility than that of the polymer material.
The feature of, when forming a layered structure by an application method, using a solvent into which a lower layer is hardly dissolved, as a solvent of an upper layer, is so well known that it is not necessary to provide any document therefor.
Thus, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of using, as a solvent of the "first sealing layer forming ink" and a solvent of the "second sealing layer forming ink" of the cited invention, solvents having the dissolubility as set forth in claims 10 or 18 of the present application.
Re 14 and 20, WO2019/230617A1, see paragraph [0088] indicates that the thickness of a gas barrier layer can be set, as appropriate, in accordance with a purpose, but the thickness can be typically set so as to fall within the range of 100 nm to 10 μm. Thus, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of setting the thickness of the "first sealing layer 8" and the thickness of the "second sealing layer 9" of the cited invention so as to fall within the numerical value set forth in claims 14 or 20 of the present application by adjusting the application amount of the first sealing layer forming ink and the application amount of the second sealing layer forming ink.
Re 15 (upon 1), wherein a refractive index of the stress relaxation layer is 1.4 or more and 1.5 or less.
Re 16 (upon 1), wherein the stress relaxation layer includes a solid film of the polymer material that is irradiated with vacuum ultraviolet rays including light with a wavelength of 172 nm.
Re 21 (upon 1), wherein a refractive index of the barrier layer is 1.6 or more.
The WO219/230617A1 reference teaches in paragraphs [0109]-[0112] that indicates performing reforming treatment on the gas barrier layer by applying vacuum ultraviolet rays having an irradiation wavelength of approximately 172 nm such that the gas barrier layer is converted into silica. On the basis of this indication, applying vacuum ultraviolet rays to form the "first sealing layer 8" and the "second sealing layer 9" of the cited invention, thereby satisfying the invention-specifying matters set forth in claims 15 and 21 of the present application is a design matter for a person skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO2019/230617A1 (from IDS) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WO2019/093459A1 (from IDS) or WO2015/156395A1 (from IDS).
Re 11 (upon 10), wherein decamethylcyclopentasiloxane is added to the solvent.
Regarding the use of claimed material, the references WO2019/093459A1 and WO2015/156395A1 teaches of using decamethylcyclopentasiloxane as a solvent of a polydimethylsiloxane is well known (for example, see WO’459 (paragraphs [0044], [0150], [0156], [0165], [0166], and [0379]) and WO’395 (paragraphs [0082], [0098]-[0101], and [0379])). Thus, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of using decamethylcyclopentasiloxane as a solvent of the "first sealing layer forming ink that contains a polydimethylsiloxane".
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process with the solvent use of WO2019/230617A1 with polymethylsiloxane as taught by WO2019/093459A1, or WO2015/156395A1, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/230617A1 (from IDS) as applied to claim 16 and 22 above, and further in view of JP 2015-033764A (from IDS).
Re 17 and 23, of the accumulated light radiated onto the film is 15000 mJ/cm2 or more.
The JP reference, see [0072, 0102, 0121], the feature of selecting, from a numerical value range that is equal to or higher than 15000 mJ/cm2 , the application amount of vacuum ultraviolet rays to form a sealing layer that contains a polysilazane, etc. is well known (for example, see paragraphs [0072], [0102], and [0121]. Thus, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of selecting, from a numerical value range that is equal to or higher than 15000 mJ/cm2, the application amount of vacuum ultraviolet rays to the "first sealing layer 8" and the "second sealing layer 9" of the cited invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the curing of WO2019/230617A1 with the accumulated light as taught by the JP reference as a known amount for curing, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/230617A1 (from IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2019/093459A1 (from IDS).
Re 24 and 25, of the multilayer sealing film with the alternately laminated layers and of the repeated layers is 2 or more and 4 or less.
See WO2019/093459A1, teaches in [0181] of alternating layers. In the field of organic EL elements, the feature of using, as a sealing layer, a laminate obtained by alternately layering inorganic layers and organic layers is well known (for example, see in WO2019/093459 A1, see paragraph [0181], wherein it is preferable to laminate the two alternately multiple times. Wherein the teaching of multiple times would also encompass the claimed number of times.
Thus, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of alternately layering the "first sealing layers 8" and the "second sealing layers 9" of the cited invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of WO2019/230617A1 with the layering taught by the WO2019/093459A1 as a known amount for curing, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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 S 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights