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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 02/19/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-8, 21-22 from the final office action, mailed on 11/19/2025, by amending claims 1, 3-5, 21-22, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 have been canceled without prejudice, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings fail to provide clear labels for each recited face feature of the “first face”, “second face”, “third face”, “fourth face”, “first diagonal face”, “second diagonal face”, “third diagonal face”, and “fourth diagonal face” in the Claim 1.
The applicants provided an illustration to present the feature in the response, filed on 10/16/2025. However, the features in the illustration were not added to the applicants’ drawing, and further the labels in the illustration did not correspond to the recited features in the claim.
For the purpose of clarification of the claimed subject matter,
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application (Refer to the illustrations below as an example). Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) All the “is defined” of Claims 1 and 21 should be “are defined”, because the subject in the sentence of “in which” is the “a plurality…”.
(2) It is respectfully requested to add a quotation mark, such as “,”, in the “overlaps the display area and each of the main openings…” of Claim 1 to be like:
“overlaps the display area, and each of the main openings…”
(3) All the “additional direction” of Claims 1 and 21 would have a better form if amended to be “second direction”, for the purpose of “apple to apple” matching with the “first direction”.
(4) For the purpose of clarification, the “first, second, third and fourth diagonal faces extending between the first and third faces, the third and second faces, the second and fourth faces and the fourth and first faces, respectively” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be:
“first, second, third and fourth diagonal faces, each respectively extending between the first and third faces, between the third and second faces, between the second and fourth faces and between the fourth and first faces”.
(5) The “the first diagonal faces of one of the main openings and the third diagonal faces of another one of the main openings” of Claim 5 should be:
“the first diagonal face of one of the main openings and the third diagonal face of another one of the main openings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “A system” of Claim 1,
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, the new term “system” will be examined as a term for the “metal mask”, which was originally presented.
(2) In regards to the “a working substrate, which is separable into unit areas, each of which comprises a display area” of Claim 1,
The limitation is a feature related with a substrate, which is to be processed by the claimed apparatus. The examiner emphasizes the substrate is not a structural part constituting the claimed apparatus, which is the “mask assembly system”, rather, the substrate is a product to be processed by use of the apparatus, thus the feature related with the substrate does not add a patentable weight to the claimed apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when a prior art teaches a substrate to be processed by a mask, it will be considered sufficiently meeting the claimed limitation.
(3) The “each of the main openings and each of the sub-openings comprises: first and second faces facing in a first direction, the first area and the second area adjacent to each other in the first direction; third and fourth faces facing in an additional direction perpendicular to the first direction; and first, second, third and fourth diagonal faces extending between the first and third faces, the third and second faces, the second and fourth faces and the fourth and first faces, respectively, and facing in diagonal directions tilted relative to the first and additional directions” of Claims 1 and 21 will be examined inclusive of one of followings:
PNG
media_image1.png
651
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 21-22 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.
(1) The “a gap defined between the first and second faces of main openings of the plurality of main openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction” of Claim 1 is not clear, because the “between the first and second faces of main openings” is interpreted being a distance between the first face and second face of one main opening.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“a gap defined between the first face of one of the main openings and the second face of another one of the main openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction”.
See also the similar amendment of Claim 5 by the applilcants.
(2) The “wherein the metal mask comprises a first metal mask for depositing a first area in the working substrate and a second metal mask for depositing a second area different from the first area in the working substrate, and wherein the main openings of the first metal mask have different shapes from the main openings of the second metal mask” of Claim 1 is not clear, because the claim 1 does not clearly recite the second mask has the same opening features as the first mask.
For the purpose of examination, it is respectfully requested to amend the limitations of the claim 1, to be similar to the same limitation of Claim 21, for instance,
“wherein the metal mask comprises a first metal mask for depositing a first area in the working substrate and a second metal mask for depositing a second area different from the first area in the working substrate, and wherein each of the first metal mask and the second metal mask comprises for each unit area of the working substrate”.
(3) The “first area in the working” and “second area in the working substrate” of Claims 1 and 21 are not clear, because it is not clear what difference is required between the first and second areas and the display area.
Does each area is a portion of the display area or different area from the display area?
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(4) The “wherein a gap defined between the first and second faces of sub-openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction, is greater than the gap defined between the first and second faces of the main openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction” of Claim 4 is not clear, because the “between the first and second faces of sub-openings” and “between the first and second faces of the main openings” are interpreted being a distance between the first face and second face of each opening.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein a gap defined between the first face of one of the sub-openings and the second face of another one of the sub-openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction, is greater than the gap defined between the first face of one of the main openings and the second face of another one of the main openings, which are adjacent to each other in the first direction”.
See also the similar amendment of Claim 5 by the applilcants.
(5) The “first area” of Claim 3, “fist area” and “second area” of Claims 6-8 are not clear.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are dependent from Claim 1.
Because the claim 1 recite first and second areas for both the metal mask and the substrate, thus it is not clear, which one between the metal mask and the substrate is defined by the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718