DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed November 7, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column” recited on lines 11-13, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose how the phrase “immediately adjacent” is defined, and whether the phrase “immediately adjacent” is defined in terms of a measured distance, i.e. the shortest distance, or an appearance/impression, (b) if Applicants had meant to claim that “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row” in terms of the measured shortest distance, unless the two distances between a photo spacer 12 and two adjacent opening regions 101 illustrated below are exactly the same, there would be only one “immediately adjacent” opening region 101 for each of the photo spacer 12 illustrated below rather than “at least one photo spacer”,
PNG
media_image1.png
332
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) however, Applicants did not originally disclose any distances, and actually did not use the word “distance”, “immediate” or “immediately” in the original disclosure, and (d) therefore, if Applicants had meant to claim that “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row” in terms of the measured shortest distance, “each opening region” is “immediately adjacent to” only “one photo spacer and each photo spacer” is “immediately adjacent to” only “one opening region in each row and in each column” rather than “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column”, which suggests that “each opening region” can be “immediately adjacent to” two or more photo spacers and “each photo spacer” can be “immediately adjacent to” two or more opening regions in each row and in each column, which Applicants did not originally disclose.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose a configuration “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column (emphases added)” recited on lines 11-13, because (a) it appears that the phrase “immediately adjacent” is based on Fig. 6 of current application, (b) however, as shown in Fig. 5 of current application, the opening regions 101 and the photo spacers 12 are disposed at different levels, (c) furthermore, the opening regions 101 and the photo spacers 12 do not overlap with each other when they are viewed from the side, and (d) therefore, the newly added limitation cited above is akin to stating that the room 301 is immediately adjacent to the room 202 in a hotel, which does not appear to be agreed upon by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-6, 10 and 11 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-6, 10 and 11 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
(3) Regarding claim 2, Applicants did not originally disclose “each of the plurality of openings has a shape of a hexagon whose length in a row direction of the array is less than its length in a column direction of the array” recited on lines 3-5, because (a) Applicants did not use the terms “row direction” and “column direction” in the original disclosure, (b) therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose which direction is the claimed row direction and which direction is the claimed column direction, while the claim limitation cited above depends on the row direction and the column direction, (c) furthermore, the newly added limitation cited above appears to be based on Fig. 6 of current application, but Applicants did not originally disclose that all the drawings of current application are exactly to the scale, and (d) therefore, the comparison of the two lengths recited in the newly added limitation cited above fails to comply with the written description requirement since (i) Applicants did not originally disclose how the two lengths are related to each other, and (ii) Fig. 6 may have been exaggerated along the Y direction.
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 1-6, 10 and 11 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) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the phrase “immediately adjacent” in the newly added limitation “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column (emphases added)” recited on lines 11-13 implies, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose what the phrase “immediately adjacent” refers to, and actually Applicants did not use the words “distance”, “immediate” and “immediately” in the original disclosure, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the phrase “immediately adjacent” is defined in terms of a measured distance, the shortest distance, or an appearance/impression, which can be arbitrary since an appearance/impression would be different according to a viewer’s perspective.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the phrase “immediately adjacent” in the newly added limitation “each opening region being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column (emphases added)” recited on lines 11-13 implies, because (a) it appears that the phrase “immediately adjacent” is based on Fig. 6 of current application, (b) however, as shown in Fig. 5 of current application, the opening regions 101 and the photo spacers 12 are disposed at different levels, (c) furthermore, the opening regions 101 and the photo spacers 12 do not overlap with each other when they are viewed from the side, and (d) therefore, the newly added limitation cited above is akin to stating that the room 301 is immediately adjacent to the room 202 in a hotel.
(3) Regarding claims 1 and 2, it is not clear what the “rows and columns” recited on line 11 of claim 1 refer to, because (a) Applicants did not use the terms “rows and columns” in the original disclosure, (b) Applicants further claim that “each of the plurality of openings has a shape of a hexagon whose length in a row direction of the array is less than its length in a column direction of the array” in claim 2, and (c) therefore, without Applicants’ specifically defining what the “rows and columns” refer to, and in which direction the “rows and columns” are aligned, the amended claim 2 also fails to comply with the written description requirement as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections.
Claims 2-6, 10 and 11 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-6, 10 and 11 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang (US 2014/0220715)
In the below prior art rejections, all the claim limitations that are not directed to parts of the claimed mask, i.e. the substrate and the plurality of photo spacers, specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device 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. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a mask (300 in Fig. 3 or Fig. 5B, and Fig. 6) ([0105]), used to form an organic functional layer ((one component layer of) 116 in Figs. 2 and 5B) ([0106]) in a display panel (Title), and comprising a substrate (301) ([0105]) and a plurality of photo spacers (305), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the photo spacers do, and what they are formed of in claim 1, and (b) the plurality of photo spacers 305 are formed of the same material composition as that recited in claim 11, see the prior art rejection of claim 11 below, the substrate comprising a plurality of opening regions (304 in Fig. 5B, and Fig. 6) ([0105]) and a shielding region (remainder of deposition mask/mask body 301), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the shielding region does, and what it is formed of in claim 1, and (b) the shieling region is formed of the same material composition as that recited in claim 11, see the prior art rejection of claim 11 below, the plurality of photo spacers being connected to the substrate and disposed in the shielding region, wherein the display panel comprises a pixel defining layer (114) ([0105]) which defines a plurality of first subpixel units having a first color (R in Fig. 6), a plurality of second sub-pixel units having a second color (G in Fig. 6), and a plurality of third sub-pixel units having a third color (B in Fig. 6), and the first color, the second color and the third color are three different colors; the plurality of photo spacers (305) and the plurality of opening regions are arranged in an array of rows and columns, see Fig. 6, because (a) Applicants do not claim an entirety of the opening regions and an entirety of the photo spacers in claim 1, and (b) rather Applicants claim only “a plurality of opening regions” on lines 2-3 and “a plurality of photo spacers” on line 2, which can be satisfied by two or more opening regions and two or more photo spacers rather than an entirety of the opening regions and an entirety of the photo spacers, each opening region (304) being immediately adjacent to at least one photo spacer (305) and each photo spacer being immediately adjacent to at least one opening region in each row and in each column (Fig. 6), because two or more opening regions and two or more photo spacers shown in Fig. 6 satisfy this configuration, so that: when the mask is aligned with an unfinished panel for forming the display panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel, the plurality of photo spacers abut against the pixel defining layer of the display panel to support the substrate, which is directed to an intended use as discussed above, because (a) “an unfinished panel for forming the display panel” is not a part of the claimed invention just like the claimed display panel is not a part of the claimed invention, and (b) the plurality of photo spacers 305 abut against the pixel defining layer 114 of the display panel to support the substrate 301 in Fig. 5B of Kang, and each of non-edge photo spacers abuts against a region, which is between one of the second sub-pixel units and one of the third subpixel units which are adjacent to each other, of the pixel defining layer; the shielding region is inherently configured to shield the pixel defining layer, the plurality of second sub-pixel units and the plurality of third sub-pixel units, because Applicants do not specifically claim what the shielding region shields, and how effectively and efficiently the shielding region shields the unspecified event or phenomenon, when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel, which is directed to an intended use as discussed above, and the plurality of opening regions are configured to expose light emitting regions of the plurality of first sub-pixel units when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel, which is also directed to an intended use.
As discussed above, the limitations “the display panel comprises a pixel defining layer which defines a plurality of first subpixel units having a first color, a plurality of second sub-pixel units having a second color, and a plurality of third sub-pixel units having a third color, and the first color, the second color and the third color are three different colors”, “the plurality of photo spacers abut against the pixel defining layer of the display panel to support the substrate, and each of non-edge photo spacers abuts against a region, which is between one of the second sub-pixel units and one of the third sub-pixel units, which are adjacent to each other, of the pixel defining layer”, and “the shielding region is configured to shield the pixel defining layer, the plurality of second sub-pixel units and the plurality of third sub-pixel units when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel, and the plurality of opening regions are configured to expose light emitting regions of the plurality of first sub-pixel units when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel” recited on lines 6-24 are directed to an intended use of the claimed mask, because (a) the structural features of the claimed display panel have nothing to do with the mask when the mask is formed since when one has the claimed mask at hand, the display panel has yet to be formed, and the claimed mask can be employed in manufacturing distinct display panels different than claimed in claim 1, and (b) in other words, what Applicants claim is a mask shown at the end of Figs. 16 and 17 of current application, which is also illustrated below as a rectangular box for Fig. 5 of currently application, rather than a composite structure of the mask and the display panel with the claimed pixel units, i.e. the entire structure shown in Fig. 5 of current application.
PNG
media_image2.png
216
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a number of the photo spacers is equal to a number of a plurality of pixel units of the display panel, and each of the pixel units comprising one of the first sub-pixel units, one of the second sub-pixel units and one of the third sub-pixel units” is directed to an intended use of the claimed mask, especially when the structural features of the display panel have nothing to do with the mask when the mask is formed; in addition, Kang further discloses that a number of the photo spacers (305) is equal to a number of a plurality of pixel units of the display panel, and each of the pixel units comprising one of the first sub-pixel units, one of the second sub-pixel units and one of the third sub-pixel units, because (a) Applicants do not claim an entirety of the photo spacers of the mask, and (b) therefore, certain photo spacers can be arbitrarily selected to meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the plurality of photo spacers are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of pixel units, the display panel further comprises a back plate on which the pixel defining layer surrounding each of the first sub-pixels, the second sub-pixels and the third sub-pixels is formed, and each of the photo spacers is configured to abut against a portion, which is in a corresponding pixel unit, of the pixel defining layer when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel” is directed to an intended use of the claimed mask, especially when the structural features of the display panel have nothing to do with the mask when the mask is formed; in addition, Kang further discloses that the plurality of photo spacers (305) are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of pixel units, because (a) Applicants do not claim an entirety of the photo spacers of the mask, and (b) therefore, certain photo spacers can be arbitrarily selected to meet the claim limitation, the display panel further comprises a back plate (101 in Fig. 5B) on which the pixel defining layer (114) surrounding each of the first sub-pixels, the second sub-pixels and the third sub-pixels is formed, and each of the photo spacers (305) is configured to abut against a portion, which is in a corresponding pixel unit, of the pixel defining layer when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer of the display panel.
Regarding claim 5, Kang further discloses for the mask of claim 1 that each of the opening regions (304) of the substrate (301) exposes a light emitting region of one of the first sub-pixels when the mask is aligned with the unfinished panel to form the organic functional layer ((one component layer of) 116) of the unfinished panel.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the first sub-pixel is a red subpixel, the second sub-pixel is a green sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel is a blue sub-pixel” is directed to an intended use of the claimed mask, especially when the structural features of the display panel have nothing to do with the mask when the mask is formed; in addition, Kang further discloses that the first sub-pixel is a red subpixel, the second sub-pixel is a green sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel is a blue sub-pixel (Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kang further discloses for the mask of claim 1 that a material of the photo spacer (305) is the same as a material of the substrate (301), see Fig. 3 (claim 10), wherein the material of the photo spacer (305) and the material of the substrate (301) are both Invar (claim 8 of Kang et al.) (claim 11).
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.
Claim 2, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang (US 2014/0220715) The teachings of Kang are discussed above.
The limitation “the display panel further comprises a back plate on which the pixel defining layer surrounding each of the first sub-pixels, the second sub-pixels and the third sub-pixels is formed” recited in claim 2 is directed to an intended use of the claimed mask, especially when the structural features of the display panel have nothing to do with the mask when the mask is formed; in addition, Kang further discloses that the display panel further comprises a back plate (101 in Fig. 5B) on which the pixel defining layer (114) surrounding each of the first sub-pixels, the second sub-pixels and the third sub-pixels is formed.
Kang differs from the claimed invention by not showing that each of the plurality of openings has a shape of a hexagon whose length in a row direction of the array is less than its length in a column direction of the array.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that each of the plurality of openings can have a shape of a hexagon whose length in a row direction of the array is less than its length in a column direction of the array, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose the feature recited in claim 2, and also, it is not clear which direction is a row direction and which direction is a column direction, and (b) a hexagonally shaped sub-pixel has been commonly employed in manufacturing a display device in semiconductor industry together with a triangularly shaped sub-pixel, a square shaped sub-pixel and a rectangularly shaped sub-pixel, depending on the uniformity, intensity and direction of light emission, and specific application of the display panel; when a hexagonally shaped sub-pixel is adopted, the claimed plurality of openings would also be hexagonally shaped with the claimed comparative lengths, because the row and column direction may be arbitrarily defined and/or selected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, especially because the amended claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement, and also is indefinite as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xin et al. (US 11,522,152)
Zhang et al. (US 11,841,615)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 January 13, 2026