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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on August 14, 2026 was received. Claims 15 and 17 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued September 8, 2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on August 14, 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the amended claim subject matter was not properly marked up. Specifically, the in the second to last paragraphs of both claim 15 and claim 17, the phrase “portion has a length greater than a combined length” is new to this claim set yet was not properly underlined. It is unclear if this is the only change not properly marked up. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
While the amendment is therefore not properly responsive, this appears to be a simple mistake in formatting and therefore Examination of these claims will proceed as usual. However, Applicant is advised to carefully check marked up claim sets to ensure they properly comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) in the future.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 15 and 17 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn because Applicant suitably amended the claims to clarify their subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2008/0118743) on claim 15 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 15: Lee et al. discloses a deposition mask (100) having a mask frame (102) and a mask sheet (106) which is located on the mask frame (102) and has a blocking part (109a) which is a rib that defines a plurality of openings (109b-109e), the openings (109b-109e) having at least four different sizes in a plan view (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7). Lee et al. shows two of the openings (109d,e) having different sizes being arranged next to each other along a first direction, with two other openings (109b,c) which can be considered a first and a second third opening, arranged adjacent to each other, each with a length greater than a combined length of the firs two openings (109d,e) in the first direction, and both of which can be considered adjacent to and at opposite sides of the first two openings (109d,e) along a second direction crossing the first direction, as shown in the annotated figure 6C below.
The preamble limitations regarding the display substrate and pixel electrodes that the mask assembly is used with are considered to be intended use limitations that do not further limit the apparatus claim. In apparatus claims, a claimed 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. MPEP § 2111.02, 2114-2115. In the instant case, the mask (100) of Lee et al. is capable of being used with a display substrate as claimed, where the ribs are located between a plurality of pixel electrodes on the substrate, and where one opening can overlap two adjacent pixel electrodes.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Yeh et al. (US 2007/0266943) on claim 17 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Yeh et al. (US 2007/0266943).
Regarding claim 17: Lee et al. discloses a display manufacturing apparatus having a deposition mask (100) aligned with a display substrate (10), a deposition source located opposite to the display substrate (10) with the deposition mask (100) therebetween (par. 58-62, figure 4), the deposition mask (100) being an assembly which includes a mask frame (102) and a mask sheet (106) which is located on the mask frame (102) and has a blocking part (109a) which is a rib that defines a plurality of openings (109b-109e), the openings (109b-109e) having at least four different sizes in a plan view (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7). Lee et al. further discloses that the display substrate (10) includes an organic layer (82) sandwiched between electrodes (86, 87) which together form a sub-pixel unit (par. 37, figure 2), where the sub-pixel unit area is shown to not overlap with the blocking part (109a) of the mask sheet (106) such that the blocking part (109a) would be located between the plurality of sub-pixel units on the substrate (10) in a plan view (see figure 4). Lee et al. further shows that two of the openings (109d,e) having different sizes being arranged next to each other along a first direction, with two other openings (109b,c) which can be considered a first and a second third opening, arranged adjacent to each other, each with a length greater than a combined length of the firs two openings (109d,e) in the first direction, and both of which can be considered adjacent to and at opposite sides of the first two openings (109d,e) along a second direction crossing the first direction, as shown in the annotated figure 6C above.
Lee et al. fails to explicitly disclose that at least one of the opening portions of the mask overlaps two pixel electrodes that are adjacent to each other and have the same size. However, Yeh et al. discloses a similar deposition mask (60) having a number of differently sized openings (12, 22, 32, 62, 63) which each correspond to and overlap a plurality of adjacent pixel electrodes (B) all having the same size (pars. 36-37, figures 5-6). Yeh et al. shows that openings can have different sizes, where the size of the largest opening (L3) is equal to or larger than at least the combination of the smallest (L1) and smaller (L2) openings, such that one such opening (22) having a large size (L3) overlaps in one direction two others (22) having other sizes (L1, L2) which are arranged in a first direction (figures 1-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single opening to overlap at least two adjacent pixels as taught by Yeh et al. for the apparatus of Lee et al. because Yeh et al. teaches that reducing the number of openings by using larger openings overlapping multiple pixels each helps reduce problems caused by adhesion of particles to the mask openings (par. 8, 45).
The alternative claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yeh et al. in view of Lee et al. on claim 17 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Claim 15 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. in view of Lee et al.
Regarding claim 15: Yeh et al. discloses a mask evaporation system including a mask (10) aligned with a display substrate (11), the substrate (11) having a pixel array with a number of different pixels (R, G, B) that are spaced from each other, the mask having a plurality of different sized openings (12, 22, 32, 62, 63) where the solid portions therebetween are rib portions which define those openings, the openings (12, 22, 32, 62, 63) aligning with the pixel electrodes (R, G, B) on the display substrate (11) such that the rib portion does not overlap the pixels and such that some of the openings overlap at least two pixels (R, G, B) of the same size (par. 25, 36-38, figures 6-7). Yeh et al. shows that openings can have different sizes, where the size of the largest opening (L3) is equal to or larger than at least the combination of the smallest (L1) and smaller (L2) openings, such that one such opening (22) having a large size (L3) overlaps in one direction two others (22) having other sizes (L1, L2) which are arranged in a first direction (figures 1-6). Additionally, Yeh et al. discloses that the exact designs shown in the figures are purely schematic examples, and that the number and arrangement of the openings can be adjusted to fit the particular needs of the process (par. 24-26) such that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try arranging two of the large openings (L3) on either side of a pair of the smaller openings (L1, L5) as shown in the annotated figure 6 below, because Yeh et al. teaches that the amounts and arrangements of the opening can be adjusted to suit actual needs (par. 24-26) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
510
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeh et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the mask (10) is formed as a sheet on a mask frame. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar deposition mask (100) having a mask frame (102) and a mask sheet (106) which is located on the mask frame (102), the mask sheet (106) having a blocking part (109a) which is a rib that defines a plurality of openings (109b-109e) (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the mask of Yeh et al. to have a frame in the same way as Lee et al. because Lee et al. shows this is a common and well understood way of constructing an evaporation mask (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7) and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17: Yeh et al. discloses a mask evaporation system including a mask (10) aligned with a display substrate (11), the substrate (11) having a pixel array with a number of different pixels (R, G, B) that are spaced from each other, an evaporation source (74) located opposite to the substrate (11) with the mask (10) between the two, the mask having a plurality of different sized openings (12, 22, 32, 62, 63) where the solid portions therebetween are rib portions which define those openings, the openings (12, 22, 32, 62, 63) aligning with the pixel electrodes (R, G, B) on the display substrate (11) such that the rib portion does not overlap the pixels and such that some of the openings overlap at least two pixels (R, G, B) of the same size (par. 25, 36-38, figures 6-7). Yeh et al. shows that openings can have different sizes, where the size of the largest opening (L3) is equal to or larger than at least the combination of the smallest (L1) and smaller (L2) openings, such that one such opening (22) having a large size (L3) overlaps in one direction two others (22) having other sizes (L1, L2) which are arranged in a first direction (figures 1-6). Additionally, Yeh et al. discloses that the exact designs shown in the figures are purely schematic examples, and that the number and arrangement of the openings can be adjusted to fit the particular needs of the process (par. 24-26) such that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try arranging two of the large openings (L3) on either side of a pair of the smaller openings (L1, L5) as shown in the annotated figure 6 above, because Yeh et al. teaches that the amounts and arrangements of the opening can be adjusted to suit actual needs (par. 24-26) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Yeh et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the mask (10) is formed as a sheet on a mask frame. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar deposition mask (100) having a mask frame (102) and a mask sheet (106) which is located on the mask frame (102), the mask sheet (106) having a blocking part (109a) which is a rib that defines a plurality of openings (109b-109e) (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the mask of Yeh et al. to have a frame in the same way as Lee et al. because Lee et al. shows this is a common and well understood way of constructing an evaporation mask (par. 60, 81-87, figures 5 and 6-7) and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Lee et al. and Yeh et al. do not show the same arrangement of longer openings on opposite sides of the two differently sized smaller openings like that of 17B in the instant Application.
In response:
Applicant is again reading the claims too narrowly. Lee et al. shows the claimed arrangement as demonstrated in the annotated figure above, which fits with the current claim language. Regardless, Yeh et al. discloses a number of different types of openings that seemingly correspond more closely to those that Applicant is claiming, and teaches that they can be arranged in any number or design as one of ordinary skill in the art deems necessary for their actual needs. Therefore, Yeh et al. suggests the same configuration as that shown in figure 17B of the instant Application and teaches that there is no criticality to the exact design of each mask beyond the idea of having larger openings encompassing multiple pixel electrodes on the same sheet as smaller openings encompassing fewer pixel electrodes.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
10/9/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
