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 March 6, 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 15 and 17 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.
Claims 15 and 17 recite “a plurality of opening portions”, and then further add “wherein the opening portion overlaps an entirety of the at least two of the plurality of opening portions” (emphasis added) which is indefinite for several reasons. First, “the opening portion” does not have proper antecedent basis from “a plurality of opening portions” or even “an opening portion of the plurality of opening portions” mentioned in the clause above it. There is no clear reference to any one opening portion when they are phrased this way. Second, “the at least two of the plurality of opening portions” is similarly unclear, but likely refers to the clause mentioning that “at least two of the plurality of opening portions of the mask sheet have different sizes in a plan view”, however due to them being said to have “different sizes in a second direction” it is still unclear how it they could possibly refer to the same openings.
Finally, the concept of an opening portion that “overlaps an entirety of the at least to of the plurality of opening portions” is entirely nonsensical when all of the openings are present on the same planar mask sheet. An opening cannot overlap another opening without them merging to become one single opening. It seems possible that Applicant is intending to claim that the length of one opening in one direction, i.e. the Y direction in figure 17B, is longer in the Y direction than two other openings in that same Y direction, which is the interpretation that will be used for examination.
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 possible ways that two openings are arranged along one direction, and at least one of the openings has a size which overlaps two others in the other direction which crosses the first direction, as seen in the two annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
604
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
604
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. 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).
Claim 17 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. in view of Lee et al.
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). 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 March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the prior art does not teach the new limitations that two openings arranged along one direction have different sizes and that another opening overlaps an entirety of the at least two others in a second direction crossing the first.
In response:
Applicant’s argument does not appear to fully consider all of the embodiments in Lee et al. or Yeh at al., which show the exact claimed arrangement. Lee et al. shows the arrangements as shown in the annotated above, and Yeh et al. teaches that any of the mask arrangements shown in figures 1 to 6 can be possible such that the large opening L3 can overlap two other openings that have different sizes (L1 and L2) in a second direction crossing the direction they are arranged in. Applicant seems to argue that Yeh et al. does not show one opening overlapping the others in the width direction, but this is not the case as Yeh et al. explicitly discloses that all of the widths (W1, W2, W3, W4) can have overlapping sizes (par. 24, 28, 30, 36), and further nothing in the claim appears to even require any specific width arrangement. The limitations about openings in the same sheet overlapping other openings is already extremely indefinite as discussed above, but nothing appears to require any specific width arrangement rather than them just being overlapped in particular directions, which all of the figures show. Further, nothing in the instant disclosure or drawings seem to show this same width arrangement that Applicant is attempting to argue. Applicant is encouraged to be far more specific with the structural language in the claims, as labeling a number of different elements as “an opening portion” is extremely confusing and unclear.
Conclusion
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
6/10/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights