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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are pending.
Claims 9-12 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 15-16 are newly added.
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.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "the first bending section” and “the second bending section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazume (US 20020025406 A1), further in view of Asano (JP 2019031720 A, using attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kitazume teaches a mask (Kitazume, Fig. 2a, [0035], mask 12), comprising:
an opening region (Kitazume, Fig. 1c, [0034], region of mask 12 where slits 12b are patterned);
a welding region arranged around the opening region (Kitazume, Fig. 2b, [0035], mask 12 is welded to frame 11 in region surrounding region where slits 12b are located); and
a blocking groove arranged outside the opening region and configured to prevent wrinkles, caused by welding the mask to a frame, from extending into the opening region (Kitazume, Figs. 2a and 2b, [0035], concave part 12a of mask 12 is located outside the opening region where slits 12b are located).
Kitazume fails to teach wherein a border portion of the frame is provided with reference holes, and the reference holes are through-holes which penetrate through the frame.
However, Asano teaches wherein a border portion of the frame is provided with reference holes, and the reference holes are through-holes which penetrate through the frame (Asano, Fig. 1 and 2b, L253-276, frame 3 is provided with guide holes 9 that penetrate through frame 3).
Asano is considered analogous art to the claim invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the alignment holes and reference holes as taught by Asano into the apparatus of Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism to ensure an accurate positional relationship once the mask and frame are bonded (Asano, L256-261).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured to prevent wrinkles caused by welding the mask to a frame, from extending into the opening region“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The concave portion of Kitazume is located outside the opening region over the weld area of the mask and frame and has a groove shape where the sidewalls of the groove are higher than the weld, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 13, Kitazume teaches wherein a ratio of a depth of the blocking groove to a thickness of the mask is from 0.3 to 0.5 (Kitazume, [0034], thickness of mask plate thickness of 100 um, and concave part 12 depth is 50 um). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 14, Kitazume teaches wherein the opening region comprises a plurality of openings corresponding one-to-one with a display area of a display panel to be prepared, and the plurality of openings is arranged in an array (Kitazume, Fig. 1c, region of mask 12 where slits 12b are patterned are provided in a plurality and arranged in an array). The Examiner construes ‘a display panel to be prepared’ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claims 2-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazume (US 20020025406 A1) in view of Asano (JP 2019031720 A), as applied in claims 1 and 13-14, and further in view of Shigemura (US 20040104197 A1).
The limitations of claims 1 and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Kitazume fails to teach wherein a plurality of alignment holes for aligning with the reference holes of the frame are further provided in the welding region, and the blocking groove at least surrounds part of the plurality of alignment holes.
However, Asano teaches wherein a plurality of alignment holes for aligning with the reference holes of the frame are further provided in the welding region (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, plural alignment holes 7 provided in mask 2 at diagonal corner locations, are located near the welds, align with guide holes 9, L271-276).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the alignment holes and reference holes as taught by Asano into the apparatus of Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism to ensure an accurate positional relationship once the mask and frame are bonded (Asano, L256-261).
While Asano establishes that the alignment holes are located between the weld area and the mask openings, Asano does not teach where the alignment holes are to be located in relation to the blocking groove.
However, Shigemura teaches wherein the blocking groove at least surrounds part of the plurality of alignment holes (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], aperture 222 is located between welding area and alignment marks 23).
Shigemura is considered analogous art to the claim invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the blocking apertures next to the alignment marks in the manner taught by Shigemura into the apparatus of modified Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism prevent distortion of the alignment marks (Shigemura, [0117]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kitazume teaches wherein the blocking groove is configured to accommodate welding joints used in welding the mask to the frame (Kitazume, Fig. 2b, [0035], mask 12 is welded to frame 11 in region surrounding region where slits 12b are located), and a height of the welding joints is smaller than a depth of the blocking groove (Kitazume, [0035]. Weld flash height is 20 um while concave groove depth is 50 um).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kitazume teaches wherein the welding joints are distributed at intervals along an edge of the mask to form a ring-shaped welding structure (Kitazume, Fig. 2a, [0035] laser 21 welds mask 12 to frame 1 along edge of rectangular mask), and the blocking groove is configured as a ring-shaped structure corresponding to the ring-shaped welding structure (Kitazume, Fig. 2a, [0035] laser 21 welds mask 12 to frame 1 along edge of rectangular mask along concave part 12a).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kitazume teaches wherein the mask is rectangular and comprises a first edge and a second edge which are arranged oppositely along a length direction of the mask (Kitazume, Fig. 1c, [0034], mask 12 is rectangular, having a first edge and second edge that run in a parallel direction to notation B-B’, and arranged opposite to each other).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kitazume fails to teach wherein the blocking groove comprises a first blocking groove and a second blocking groove, the first blocking groove is provided between the first edge and the first alignment holes, the second blocking groove is provided between the second edge and the second alignment holes, and a length direction of the first blocking groove and a length direction of the second blocking groove are both parallel to a width direction of the mask.
However, Shigemura teaches wherein the blocking groove comprises a first blocking groove and a second blocking groove (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], apertures 222 at left and right of Fig. 18), the first blocking groove is provided between the first edge and the first alignment holes (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], aperture 222 at left of Fig. 18 is located between edge of mask 20 and alignment mark 23), the second blocking groove is provided between the second edge and the second alignment holes (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], aperture 222 at right of Fig. 18 is located between edge of mask 20 and alignment mark 23), and a length direction of the first blocking groove and a length direction of the second blocking groove are both parallel to a width direction of the mask (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], apertures 222 extend parallel to the y direction of the mask).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the blocking apertures next to the alignment marks in the manner taught by Shigemura into the apparatus of modified Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism prevent distortion of the alignment marks (Shigemura, [0117]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kitazume teaches wherein along the length direction of the first blocking groove, at least one end of the first blocking groove is bent toward the second blocking groove to form a first bending section; along the length direction of the second blocking groove, at least one end of the second blocking groove is bent toward the first blocking groove to form a second bending section; the first bending section and the second bending section are located at top corners of the mask respectively, and arranged in a spaced manner (Kitazume, Figs. 2a and 2b, [0035], concave part 12a of mask 12 runs continuously along rectangular edge of mask 12, wherein at the corners the concave portions bend towards one another, and the horizontal part of 12a is spaced apart 90 degrees from the vertical part of 12a).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kitazume fails to teach wherein the blocking groove comprises a plurality of blocking sub-grooves, and the plurality of the blocking sub-grooves are distributed at intervals along edges of the plurality of alignment holes.
However, Shigemura teaches wherein the blocking groove comprises a plurality of blocking sub-grooves (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], apertures 222 are provided in a sectional plurality), and the plurality of the blocking sub-grooves are distributed at intervals along edges of the plurality of alignment holes (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], apertures 222 are provided in a sectional plurality next to alignment marks 23).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the blocking apertures next to the alignment marks in the manner taught by Shigemura into the apparatus of modified Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism prevent distortion of the alignment marks (Shigemura, [0117]).
Regarding claim 15, Kitazume fails to teach wherein the plurality of alignment holes comprises a plurality of first alignment holes and a plurality of second alignment holes, the plurality of the first alignment holes are disposed between the first edge and the opening region, and the plurality of the first alignment holes are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the first edge; and the plurality of the second alignment holes are disposed between the second edge and the opening region, and the second alignment holes are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the second edge.
However, Asano teaches wherein the plurality of alignment holes comprises a plurality of first alignment holes and a plurality of second alignment holes (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, plural alignment holes 7 provided in mask 2), the plurality of the first alignment holes are disposed between the first edge and the opening region (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, alignment holes 7 are provided between left edge of mask 2 and mask pattern openings 4, L250-251), and the plurality of the first alignment holes are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the first edge (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, alignment holes 7 may be provided in plural, such as 3 and 4, at diagonal positions that can be different from those displayed in Figs. 2a and 2b);
the plurality of the second alignment holes are disposed between the second edge and the opening region (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, alignment holes 7 are provided between right edge of mask 2 and mask pattern openings 4, L250-251), and the second alignment holes are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the second edge (Asano, Figs. 2a and 2b, L257-261, alignment holes 7 may be provided in plural, such as 3 and 4, at diagonal positions that can be different from those displayed in Figs. 2a and 2b).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the alignment holes and reference holes as taught by Asano into the apparatus of Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism to ensure an accurate positional relationship once the mask and frame are bonded (Asano, L256-261).
Regarding claim 16, Kitazume teaches the first bending section and the second bending section are located at top corners of the mask respectively, and arranged in a spaced manner (Kitazume, Figs. 2a and 2b, [0035], concave part 12a of mask 12 runs continuously along rectangular edge of mask 12, wherein at the corners the concave portions bend towards one another, and the horizontal part of 12a is spaced apart 90 degrees from the vertical part of 12a).
Kitazume fails to teach the alignment holes.
However, Asano teaches the alignment holes (Asano, Fig. 1, L253-264, alignment holes 7 are provided at diagonal corners of mask 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the alignment holes and reference holes as taught by Asano into the apparatus of Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism to ensure an accurate positional relationship once the mask and frame are bonded (Asano, L256-261).
While Asano establishes that the alignment holes are located between the weld area and the mask openings, Asano does not teach where the alignment holes are to be located in relation to the blocking groove.
However, Shigemura teaches wherein the blocking groove at least surrounds part of the plurality of alignment holes (Shigemura, Fig. 18, [0117], aperture 222 is located between welding area and alignment marks 23).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the blocking apertures next to the alignment marks in the manner taught by Shigemura into the apparatus of modified Kitazume as doing so would provide a mechanism prevent distortion of the alignment marks (Shigemura, [0117]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 11/12/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kitazume in view of Mei, teach the claim limitations “wherein a border portion of the frame is provided with reference holes, and the reference holes are through-holes which penetrate through the frame” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
