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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 March 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-21) in the reply filed on filed on 27 May 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 22-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply. Claims 26-27 have been cancelled.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No 2016/0296966 to Hong et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0224125 to Lee et al. (Lee ‘125).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 17-18, In Figs. 1-7 and 10, Hong et al. disclose an apparatus for (i.e. capable of) manufacturing a display apparatus substantially as claimed, the apparatus comprising: a mask assembly (see, e.g., 100) arranged to face a substrate (120); and a deposition source (1002) arranged to face the mask assembly, wherein the mask assembly comprises a mask frame (see, e.g., 112) that includes an opening area (111); a first mask (211 and 212) arranged on (i.e. supported by) the mask frame and that includes at least one first opening portion (217) in an area corresponding to the opening area; a second mask (213) arranged on the first mask and that includes a plurality of second opening portions (e.g., 223), wherein the plurality of second opening portions overlap the at least one first opening portion in a direction perpendicular (z-direction) to a surface of the first mask; and an air channel through which air is capable of flowing between the mask frame and the first mask, wherein the air channel includes the air channel includes a groove (area between bottom surface of 212 and grooved surfaces of 211) and a hole (218), the groove being concave toward the inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, and the hole passing through the first mask from a surface of the groove.
However, Hong et al. fail to disclose the air channel wherein one or more of (1) to (2) below are satisfied:
the air channel includes a groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame toward the opening area and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction;
the air channel includes a groove concave toward an inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and a thickness of the first mask is decreased at a center of the groove in the first direction relative to a first end or a second end of the groove in the first direction;
Lee ‘125 discloses an air channel wherein the air channel includes a groove concave (corresponding to angle α) toward the inside of a first mask (Fig. 3, 10) in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame (30) toward an opening area of the mask frame and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction, wherein the groove is provided as claimed for the purpose of providing an arrangement where contaminants on the mask frame do not contact the first mask and disrupt a patterning operation using the mask assembly (see, e.g., paras. 8-9, 22, 26 and 29-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided the air channel in Hong et al. includes a groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame toward the opening area and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction providing an arrangement where contaminants on the mask frame do not contact the first mask and disrupt a patterning operation using the mask assembly as taught by Lee ’125.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Hong et al., Hong et al. disclose the diameter of each of the plurality of second opening portions is less than a diameter of the at least one first opening portion. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Hong et al., Hong et al., disclose the air channel is spaced apart from at least one of the at least one first opening portion and the plurality of second opening portions (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 5, in modified Hong et al., Hong et al. disclose the air channel is arranged in an area in which the mask frame is in contact with the first mask (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 8, modified Hong et al. fail to disclose the air channel includes the groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and the thickness of the first mask is decreased at the center of the groove in the first direction relative to the first end or the second end of the groove in the first direction. However, the courts have ruled In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.), wherein Lee ‘125 discloses an inclined groove shape forming a non-contact portion between the first mask and the mask frame allows for the advantages addressed above such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the same including non-disclosed modifications with similar features capable of achieving the same advantage.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Hong et al., Hong et al. and Lee ‘125 disclose the groove overlaps an outer circumference of the opening area in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the first mask (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Hong et al., Lee ‘125 discloses the groove arranged around the circumference of the first mask and mask frame such that a second groove concave toward inside the mask frame in the thickness direction is formed on any one of another side of the circumference of the first mask and mask frame (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Hong et al., Lee ‘125 discloses one side of the second groove (e.g. an inner side is most closely connected or an outer side is connected via the inner side) is connected to the opening area (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 16, in modified Hong et al., Lee ‘125 discloses a thickness of the mask frame gets thinner from the second groove toward the opening area (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 19, modified Hong et al. fail to disclose the air channel includes the groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and the thickness of the first mask is decreased at the center of the groove in the first direction relative to the first end or the second end of the groove in the first direction. However, the courts have ruled In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.), wherein Lee ‘125 discloses an inclined groove shape forming a non-contact portion between the first mask and the mask frame allows for the advantages addressed above such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the same including non-disclosed modifications with similar features capable of achieving the same advantage.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No 2017/0110661 to Lee (Lee ‘661) in view of JP Patent Pub. No. 2005/171290 to Morikawa et al.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 17-18: Lee ‘661 discloses an apparatus for (i.e. capable of) manufacturing a display apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a mask assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 4, 100) arranged to face a substrate (11); and a deposition source (170) arranged to face the mask assembly, wherein the mask assembly comprises a mask frame (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 110) that includes an opening area (112); a first mask (120) arranged on the mask frame and that includes at least one first opening portion (122) in an area corresponding to the opening area; and a second mask (130) arranged on the first mask and that includes a plurality of second opening portions (e.g., throughholes of 131), wherein the plurality of second opening portions overlap the at least one first opening portion in a direction perpendicular (z-direction) to a surface of the first mask.
Lee ‘661 discloses the apparatus, including the mask assembly substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Lee ‘661 fails to disclose the mask assembly further comprising an air channel being formed between the mask frame and the first mask, wherein one or more of (1) to (2) below are satisfied:
the air channel includes a groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame toward the opening area and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction;
the air channel includes a groove concave toward an inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and a thickness of the first mask is decreased at a center of the groove in the first direction relative to a first end or a second end of the groove in the first direction;
Lee ‘125 discloses an air channel wherein the air channel includes a groove concave (corresponding to angle α) toward the inside of a first mask (Fig. 3, 10) in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame (30) toward an opening area of the mask frame and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction, wherein the groove is provided as claimed for the purpose of providing an arrangement where contaminants on the mask frame do not contact the first mask and disrupt a patterning operation using the mask assembly (see, e.g., paras. 8-9, 22, 26 and 29-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided the an channel in Lee’661 including a groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in a thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in a first direction from the mask frame toward the opening area and a surface of the groove facing the mask frame is inclined along the first direction providing an arrangement where contaminants on the mask frame do not contact the first mask and disrupt a patterning operation using the mask assembly as taught by Lee ’125.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘661 teaches a diameter of each of the plurality of second opening portions is less than a diameter of the at least one first opening portion. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Lee ‘661, Hong et al., disclose the air channel is spaced apart from at least one of the at least one first opening portion and the plurality of second opening portions (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 5, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘125 discloses the air channel is arranged in an area in which the mask frame is in contact with the first mask (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 8, modified Lee ‘661 fails to disclose the air channel includes the groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and the thickness of the first mask is decreased at the center of the groove in the first direction relative to the first end or the second end of the groove in the first direction. However, the courts have ruled In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.), wherein Lee ‘125 discloses an inclined groove shape forming a non-contact portion between the first mask and the mask frame allows for the advantages addressed above such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the same including non-disclosed modifications with similar features capable of achieving the same advantage.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘125 discloses the groove overlaps an outer circumference of the opening area in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the first mask (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘125 discloses the groove arranged around the circumference of the first mask and mask frame such that a second groove concave toward inside the mask frame in the thickness direction is formed on any one of another side of the circumference of the first mask and mask frame (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘125 discloses one side of the second groove (e.g. an inner side is most closely connected or an outer side is connected via the inner side) is connected to the opening area (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 16, in modified Lee ‘661, Lee ‘125 discloses a thickness of the mask frame gets thinner from the second groove toward the opening area (see aforementioned figures).
With respect to claim 19, modified Lee ‘661 fails to disclose the air channel includes the groove concave toward the inside of the first mask in the thickness direction, wherein the groove extends in the first direction and the thickness of the first mask is decreased at the center of the groove in the first direction relative to the first end or the second end of the groove in the first direction. However, the courts have ruled In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.), wherein Lee ‘125 discloses an inclined groove shape forming a non-contact portion between the first mask and the mask frame allows for the advantages addressed above such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the same including non-disclosed modifications with similar features capable of achieving the same advantage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 14-19 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. Previous rejections based on previously relied upon prior art have been modified to address new amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pubs. 2006/0148368; 2020/0209735 and KR 20190008377 disclose mask assemblies having air channels with inclined grooves and/or holes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights