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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 05/04/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-20 from the final office action, mailed on 03/11/2026, by amending claims 1-2, 10, 12 and 13 is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
While searching interference, the examiner notices the IDS filed reference, CN 109750257 still reads into the claim 1. Therefore, the examiner withdraws the allowable subject matter for the claim 1 and set forth new grounds of the rejection, as will be addressed below
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “the first surface the bonding portion” of Claim 10 should be “the first surface, the bonding portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “A mask frame, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and comprising: a frame body, formed as a frame structure with an opening; and a support body, arranged in the opening and connected to the frame body” of Claims 1 and 10,
According to the applicants’ Fig. 1,
By arranging in the opening and connecting to the frame body, the “support body 12” is directly connected to the “frame 11”, thus the larger “opening of the frame body” is fully covered by the “support body 12”, except the plural “evaporation apertures 121”, in other words, it is considered that the support body 12 is a part of the frame body 11 and the opening of the frame body is not actually required in the final form of the mask.
Consequently, the limitation will be examined inclusive of the applicants’ final form of the mask having no opening of the frame body, as shown in Fig. 1.
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 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Claim 10 recites the “a supporting surface located on the first surface the bonding portion extending from the bonding surface to the second surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface, and the bonding surface and the supporting surface are distributed in a stepped shape”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the bonding surface” in the claim.
The limitation will be examined inclusive of:
By referring to claim 1 amendment, “a supporting surface located on the first surface, the bonding portion comprising a bonding surface, the bonding portion extending from the bonding surface to the second surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface, and the bonding surface and the supporting surface are distributed in a stepped shape”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (CN 109750257, filed in IDS, hereafter ‘257).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘257 teaches:
The mask 00 may include a main frame 10 (Fig. 1, last paragraph of page 9 of the English translation, note Fig. 1 shows upper and lower surfaces of the fame 10, see also the claim interpretation above for the “opening”, the claimed “A mask frame, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and comprising: a frame body, formed as a frame structure with an opening; and a support body, arranged in the opening and connected to the frame body”);
The main frame 10 has a plurality of opening regions 101 (Fig. 2, last paragraph of page 9, the claimed “the support body comprising a plurality of evaporation apertures distributed in an array and a plurality of support units distributed around respective evaporation apertures”);
a barrier structure 102 disposed around each opening region 101 (1st paragraph of page 16, note Fig. 9 shows the structure 102 is a stepped structure, the claimed “the support unit comprising a supporting portion and a bonding portion extending from the supporting portion toward the evaporation aperture, the supporting portion comprising a supporting surface located on the first surface, the bonding portion comprising a bonding surface, the bonding portion extending from the bonding surface to the second surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface, and the bonding surface and the supporting surface are distributed in a stepped shape”);
an adjusting knob 402 (last paragraph of page 17, note Fig. 11 shows the knob is extending from the stepped surface toward the upper surface and further Fig. 12 shows plural knobs 402 are distributed at intervals around each opening, the claimed “wherein the mask frame further comprises a plurality of auxiliary structures formed on the bonding portion and extending from the bonding surface toward the first surface, and the auxiliary structures are distributed at intervals around the evaporation aperture on the bonding surface”).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20230357913, hereafter ‘913) in view of ‘257.
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘913 teaches:
The mask body 20 is disposed on the mask frame 10, and An opening (not shown in FIG. 1) is formed in a middle portion of the mask frame 10, and the mask body 20 is provided with a hollowed-out structure ([0060], note the frame intrinsically has upper and lower surfaces, and Fig. 7 shows plural hollowed-out structures 202, the claimed “A mask frame, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, and comprising: a frame body, formed as a frame structure with an opening; a support body, arranged in the opening and connected to the frame body, the support body comprising a plurality of evaporation apertures distributed in an array and a plurality of support units distributed around the respective evaporation apertures”);
The mask body 20 includes a plurality of grooves 201 and a plurality of hollowed-out structures 202 ([0071], note Fig. 8 shows the combined structure 201 and 202 has a stepped shape, thus the upper step portion is a supporting portion and the lower step portion is a bonding portion, the claimed “the support unit comprising a supporting portion and a bonding portion extending from the supporting portion toward the evaporation aperture, the supporting portion comprising a supporting surface located on the first surface, the bonding portion comprising a bonding surface protruding to the second surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface, and the bonding surface and the supporting surface are distributed in a stepped shape”).
‘913 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: wherein the mask frame further comprises a plurality of auxiliary structures formed on the bonding portion and extending from the bonding surface toward the first surface, and the auxiliary structures are distributed at intervals around the evaporation aperture on the bonding surface.
‘913 further teaches the mask strip 30 is mounted in the groove 201 (Fig. 17, [0121]).
‘257 is analogous art in the field of mask (English title). ‘257 teaches an adjusting knob 402 (last paragraph of page 17, note Fig. 11 shows the knob is extending from the lower stepped surface toward the upper surface and further Fig. 12 shows plural knobs 402 are distributed at intervals around each opening”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added plural position adjustment assemblies including the adjusting knob, along the lower step portion of ‘913, for the purpose of effectively improving the position accuracy of the pixel hole in the mask plate, thus improving the yield of subsequent manufacturing.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘913 and ‘257, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Mizumura (US 20160115580, hereafter ‘580).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 8 of ‘913 shows a thickness of the lower step portion is smaller than a full thickness of the upper and lower step portions (the claimed “and a thickness of the bonding portion is smaller than that of the supporting portion”).
‘913 and ‘257 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 2: wherein in the first direction, a thickness of the frame body is the same as a thickness of the supporting portion, and a thickness of the bonding portion is smaller than that of the supporting portion.
‘580 is analogous art in the field of mask (title). ‘580 teaches The metal mask 2 is provided at a position corresponding to the inside of the frame (inside of the opening) of the frame-shaped metal thin film 5, and The metal mask 2 is constituted by a metal sheet, which has an external dimension of a size capable of being placed within the frame of the frame-shaped metal thin film 5, the metal sheet being formed of a magnetic metal material such as Invar or an Invar alloy, the metal sheet having a thickness of approximately 30 μm to 50 μm, which is substantially the same as that of the frame-shaped metal thin film 5 (Fig. 1B, [0027]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the mask of ‘913 so to have the recited feature, for its suitability as known structure with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 4,
Fig. 11 of ‘257 shows a top of the knob 402 is in the same plane of the top of the frame body. Therefore, when the knobs are imported on the lower step portion of the frame body of ‘913, the sum of a thickness of the lower step portion and a height of the knob in the thickness direction of the frame body is equal to a thickness of the upper step portion (the claimed “wherein a sum of a thickness of the bonding portion and an extending height of the auxiliary structure in the first direction is equal to a thickness of the supporting portion”).
Regarding to Claims 5-6,
Fig. 11 of ‘257 shows the knob 402 is spaced apart from a side of the upper step portion and also from an edge of the lower step portion in a horizontal direction, thus the imported knob in ‘913 would have the same feature (the claimed “wherein the auxiliary structure is spaced apart from the supporting portion in a horizontal direction parallel to the first surface” of Claim 5 and “wherein the bonding surface comprises a first edge adjacent to the evaporation aperture, and the auxiliary structure is arranged with a predetermined distance from the first edge in a horizontal direction parallel to the first surface” of Claim 6).
Regarding to Claim 7,
As discussed in the claim 6 rejection above, the knob 402 is spaced apart from an edge of the lower step portion in a horizontal direction, thus in the combined apparatus of ‘913, ‘257 and ‘580, a distance from the edge to the knob, is intrinsically existed (the claimed “wherein the predetermined distance is”), and ‘913, ‘257 and ‘580 are merely silent about the “greater than or equal to 2 mm”.
However, ‘257 clearly teaches the adjustment knob 402 is configured to: the adjusting pins 402 can be driven to move in the adjusting holes 403 to adjust the position of one end of the adjusting pins 401 in the adjusting holes 403, so that the sub-frame 30 is driven to move in the corresponding enclosure structure 102, and the adjustment of the position of the sub-mask plate 20 is realized (last paragraph of page 17), therefore, an appropriate position for the knob is required to control the movement of the adjusting pins 401, in other words, it is result effective parameter to control the movement of the adjusting pins.
Consequently, even if the cited references are silent about the number range feature, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the number ranges as recited, for the purpose of controlling the movement of the adjusting pins, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to Claim 8,
Figs. 11-12 of ‘257 shows the knob 401 has a columnar body having a polygonal cross section, thus imported knobs would have the same feature (the claimed “wherein the auxiliary structure is formed as a columnar body, and the columnar body has a cross section in a circular or polygonal shape”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
The thickness of the frame body is determined by a length from the upper surface of the frame to the lower surface of the frame (the claimed “wherein a thickness of the frame body in the first direction is equal to a distance between the first surface and the second surface”).
Allowable Subject Matter
When all the 112 rejections are resolved, Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Further, by referring to claim 10, if the claim 1 is modified to have a feature related a mask positioned on the auxiliary structures by fully covering the auxiliary structures, it would be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights