Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/989,089

MASK FRAME AND EVAPORATION MASK ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Examiner
LEE, AIDEN Y
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kunshan Go-Visionox Opto-Electronics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
221 granted / 476 resolved
-18.6% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
506
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 476 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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' submission of replacement drawing, filed on 02/13/2026, is acknowledged. Applicant’ amendment of the claims, filed on 02/13/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-12 from the non-final office action, mailed on 12/02/2025, by amending claims 1, 4-6, 8-12; canceling claim 3; and adding new claims 13-20, is acknowledged and will be addressed below. Claim Objections Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) Claim 10 recites same limitation, thus for the purpose of simple form of the limitation, the “wherein the evaporation mesh film covers the first surface, and each of the two sides of the evaporation mesh film in the length direction of the evaporation mesh film is arranged in contact…” of Claim 12 would have a better form if amended to be: “wherein each of the two sides of the evaporation mesh film is arranged in contact…”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (1) The “the bonding portion comprising a bonding surface closer to the second surface than the supporting surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface” of Claims 1 and 10 is a new matter, because the applicants’ disclosures fail to provide details to present a difference between a distance from the bonding surface to the supporting surface and a distance from the bonding surface to the second surface. The examiner does not find a proper support from the applicants’ disclosures; thus, it is a new matter. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. (1) Continued from 112 1st paragraph, because the feature is a new matter, the metes and bounds of the “the bonding portion comprising a bonding surface closer to the second surface than the supporting surface in a first direction from the first surface to the second surface” of Claims 1 and 10 cannot be clearly determined, thus the feature is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of: “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”. (2) The “that of the supporting portion” of Claims 2 and 13 is not clear, because of the “that”. The Office does not recommend a form of pronoun. For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of “the thickness of the supporting portion”. Response to Arguments Applicants' arguments filed on 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598948
PURGING SPINDLE ARMS TO PREVENT DEPOSITION AND WAFER SLIDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593640
SEMICONDUCTOR WAFER PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584240
LOW MASS SUBSTRATE SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559831
MASK, MASK ASSEMBLY HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557599
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 476 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month