Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/125,178

MASK ASSEMBLY AND MASK REPLACEMENT METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Priority
May 20, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0062319
Examiner
JENNISON, BRIAN W
Art Unit
1716
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
1045 granted / 1455 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1492
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1455 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 4/1/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 reply filed on 4/1/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20200016623) as cited by applicant with references made to attached machine translation. Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, A mask replacement method comprising: providing a mask assembly comprising: a frame comprising an opening (Frame 200 comprises an opening); a first mask disposed on the frame (mask portion 100 is attached to the frame, See Paragraph [0048]); and first welding portions overlapping the first mask in a plan view (welding portions WP overlap the mask, See Paragraph [0084]); removing the first mask from the frame (mask is removed from frame, See Paragraph [0167]); and forming a second mask and second welding portions overlapping the second mask in a plan view on the frame on which the first welding portions are disposed (a second welding mask is formed 100-2 and with second welding portions WP-2 overlapping the first welding portions. See Paragraphs [0181]), wherein the first welding portions are spaced apart from the second mask, and the first welding portions and the second welding portions are arranged in a direction. (See Paragraph [0181]-[0182]) Regarding claim 2, Fig 8 shows a deposition portion with coupling/non-coupling portions 150, 170, where the first welding portions are formed. 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. The factual inquiries 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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200016623) in view of Kamiura (US 2010/0079065). The teachings of Lee have been discussed above. Lee fails to disclose the first and second welding portions comprise a metal oxide. Kamiura discloses a welded portion in a mask/frame arrangement having a metal oxide. As the metal oxide layer 600 is used for welding, the weld would contain metal oxide. (See Paragraphs [0040]-[0046]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Lee in view of Kamiura to provide the first and second welding portions comprise a metal oxide since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-12, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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. /BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/22/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703038
WELDING GUN AND METHOD FOR MONITORING A WELDING PROCESS
4y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703049
REPAIR WELDING DEVICE AND REPAIR WELDING METHOD
4y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703037
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROVIDE INTERFACES FOR CONTROL OF WELDING-TYPE SYSTEMS
4y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697684
Three-Dimensional Printing Systems and Methods of Their Use
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691525
MACHINING FLUID AND MACHINING DEVICE USING THE SAME
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+22.1%)
3y 6m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1455 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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