DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 05/02/2023, 05/10/2023, and 12/13/2023 have been acknowledged and signed copies of the PTO-1449 are attached herein.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 14 ,20, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Na et al. (US 2010/0227060 A1, hereinafter “Na”).
In regards to claim 1, Na discloses (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) an apparatus for manufacturing a display device, the apparatus comprising:
a mask assembly (120/220) tilted (See, for example, Par [0029]) with respect to a plane parallel to the ground;
a deposition source (140) facing the mask assembly (120); and
a carrier (110) facing the mask assembly (120) and configured to support a display substrate (S, and Pars [0005]-[0006]),
wherein the mask assembly (120) comprises: a mask frame (See, for example, 225) having a flat surface; and
a mask sheet (220, See Fig. 3B) having an end on the flat surface of the mask frame (225, See Fig. 3B) and coupled to the mask frame (225, Se Fig. 3B).
In regards to claim 14, Na discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
arranging a mask assembly (120) to be tilted (See, for example, Par [0029]) with respect to a plane parallel to the ground;
arranging one surface of a display substrate (S, and Pars [0005]-[0006]) on a carrier (110) and one surface of the mask assembly (120) to face each other; and
depositing a deposition material (See, for example, Pars [0025]-[0027]) on the display substrate by passing the deposition material through the mask assembly (120),
wherein the mask assembly (120) comprises: a mask frame (225, See Fig. 3B) having a flat surface; and a mask sheet (220, See, Fig. 3B) having an end on the flat surface of the mask frame (225) and coupled to the mask frame (225).
In regards to claim 7, Na discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) that a support unit (110) configured to support one surface of the mask assembly (120) and to support a lower surface of the mask assembly (120).
In regards to claims 9 and 22, Na discloses (see, for example, Fig. 1) a tilt angle of the mask assembly (120) is in a range of about 3 degrees to about 14 degrees (See, for example, Par [0029]).
In regards to claims 11 and 24, Na discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3B) that the mask frame (225) has a trapezoidal planar shape.
In regards to claim 20, Na discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) that seating the mask assembly (120) on a support unit (110), wherein the support unit (110) is configured to support one surface of the mask assembly (120) and to support a lower surface of the mask assembly (120).
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.
Claims 2-4, 13, 15-17, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Kuriyama et al. (WO 2014/155939 A1, hereinafter “Kuriyama”).
In regards to claims 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, and 17, Na discloses all limitations of claim 1 above but silent about that the mask assembly further comprises a support member dividing an opening area of the mask frame into a plurality of opening areas (claims 2, 15); the mask frame has an opening area at a central portion of the mask frame, and wherein an inner surface of the opening area is inclined (claim 3, 16); a groove is in a surface of the mask frame opposite to one surface of the mask frame in contact with the mask sheet (claim 4, 17).
Kuriyama while disclosing a mask frame unit teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) the mask assembly (100, See for example, Fig. 2) further comprises a support member (portion of the mask frame without the grooves) dividing an opening area (56) of the mask frame (55) into a plurality of opening areas; the mask frame (55) has an opening area (55a) at a central portion of the mask frame (55), and wherein an inner surface of the opening area (55a) is inclined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Na by Kuriyama because having multiple grooves and a portion that functions as a rib in between the grooves would help increase the rigidity of the frame portion without a complicated structure. Furthermore, generation of warpage is suppressed while reducing the weight of the frame portion.
In regards to claims 13 and 26, Na discloses all limitations of claim above but silent about the mask frame has an opening area having a quadrangular shape at a central portion thereof, and wherein a corner portion of the opening area is rounded.
Kuriyama discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) the mask frame (55) has an opening area (55a) having a quadrangular shape at a central portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Na by Kuriyama because having multiple grooves and a portion that functions as a rib in between the grooves would help increase the rigidity of the frame portion without a complicated structure. Furthermore, generation of warpage is suppressed while reducing the weight of the frame portion.
Claims 13 and 26 differ from Na as modified by Kuriyama in that a corner portion of the opening area is rounded.
However, this difference amounts to nothing more than a change in the shape or configuration of the corner portion of the opening area of the mask frame. It has been held that modifications to the shape or configuration of a known device are generally within the purview of ordinary skill in the art when such modifications yield only predictable results and do not produce any unexpected functional advantages. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In Dailey, the court determined that where the only distinction between a claimed invention and the prior art lies in the shape or configuration of a component, and where the applicant has not demonstrated that the particular shape claimed is critical to the function of the device or produces results that would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art, such a modification is properly considered an obvious design choice that does not rise to the level of patentable invention. Applying this principle to the present claims, the mere substitution of the rounded corner portion of the opening area of the mask frame for the rectangular shape of the corner portion of the opening of the mask frame taught by Na as modified by Kuriyama represents a routine design modification absent any showing that this configuration wherein the rounded corner portion of the opening area of the mask frame is critical to the operation of the mask frame or yields unexpected technical benefits. Both the rectangular shape of the corner portion of the opening of the mask frame and rounded corner portion of the opening area of the mask frame configurations are well-known geometric shapes, and selecting one over the other for a corner configuration of the mask frame constitutes an obvious exercise of design choice that would have been readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed trapezoidal shape produces any new or unexpected results, nor has Applicant demonstrated that this particular configuration is significant to the function or performance of the mask frame beyond what would be achieved with the corner shape of Na as modified by Kuriyama.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify rectangular shape of the corner portion of the opening of the mask frame of Na as modified by Kuriyama to have a rounded corner portion of the opening area of the mask frame, as such a modification represents nothing more than an obvious change in shape or configuration yielding predictable results. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0123644 A1, hereinafter “Lee’).
In regards to claims 8 and 21, Na discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that the support unit comprises: a supporter having an opening; a first support block spaced apart from the supporter and configured to support a rear surface of the mask assembly; and a second support block on a lower surface of the supporter and configured to support a side surface of the mask assembly.
Lee while disclosing a mask assembly teaches (See, for example, annotated Fig. 6 attached below) the support unit comprises: a supporter (10) having an opening (621); a first support block (20) spaced apart from the supporter (10) and configured to support a rear surface of the mask assembly(610); and a second support block (30) on a lower surface of the supporter (10) and configured to support a side surface of the mask assembly (610).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Na by Lee because this would help reduce the deformation of the mask assembly.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na.
In regards to claims 12 and 25, Na discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, except that a width of a planar shape of the mask frame is smaller at an upper side of the mask frame than at a lower side of the mask frame.
Claims 12 and 25 differ from Na in that the claims recite a shape wherein the width of the planar shape of the mask frame is smaller at an upper side of the mask frame than at a lower side of the mask frame, whereas Na teaches a rectangular shaped mask frame.
However, this difference amounts to nothing more than a change in the shape or configuration of the mask frame. It has been held that modifications to the shape or configuration of a known device are generally within the purview of ordinary skill in the art when such modifications yield only predictable results and do not produce any unexpected functional advantages. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In Dailey, the court determined that where the only distinction between a claimed invention and the prior art lies in the shape or configuration of a component, and where the applicant has not demonstrated that the particular shape claimed is critical to the function of the device or produces results that would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art, such a modification is properly considered an obvious design choice that does not rise to the level of patentable invention.
Applying this principle to the present claims, the mere substitution of a shape that looks like trapezoidal for the rectangular shape taught by Na represents a routine design modification absent any showing that this configuration wherein the upper side is narrower than the lower side is critical to the operation of the mask frame or yields unexpected technical benefits. Both rectangular and trapezoidal configurations are well-known geometric shapes, and selecting one over the other for a mask frame constitutes an obvious exercise of design choice that would have been readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed trapezoidal shape produces any new or unexpected results, nor has Applicant demonstrated that this particular configuration is significant to the function or performance of the mask frame beyond what would be achieved with the rectangular shape of Na.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rectangular mask frame of Na to have a shape wherein the width at the upper side is smaller than at the lower side, as such a modification represents nothing more than an obvious change in shape or configuration yielding predictable results. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10, 18-19, and 23 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893