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 with traverse of Group 1 and Species D, claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-11 in the reply filed on 30 June 2025 was previously acknowledged. With the most recent submission, claim 5 has been cancelled and claim 20 has been added. Claim 1 has been amended.
Rejoinder will be considered if and when proper.
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 § 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 1-2, 8-11 and 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Previously, claim 1 recites the limitation "two of the through holes" in 16-17. It was not clear whether or not the feature is meant to refer to the “two of the through holes adjacent to each other”. However, this has not been fully clarified and additionally, the lack of clarity has been expanded, as the claim now recites “the through holes adjacent to each other in the second direction” and “the through holes adjacent to each other in the first direction”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claim 1 was meant to include a recitation such as, or similar to, “the through holes are arrayed in a staggered arrangement in a first direction and a second direction in planar view, and the through holes include two adjacent through holes in the first direction and two adjacent through holes in the second direction”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed this is the case and has examined accordingly.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the portion of the first flat region that overlaps the first center line”. However, this feature has not been previously recited in claim 1 or claim 20. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed limitation was meant to recite “a portion of the first flat region that overlaps the first center line” and has examined accordingly.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
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, 8-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. 2019/099862 to Hosoda et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-7 and 29-32, e.g., Hosoda et al. disclose a deposition mask (20) substantially as claimed and including two or more through holes (25), the deposition mask comprising: a metal plate (formed by layers 33 and 38) including a first surface (20a) and a second surface (20b) opposite the first surface; the through holes each bored through the metal plate from the first surface to the second surface; and a flat region located between two of the through holes adjacent to each other in a case where the deposition mask is seen from the second surface side, wherein the through holes are arrayed in a staggered arrangement in a first direction (see, e.g., annotated figure below) and a second direction (see, e.g., annotated figure below) in planar view (planar view may correspond to a view “from the second surface side”) and the through holes include two adjacent through holes in the first direction and two adjacent through holes in the second direction, the flat region includes a first flat region (see, e.g., annotated figure below) located at a first side of a first center line (see, e.g., annotated figure below) and a second flat region (see, e.g., annotated figure below) located at a second side of the first center line, the first center line passes through center points of the two of the through holes adjacent to each other in the first direction, the first flat region includes a portion in which the dimension of the first flat region in the first direction increases away from the first center line, and the second flat region includes a portion in which a dimension of the second flat region in the first direction increases away from the first center line, the deposition mask further comprises a third flat region located between the two of the through holes adjacent to each other in the second direction in a case where the deposition mask is seen from the second surface side, a dimension in the second direction of a portion (wherein a portion can be arbitrarily chosen) of the third flat region that overlaps a second center line is smaller than a dimension in the first direction of a portion of the first flat region that overlaps the first center line, and the second center line passes through center points of the two of the through holes adjacent to each other in the second direction. Also see attached translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, while Hosoda et al. do disclose the overall staggered zig-zag arrangement of the through holes in the mask and the shape of the through holes with respect to the first surface and the second surface, Hosoda et al. fail to explicitly disclose the exact dimensions of the through holes of the mask and the flat regions of the mask, as well as the relationships (e.g., distances) between these features. More specifically, Hosoda et al. fail to disclose a distance in the first direction between center points of the through holes adjacent to each other in the second direction is ½ of a distance between center points of the two through holes adjacent to each other in the first direction.
However, Hosoda et al. also disclose structuring the mask as designated above for the purposes of, inter alia, suppressing the mask from being bent by its own weight, enhancing the accuracy of the shape and dimensions of the through holes such that the occurrence of shadows is suppressed in the vapor deposition process, and the area, shape, thickness and the like of the vapor deposition material is precisely controlled. See translation. Notably, the advantages of structuring the mask as generally claimed are similar to reasons provided by Applicant in their own disclosure. Thus, at present, there do not appear to be any unexpected results associated with the claimed dimensions.
Additionally, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the arrangement, dimensions and shapes of the through holes and flat surfaces optimized as claimed in the deposition mask of Hosoda et al. in order to suppress the mask from being bent by its own weight, enhance the accuracy of the shape and dimensions of the through holes such that the occurrence of shadows is suppressed in the vapor deposition process, and the area, shape, thickness and the like of the vapor deposition material is precisely controlled as also taught in Hosoda et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Hosoda et al., the first flat region and the second flat region are contiguous to each other. See, e.g., annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Hosoda et al., a third flat region (see, e.g., annotated figure above) located between two of the through holes adjacent to each other in the second direction in a case where the deposition mask is seen from the second surface side.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Hosoda et al., each of the through holes includes a first concave portion including a first wall surface (33a) located at the first surface (20a) and a second concave portion including a second wall surface (38a) located at the second surface (20b), the second concave portion being connected to the first concave portion, and the second wall surface includes a portion that becomes gradually closer to a center point of the through hole as the portion extends from the second surface toward the first surface. See, e.g., esp., Figs. 5 and 7. Note: concave portions of the through hole are dependent and variable based on perspective and features used to determine the concavity.
With respect to claim 9, which appear to be drawn to results of a process performed on the mask by another apparatus, rather than actual structural features of the mask, it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The image produced by a laser microscope is not considered a feature of the mask. It follows that a pixel relationship of the image is not considered a feature of the claimed mask.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Hosoda et al., Hosoda et al. disclose a thickness of the flat region is equal to the thickness of the plate. See, e.g., esp., Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 11, in modified Hosoda al., Hosoda et al. disclose the metal plate may have a thickness of 50 µm or less. See translation.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Hosoda et al., a ratio of the dimension in the second direction of the portion of the third flat region that overlaps the second center line (which can be arbitrarily chosen as set forth above) to the dimension on the first direction of a portion of the first flat region that overlaps the first center line (which can also be arbitrarily chosen) may be lower than or equal to 0.60 depending on the values arbitrarily selected for the portion of the third flat region and the portion of the first flat region.
However, Hosoda et al. also disclose structuring the mask as designated above for the purposes of, inter alia, suppressing the mask from being bent by its own weight, enhancing the accuracy of the shape and dimensions of the through holes such that the occurrence of shadows is suppressed in the vapor deposition process, and the area, shape, thickness and the like of the vapor deposition material is precisely controlled. See translation. Notably, the advantages of structuring the mask as generally claimed are similar to reasons provided by Applicant in their own disclosure. Thus, at present, there do not appear to be any unexpected results associated with the claimed dimensions.
Additionally, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the arrangement, dimensions and shapes of the through holes and flat surfaces optimized as claimed in the deposition mask of Hosoda et al. in order to suppress the mask from being bent by its own weight, enhance the accuracy of the shape and dimensions of the through holes such that the occurrence of shadows is suppressed in the vapor deposition process, and the area, shape, thickness and the like of the vapor deposition material is precisely controlled as also taught in Hosoda et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 8-11 and 20 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, except those addressed below, which Examiner does not find persuasive. See above modified rejections.
Applicant has argued “claim 1 recites that the through holes are arrayed in a staggered arrangement in the first direction and the second direction in a planar view, which means that the first direction and the second direction are the directions in which the through holes are staggered, and are not mutually orthogonal to each other (please refer to the copy of Fig. 5A of the present application shown on page 11 of this Amendment).”
Based on Applicant’s arguments, it appears that Applicant intends all adjacent through holes to be staggered without any overlap between an adjacent two through holes in either the first direction or the second direction, however this is not what is claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response, Examiner notes that in Nozawa the through holes are staggered in the first and second directions, in that they are not aligned in the horizontal direction nor are they aligned in the vertical direction, wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a more specific definition for “staggered” by which the claims should be interpreted. If Applicant desires adjacent through holes to not overlap in any particular direction, these features should be added to the claims. Note cited but not relied upon art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pubs. 20190044070; 20210313515; 20210140061; and 2019029264 disclose deposition masks with through holes arranged in a staggered zig zig and/or through holes with first and second concave portions as claimed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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