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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 26 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 26 August 2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1 and 3-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the combination of limitations “second sides respectively extending from opposite end portions of the first side in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a first clamping portion protruding from the first side in the first direction; and a second clamping portion protruding from the second side in the second direction.” The combination of limitations is indefinite, because it is not clear how the limitations “protruding from the first side in the first direction” and “second clamping portion protruding from the second side in the second direction” should be interpreted in light of both the limitation in Claim 1 “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction” and also Claim 3, which permits that “a protrusion direction of the second clamping portion has an inclination greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees with respect to a protrusion direction of the first clamping portion.” An attempt to reconcile Claims 1 and Claim 3 might suggest that the limitation “second side in the second direction” does not necessarily require that the second clamping portion protrude perpendicularly to the first clamping portion, since Claim 3 does not require this configuration. For purposes of examination, Examiner considers the combination of limitations to include the interpretation that a first side and a second side are mutually perpendicular and a first clamping portion generally protrudes from the first side and the second clamping portion generally protrudes from the second side, even if the first and second clamping portions are not necessarily perpendicular to each other.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a protrusion direction of the second clamping portion has an inclination greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees with respect to a protrusion direction of the first clamping portion.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear how to interpret Claims 1 and 3 so that they are consistent with each other. See, also, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above for analysis and interpretation.
Claims 3-12 are rejected as depending from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,3-4, 6, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2012/0282445).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim (US’445) teaches a mask sheet (stick with flat body 110, which can form waves and be stretched with applied tension) [0045,0053] having: a deposition area (pattern 111 via which a deposition material is capable of being deposited) [0034]; clamping areas (e.g. regions to left and right of 111 in Fig. 1, including 110a-d,120,121, 131a-d) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (X-direction in Fig. 1) with the deposition area therebetween; and a welding area 115 between each of the clamping areas and the deposition area (Figs. 5A-5C; [0053]), wherein each of the clamping areas comprises: a body portion having a first side (e.g. side, including 121) opposite to the welding area 115 in the first direction (Fig. 5C) and second sides respectively extending from opposite end portions of the first side in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a first clamping portion (121a-b) protruding from the first side generally in the first direction; and a second clamping portion 131a protruding from the second side, including a vector in the second direction (Figs. 1,3,5C;[0034]).
Regarding Claim 3, US’445 teaches a protrusion direction of the second clamping portion with an inclination (e.g. in a Y-direction) greater than 0˚ and less than 90˚ with respect to a protrusion direction of the first clamping portion (Abstract; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, US’445 teaches in a plan view, a maximum width of the mask sheet in the clamping areas is greater than a maximum width of the mask sheet in the deposition area (Figures).
Regarding Claim 6, US’445 teaches that the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion are connected to each other in a rounded manner (Figures).
Regarding Claim 7, US’445 teaches a first clamping portion comprising a plurality of first clamping portions arranged along the first side (which, under one interpretation, might include side clamping parts 121a,b,c, and d on opposite sides of the body part 110), and wherein a protrusion direction of the first clamping portions (e.g. 121a,b) adjacent to an end portion on one side of the deposition area and an end portion on another side of the deposition area (“both end portions of the first side,” indefinite, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b))) from among the first clamping portions (i.e. among all side clamping parts 121, 122) has an inclination (180 degrees) with respect to a protrusion direction of one of the other first clamping portions (e.g. 122a,b, which protrude in the “first direction“ 180 degrees from 121a,b) (Fig. 1). NOTE: this rejection is based on an interpretation of the claims as possibly trying to define “first side” as including clamping portions at both ends of the sheet (for example both 421 and 422 in Fig. 4). If so, “first direction” is not clearly a direction (i.e. vector), so much as an axis along which side clamping portions (e.g. 421, 422) protrude.
Regarding Claim 12, US’445 teaches that the mask sheet also has a cutting area between the welding and clamping areas (Fig. 5B; [0054]).
Claim(s) 1,4-7, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (JP 2015-145532).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang (JP’532) teaches a mask sheet having: a deposition area 11 (Figs; clamping areas 12,13 spaced apart from each other in a first direction with the deposition area therebetween; and a welding area 14 between each of the clamping areas and the deposition area, wherein each of the clamping areas comprises: a body portion 10, having a first side 12 opposite to the welding area 14 in the first direction and second sides (orthogonally positioned from the first direction) respectively extending from opposite end portions of the first side in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (e.g. on either side of 11 and orthogonal to the first direction); a first clamping portion 20 protruding from the first side in the first direction; and a second clamping portion 20 protruding from the second side in the second direction (e.g. first clamping portion top and bottom of Fig. 5 and second clamping portion left and right in Fig. 5) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3,5,7-9; [0025,0028]). JP’532 teaches the mask sheet, wherein a protrusion direction of the second clamping portion is perpendicular to a protrusion direction of the first clamping portion (e.g. first clamping portion 20 top and bottom of Fig. 5 and second clamping portion 20 left and right in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5; [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, JP’532 teaches the mask sheet, wherein, in a plan view, a maximum width of the mask sheet in the clamping areas (width across both features 20) is greater than a maximum width of the mask sheet in the deposition area 11 (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, JP’532 teaches a protrusion length of the second clamping portion equal to a protrusion length of the first clamping portion (Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding Claim 6, JP’532 teaches the mask sheet, wherein the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion are connected to each other in a rounded manner (Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding Claim 7, JP’532 teaches the mask sheet, wherein the first clamping portion comprises a plurality of first clamping portions arranged along the first side, and wherein a protrusion direction of the first clamping portions adjacent to each of both end portions of the first side from among the first clamping portions has an inclination with respect to a protrusion direction of one of the other first clamping portions. For example, Figs. 7-9 illustrate clamping portions at each of two ends with a protrusion direction angled upward and with “an inclination” (different angle from) with respect to the fairly horizontal portion 20 of the clamping portion (Figs. 7-9; [0036-0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, JP’532 teaches that the mask sheet also has a cutting area between the welding and clamping areas (Fig. 3; [0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2012/0282445).
Regarding Claim 5, US’445 teaches that protrusion lengths of first clamping portions (side clamping parts) can be the same [0013] and that protrusion lengths of second clamping portions (slant clamping parts) may be the same [0015]. US’445 fails to teach that a protrusion length of the second clamping portion is equal to a protrusion length of the first clamping portion. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the mask sheet to make all the protrusion lengths equal in order to provide a clamping portion at a desired position with enough surface area to hold in position while applying a tension force. See, for example, Fig. 4 and paragraph [0017], which shows slant and side clamping parts with varying surface area of clamping portions available for gripping).
Regarding Claim 8, US’445 teaches that the second clamping portion comprises a plurality of second clamping portions (e.g. pairs of either 131a,c or 131 a, b) arranged along the second side (either the side which extends from 121 to 122 or the side on either side of deposition area 11 in the Y direction, depending on what is meant by “second side”; the second interpretation is considered consistent with a definition of a singular “first side,” which include two sides to which a “second side” is connected) (Figs 1-3). US’445 also teaches that the lengths of second clamping portions (i.e. slant clamping parts) may be equal to each other [0015]. The word “may” would have suggested the lengths can differ. US’445 fails to teach that the protrusion lengths of the plurality of second clamping portions arranged along the second side are different from each other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary the lengths as necessary to position a clamping part/portion where needed with a sufficient length to provide a sufficient surface area for holding the clamping part/portion. See, Fig. 4, for example, which illustrates different areas of clamping portions available for holding when placed on frame assembly 400.
Regarding Claim 11, in Fig. 3 of US’445, second clamping portions 131a,131b can be considered to be a plurality of second clamping portions arranged along the second side, comprising two sides, just as Claim 1 defines a first side spaced apart from a welding area in the same direction (first) as the clamping areas are spaced apart and also having exactly two sides to which the second side is connected. US’445 teaches that second clamping portions may have the same angle [0014].
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (JP 2015-145532).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang (JP’532) teaches a second clamping portion 20, comprising a plurality of second clamping portions arranged along the second side, including embodiments with protrusions of equal length (Figs. 2,5). JP’532 fails to teach varying protrusion lengths (differing from each other). JP’532 teaches that lengths can be within the range of 100 mm to 500 mm [0010] and that lengths can be modified according to need [0025]. It would have been obvious to modify the lengths of the individual clamping portions as needed, because JP’532 suggests that a specific length of a specific clamping portion is not strictly required and can be modified according to needs.
Regarding Claim 11, JP’532 teaches that the protrusion directions of the second clamping portions are identical to each other (Figs. 2,5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9, neither US’445 nor JP’532 teaches a mask sheet wherein the protrusion length of respective ones of the second clamping portions increases the nearer each of the second clamping portions is to the welding area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendment to the claims overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b), although the amendment resolve the previous issues under this paragraph, the amendment raises new issues in view of ambiguities in Claims 1 and 3.
In response to Applicant’s argument that because the Office action did not reject claim 2 in view of Kim, amended claim 1 is not properly rejected as anticipated by Kim (Remarks, p. 7), amended Claim 1 is not understood to incorporate now canceled Claim 2. Claim 2 expressly required that a protrusion direction of the second clamping portion is perpendicular to a protrusion direction of the first clamping direction, and Claim 3 which would have improperly depended from Claim 2 now depends from Claim 1, which does not expressly require that the second clamping portion is perpendicular to a first clamping portion. Because Claim 1 as amended is interpreted as requiring the first and second sides to be perpendicular (which Kim shows) and as requiring first and second clamping portions as generally protruding from those perpendicular sides (which Kim shows) and because Claim 3, depending from amended Claim 1, still permits non-mutually-perpendicular protrusions, Kim still teaches all the limitations of Claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the rejections of Claims 1-2,4-7, and 12 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by JP’532 that each apparent clamping area has protrusions extending only in a single direction (Remarks, p. 8), the characterization is not considered accurate, since clamping portions to the left and right are not extending in the same direction as those extending up and down in Fig. 5).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bai et al. (WO 2021/087732, US 2021/0363628) (mutually perpendicular clamping portions on both first and second sides, including at ends)
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights