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
Applicant's submission filed on October 30, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-10 were amended. Claims 1-10 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 20-30 have been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
The previous objection to the specification for proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is being maintained. The phrase “or the like” in paragraphs 83, 127, 130, 133-134,137, 140-142, 144-145, 147, 148-149, 152, or 157 should be considered for revision.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 8 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 8.
Claims 2-3 recite: “portions comprises”. A suggested revision is “portions comprise”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150165464 A1 to Dae Won Baek (hereinafter Baek) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210135112 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) is withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150165464 A1 to Dae Won Baek (hereinafter Baek) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210135112 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (display panel) comprising a mask assembly (100 and 200, 300, or 400), wherein the mask assembly comprising a mask sheet (200, 300, 400) configured to pass a deposition material (organic layer) therethrough. (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 1, 3, 5-7, 49, 62-63, 69-70, 72, 76. )
Baek teaches the mask sheet comprises: a body portion (300) defining an exterior of the mask sheet; opening portions (217, 215) in the body portion; and one or more grooves (R11, R12) in the body portion, wherein at least one of the one or more grooves (R11) overlaps an inner surface of at least two of the opening portions ( 215, 225). (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94.)
Regarding claim 1, Baek does not explicitly teach the apparatus comprising: a chamber; a mask assembly arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material.
Kim is directed to a mask assembly and apparatus for manufacturing a display device.
Kim teaches the apparatus comprising: a chamber (220); a mask assembly (240, 250, 1000) arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source (230) arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material (deposition material). (See Kim, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 61-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the apparatus comprising: a chamber; a mask assembly arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material, because Kim teaches this structure would enable the deposition material to be deposited in the desired pattern. (See Kim, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 61-67.)
Regarding claim 2, Baek teaches the inner surface of each of at least two opening portions (225, 215) comprises an inclined surface (sides of 225, 215 inclined toward the deposition source. (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraphs 60-75.)
Regarding claim 4, Baek teaches the one or more opening portions comprise a plurality of opening portions (235, 225, 215) , and the at least one of the one or more grooves (RI1, RI2) is in an area between four adjacent opening portions of the plurality of opening portions. (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94. )
Regarding claim 5, Baek teaches inner surfaces of the four adjacent opening portions (235, opening beneath 235, opening portion two openings to the left of 215, opening to openings to the left of 215 and beneath 215 ) overlap the at least one of the one or more grooves (RI1). (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94. )
Regarding claim 6, Baek teaches the one or more opening portions comprise a plurality of opening portions (235, 225, 215), and the at least one of the one or more grooves (RI1, RI2) is in an area between two adjacent opening portions (235, opening portion two openings to the left of 215) of the plurality of opening portions. (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94. )
Regarding claim 7, Baek teaches wherein inner surfaces of the two adjacent opening portions (235, opening portion two openings to the left of 215) overlap the at least one of the one or more grooves (RI1) . (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94.)
Regarding claim 8, Baek teaches the mask assembly comprises a plurality of grooves (RI1, RI2) , and the plurality of grooves are arranged to overlap an inner surface (237) of an opening portion of the one or more opening portions (215, 225). (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94.)
Regarding claim 9, Baek teaches at least two of the plurality of grooves (RI1, RI2) arranged to overlap the inner surface of the opening portion overlap each other. (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94.)
Regarding claim 10, Baek teaches a planar shape of the one or more grooves (portion of groove having a flat, straight edge extending in a vertical direction) comprises a shape corresponding to a planar shape (straight flat side portion extending in a vertical direction) of the one or more opening portions (225, 215). (See Baek, Abstract, Fig. 6, Fig.8, paragraphs 13-17, 30-31, 63-67, 82-94.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150165464 A1 to Dae Won Baek (hereinafter Baek) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210135112 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160126507 A1 to Ko (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 3, Baek does not explicitly teach a planar shape each of the at least two opening portions (225, 215) comprises a circular shape.
Ko is directed to a mask assembly.
Ko teaches a planar shape of the at least one opening portion comprises a circular shape. (See Ko, Abstract, paragraph 48 ) Examiner is considering a dot type pattern to be equivalent to a circular shape.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a planar shape each of the at least two opening portions (225, 215) comprises a circular shape, as an art recognized equivalent shape for an opening.
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
The previous rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160126507 A1 to Ko (hereinafter Ko) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210135112 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (display panel) comprising a mask assembly (100 and 50), wherein the mask assembly comprising a mask sheet (100-400) configured to pass a deposition material (organic layer) therethrough. (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, Fig.8, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Ko teaches the mask sheet comprises: a body portion ( portion surrounding 130, 230, 330) defining an exterior of the mask sheet; opening portions ( pattern holes in the following areas 110, 210, 310 ) in the body portion; and one or more grooves (120, 220, 320, 326, 420) in the body portion, wherein at least one of the one or more grooves (sides of opening of 325a on the left of 330a, and the right of 330a in Fig. 5B). overlaps an inner surface) f at least two of the opening portions (sides of opening of 325a on the left of 330a, and the right of 330a in Fig. 5B). (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Examiner is considering overlap to mean extending in the same direction
Regarding claim 1, Ko does not explicitly teach the apparatus comprising: a chamber; a mask assembly arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material.
Kim is directed to a mask assembly and apparatus for manufacturing a display device.
Kim teaches the apparatus comprising: a chamber (220); a mask assembly (240, 250, 1000) arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source (230) arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material (deposition material). (See Kim, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 61-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the apparatus comprising: a chamber; a mask assembly arranged inside the chamber and a deposition source arranged inside the chamber and configured to supply the deposition material, because Kim teaches this structure would enable the deposition material to be deposited in the desired pattern. (See Kim, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 61-67.)
Regarding claim 2, Ko teaches the inner surface of each of the at least two opening portions (125, 325a) comprise an inclined surface (sides of 125a inclined toward the deposition source in Fig. 3A, sides of 325a in Figs. 5A-5B) . (See Ko, Abstract, Figs. 3A, paragraph 48 )
Regarding claim 3, Ko teaches a planar shape of each of the at least two opening portions comprise a circular shape. (See Ko, Abstract, paragraph 48 ) Examiner is considering a dot type pattern to be equivalent to a circular shape.
Regarding claim 4, Ko teaches the one or more opening portions comprise a plurality of opening portions ( pattern holes in the following areas 110, 210, 310 ), and the at least one of the one or more grooves (120, 220, 320, 420) is in an area between four adjacent opening portions (111, 111, 111, 111) of the plurality of opening portions. (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, Fig. 3A, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-58.)
Regarding claim 5, Ko teaches inner surfaces of the four adjacent opening portions (111 in Fig. 2 ) overlap the at least one of the one or more grooves. (120, 220, 320, 420). (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Regarding claim 6, Ko teaches the one or more opening portions comprise a plurality of opening portions ( pattern holes in the following areas 110, 210, 310 ), and the at least one of the one or more grooves (120, 220, 320, 420) is in an area between two adjacent opening portions (two adjacent pattern holes in the following areas 110, 210, 310 based on plan view in Fig. 2), of the plurality of opening portions. (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Regarding claim 7, Ko teaches wherein inner surfaces of the two adjacent opening portions (111, 211, 311, 411 or 125, 225, 325, 425), overlap the at least one of the one ore more grooves (120, 220, 320, 420). (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Regarding claim 8, Ko teaches the mask assembly comprises a plurality of grooves (120, 220, 320, 420), and the plurality of groove portions (120, 220, 320, 420) are arranged to overlap an inner surface (sides of 110, 210, or 310) of an opening portion of the one or more opening portions (holes). (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.)
Regarding claim 9, Ko teaches at least two of the plurality of grooves (120 on portion left and portion right in Fig 2-3, 220 on portion left and portion right in Fig 4-B, 320 on left portion and right portion in Fig. 5A-5B) arranged to overlap the inner surface of the opening portion overlap each other. (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-56.) Examiner is considering overlap to read on structures which extend in the same direction.
Regarding claim 10, Ko teaches a planar shape of the one or more grooves (120, 220, 320, 420)) comprises a shape corresponding to a planar shape of the one or more opening portions (straight flat side portion extending in a vertical direction). (See Ko, Abstract, Figs.1-6, paragraphs 3-6 and 43-58.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues on page 10 of the Remarks Section, second paragraph that:
“Neither the combination of Baek in view of Kim nor the combination of Ko in view of Kim appears to teach or suggest ‘ opening portions in the body portion, and one or more grooves in the body portion, wherein at least one of the one or more grooves overlaps an inner surface of at least two of the opening portions’ as recited in amended claim 1.”
Examiner disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “overlap”, Examiner considers the following limitation in claim 1 : “ opening portions in the body portion, and one or more grooves in the body portion, wherein at least one of the one or more grooves overlaps an inner surface of at least two of the opening portions” to be met by both Baek in view of Kim nor the combination of Ko in view of Kim.
As set forth in the Office Action, fifth paragraph, page 10, Examiner is considering the term “overlap” to mean “extending in the same direction”.
(See definition from Dictionary.com – “ (of two things) to extend or lie partly over (each other)”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., said mask having an end of the body portion facing the deposition source, said groove located at the end of the body portion facing the deposition source and such that a portion of the body portion in contact with the inner surface of the first opening portion may be removed which reduces a blind spot of the opening portion, an area of the opening portion through which deposition material may not pass) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). (See paragraph 125 and Figs. 4B, 5B, and 6.) 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).
Applicant’s representative argues on page 10 of the Remarks Section, second paragraph that:
“there is no apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention would have combined the teachings of either Baek and Kim or Ko and Kim to have arrived at the claimed invention of Applicant’s amended claim 1”
Examiner disagrees. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Baek and Ko with Kim to achieve deposition.
Kim teaches the necessary structure to accomplish the deposition material to be deposited in the desired pattern. (See Kim, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 61-67.)
Applicant should submit an argument which provides specific arguments identifying structural elements of the references applied against structural elements of the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Applicant’s representative argues on page 10 of the Remarks Section, third paragraph that:
“a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with respect to amended claim 1 because neither the combination of Baek in view of Kim nor the combination of Ko in view of Kim appears to teach or suggest each and every limitation of this claim”
Examiner disputes this assertion of the Applicant:
1/ based on the arguments presented in the original Non-Final Office Action and maintained herein in this Final Office Action; and
2/ the arguments present directly above.
As a result, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
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 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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717