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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/6/2026, are noted. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include claim 7 and concurrently cancelled claim 7. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending with claim 10 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ikenaga fails to disclose the first angle θ1 and the second angle θ2 have a relation in which θ2≥θ1 holds (see Figure 5-7). Applicant’s argue that the reference does not teach of suggest an angle that corresponds to the claimed first angle. The examiner notes the reference does not specifically reference the angle; however, as noted below, the angle θ1 is present in the mask and therefore meets the claims as drafted. Here, the mere fact that the prior art does not specifically quantify the angle θ1, does not foreclose its presence and that its meets the claim relationship.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
723
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s acknowledge the presence of θ1 and θ2 in Ikenega and argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angle corresponding to the claimed first angle θ1 shown in Fig. 7 of Ikenaga would have been substantially greater than angle θ1 (asserted second angle 02) shown in Fig. 5 of Ikenaga”; however, the claims do not require “substantially greater” relationship as instantly argued and therefore this argument is moot as not commensurate in scope with the claims as drafted. Additionally, even if such is added to the claims, the scope of substantially greater is unclear and would appear to be met by Ikenega.
Finally, as noted in the prior art rejection, Ikenaga also discloses the angle as claimed will have a direct result of reducing the adhesion onto the mask surface (0130-0133) and thus taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to adjust the angles as claimed to arrive at a mask that results in reduced adhesion onto the mask surface while maintaining the mask utilization. Here, the applicants do not appreciate the level of one of ordinary skill in the art nor what the reference suggests to that ordinary artisan. As noted by Ikenega, the angle are a result effective variable (θ2 is “preferably large”, see 0130) so as to control the adhesion of the deposition material and adjusting the angles would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill int eh art to achieve the benefits of control/reducing adhesion of material on the mask.
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) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20200308688 by Ikenaga et al., hereinafter Ikenaga.
Claim 1: Ikenaga discloses a metal mask including a first surface, and a second surface positioned opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface has through-holes, a first top part, and a second top part, the through-holes have a first through-hole, a second through-hole, a third through-hole, a fourth through-hole, a fifth through-hole, and a sixth through-hole, the first through-hole has a first short axis and a first long axis, the second through-hole has a second short axis and a second long axis, the third through-hole has a third short axis and a third long axis, the fourth through-hole has a fourth short axis and a fourth long axis, the fifth through-hole has a fifth short axis and a fifth long axis, the sixth through-hole has a sixth short axis and a sixth long axis, the first long axis is parallel to the second long axis and positioned next to the second long axis in a direction D2 crossing the first long axis, the first short axis is parallel to the fifth short axis and positioned next to the fifth short axis in a direction D1 parallel to the first long axis, the third long axis is parallel to the fourth long axis and positioned next to the fourth long axis in the direction D1 parallel to the first long axis, the third short axis is parallel to the sixth short axis and positioned next to the sixth short axis in the direction D2 crossing the first long axis, the first top part is positioned between the first long axis and the second long axis and between the third long axis and the fourth long axis, the second top part is positioned between the first short axis and the fifth short axis and between the third short axis and the sixth short axis (see Figure 29 and accompanying text, Figure 32).
Ikenaga discloses a mask that will include a height H1 of the first top part and a height H2 of the second top part; however, fails to explicitly disclose the H1 is greater than the H2 as claimed. However, Ikenaga in different embodiments include a mask with height H1 of a first top part greater than H2 of a second top part, see Figure 4-7 and accompanying text, where H1 is 43 and 37 and H2 is 36 at Figure 6). Ikenaga also discloses the H1 and H2 height variation, where H2 is smaller than H1 at 0223. Ikenaga discloses the adjustment of the heights to achieve the desired effective area of the deposition layer (increase the effective area) while taking into consideration the strength of the mask (0223, Figure 36 and accompanying text) and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum H1 and H2 as suggested by Ikenaga through routine experimentation to achieve the desired mask utilization while maintaining the mask strength. This would include H2 between the short sides of the openings being smaller than H1 between the long sides of the openings as evidenced by Figure 8-10 and accompanying text, 0223.
Ikenaga discloses the through-holes each have a first recess on the first surface side, and a second recess, a connection part, a first angle θ1, and a second angle θ2 on the second surface side, the connection part is a ridge part where the first recess and the second recess are connected to each other, the first angle θ1 is an angle made by a straight line K1 with respect to a thickness direction N of the metal mask, the straight line K1 passing through a portion P1a of the connection part closest to the first top part and a portion P2a of the first top part closest to the connection part, the second angle θ2 is an angle made by a straight line K2 with respect to the thickness direction N of the metal mask, the straight line K2 passing through a portion P1b of the connection part closest to the second top part and a portion P2b of the second top part closest to the connection part, and the first angle θ1 and the second angle θ2 have a relation in which θ2≥θ1 holds (see Figure 5-7). Ikenaga also discloses the angle as claimed will have a direct result of reducing the adhesion onto the mask surface (0130) and thus taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to adjust the angles as claimed to arrive at a mask that results in reduced adhesion onto the mask surface while maintaining the mask utilization.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference the Response to Arguments section in its entirety.
Claim 2-3: Ikenaga discloses embodiments that the metal mask includes the first top part and the second top part are alternately present in a direction D3 passing through the first top part and the second top part (see e.g. Figure 8 and accompanying text, Figure 29) and such would include D1 and D3 making an acute angle as claimed (see e.g. Figure 29).
Claim 4-6: Ikenaga discloses H1 and H2 relative to each other that overlaps the range as claimed (0223-0224) relative to the T, the thickness of the mask, and thus makes obvious the ranges as claimed.
Claim 8: Ikenaga discloses the second top part has an edge curvature radius (see e.g. Figure 6, Figure 9-10); however, fails to explicitly disclose the edge curvature radius between 2 and 18 microns. However, Ikenaga discloses thicknesses of the metal mask that would result in curvature as claimed (see mask thickness 0133-0134).
Claim 9: Ikenaga discloses the through-holes each have a substantially rectangular or substantially elliptical opening shape (Figure 32, Figure 35) and using the known shapes for the mask would have been obvious as predictable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent 12480199 with Ikenaga. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent 12480199 fully encompass the instant claims; however, fails to disclose the H1 and H2 as claimed. However, Ikenaga also in the art of making metal mask for deposition makes obvious such for the reasons set forth above and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified U.S. Patent 12480199 to achieve the H1 and H2 relative values as claimed to achieve the optimization of strength and mask utilization. Ikenaga discloses the adjustment of the heights to achieve the desired effective area of the deposition layer (increase the effective area) while taking into consideration the strength of the mask (0223, Figure 36 and accompanying text) and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum H1 and H2 as suggested by Ikenaga through routine experimentation to achieve the desired mask utilization while maintaining the mask strength. This would include H2 between the short sides of the openings being smaller than H1 between the long sides of the openings as evidenced by Figure 8-10 and accompanying text, 0223.
Claims 2-6, 8-9 are taught and made obvious by Claims 3-5 of U.S. Patent 12480199 and as addressed above with respect to Ikenaga.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
