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 Invention II in the reply filed on 2 March 2026 was previously acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first etching part and second etching part which have been interpreted as an aperture or hole and equivalents thereto as set forth in in the specification, e.g., at para. 41 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-17 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.
Claim 13 fails to adhere to the standards of 35 USC 112 b as it fails to properly introduce and consistently refer to the features of the claimed invention throughout the claim set such that Applicant’s claimed invention can be clearly interpreted. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the following claim limitations were meant to be recited and examined accordingly:
Claim 13 was meant to recite “a plurality of first etching parts, wherein each first etching part of the plurality of first etching parts comprises a first opening located on the first surface, and the first openings of adjacent first etching parts of the plurality of first etching parts are spaced apart” or similar;
Claim 13 was meant to recite “a plurality of second etching parts corresponding having a vertical correspondence to a respective first etching part of the plurality of etching parts, wherein each second etching part of the plurality of second etching parts comprises a second opening located on the second surface, wherein each second opening is smaller than the first opening of the corresponding first etching part of the plurality of first etching parts” or similar;
All similar and/or related recitations should be recited and/or amended accordingly in all claims which are dependent on claim 13.
In all instances, clarification and or correction is requested based on current US patent examination processes. See MPEP.
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0230585 to Bai.
Regarding claim 13: In Figs. 4-6, e.g., Bai discloses a metal mask comprising: a metal body (20) having a first surface (S22) and a second surface (S21); a plurality of first etching parts (holes H2), wherein each first etching part of the plurality of first etching parts comprises a first opening (P2 corresponding to end of hole at first surface) located on the first surface, and the first openings of adjacent first etching parts of the plurality of first etching parts are spaced apart (in that they do not overlap); a plurality of second etching parts (holes H1) having a vertical correspondence to a respective first etching part of the plurality of etching parts, wherein each second etching part of the plurality of second etching parts comprises a second opening (P1 corresponding to end of hole at second surface) located on the second surface, wherein each second opening is smaller than each corresponding first opening; and an evaporation hole (i.e. corresponding to diameter where H1 and H2 meet) located between each corresponding first etching part and second etching part, wherein the first etching part and the second etching part communicate with each other at the evaporation hole; wherein the evaporation hole forms a first evaporation angle (Fig. 6, θ) and a second evaporation angle (not labeled, on opposite side from labeled θ) relative to the first opening, and a difference between the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle is less than 5 degrees. Bai teaches that the hole 201 (which is inclusive of the first etching part) is symmetrical with a vertical central axis OO’, such that the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle will be equal. Also, see, e.g., paras. 44-57. Note: the thickness of the metal body is designed to be equal (i.e. D1 is equal to D2 (see, e.g., para. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim limitation reciting the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle are respectively more than 30 degrees, Bai discloses an example having an angle of between 12 and 30 degrees, wherein the example provided by Bai is so mathematically close to the claimed range that the difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results. 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).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have optimized the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle to respectively more than 30 degrees as approached by the teachings of Bai without any showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 14, in Bai, the first evaporation angle is an included angle (θ is between P2 and other dashed line) formed between a first connecting line and the first surface, and the first connecting line connects a hole edge of the evaporation hole and an edge of the first opening; the second evaporation angles is an included angle formed between a second connecting line and the first surface, and the second connecting line connects the hole edge of the evaporation hole and the edge of the first opening. Also see annotated figure.
With respect to claim 15, in Bai, the hole edge of the evaporation hole includes a first hole edge, the first hole edge corresponding to the first edge; the first connecting line connects a midpoint of the first hole edge and a midpoint of the first edge. Also see annotated figure and Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 16, in Bai et al., above, the second connection line is described in association with an opposing side of the first opening. However, additionally, the hole edge of the evaporation hole includes a second hole edge, the second hole edge is adjacent to the first hole edge and forms a first intersection, and the second connecting line connects the first intersection and the first edge. As noted above, hole 201 which is inclusive of evaporation hole has a same shape throughout (which appears to be substantially rectangular/maybe square). Since the first opening and second opening have intersections (i.e. corners), so will the evaporation hole, wherein the second connection line can be drawn from a corner of the first edge of the first opening to a corresponding corner of the evaporation hole.
Regarding claim 17, Bai discloses the structure of a metal mask as claimed and as detailed above.
Further, regarding the steps of forming the mask according to claims 1-12, these limitations are product-by-process claim limitations, wherein the courts have ruled the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0230585 to Bai in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0345597 to Uchida et al.
Regarding claim 13: In Figs. 4-6, e.g., Bai discloses a metal mask comprising: a metal body (20) having a first surface (S22) and a second surface (S21); a plurality of first etching parts (holes H2), wherein each first etching part of the plurality of first etching parts comprises a first opening (P2 corresponding to end of hole at first surface) located on the first surface, and the first openings of adjacent first etching parts of the plurality of first etching parts are spaced apart (in that they do not overlap); a plurality of second etching parts (holes H1) having a vertical correspondence to a respective first etching part of the plurality of etching parts, wherein each second etching part of the plurality of second etching parts comprises a second opening (P1 corresponding to end of hole at second surface) located on the second surface, wherein each second opening is smaller than each corresponding first opening; and an evaporation hole (i.e. corresponding to diameter where H1 and H2 meet) located between each corresponding first etching part and second etching part, wherein the first etching part and the second etching part communicate with each other at the evaporation hole; wherein the evaporation hole forms a first evaporation angle (Fig. 6, θ) and a second evaporation angle (not labeled, on opposite side from labeled θ) relative to the first opening, and a difference between the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle is less than 5 degrees. Bai teaches that the hole 201 (which is inclusive of the first etching part) is symmetrical with a vertical central axis OO’, such that the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle will be equal. Also, see, e.g., paras. 44-57. Note: the thickness of the metal body is designed to be equal (i.e. D1 is equal to D2 (see, e.g., para. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim limitation reciting the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle are respectively more than 30 degrees, Bai discloses an example having an angle of between 12 and 30 degrees, wherein the example provided by Bai is so mathematically close to the claimed range that the difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results. 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).
Further still, in Figs. 6-8 thereof, Uchida et al. disclose a similar configuration and teach that optimally an angle θ1 of correspondingly configured metal body should be maximized for the purpose of ensuring that deposition material reaches a substrate rather than a wall of an evaporation hole of the mask body (see, e.g. paras. 74 and 76-77).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided in Bai the first evaporation angle and the second evaporation angle respectively are maximized and/or optimized to more than 30 degrees in order to ensure that deposition material reaches the substrate rather than a wall of the evaporation hole of the mask body as taught by Uchida et al.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Bai, Bai discloses the first evaporation angle is an included angle (θ is between P2 and other dashed line) formed between a first connecting line and the first surface, and the first connecting line connects a hole edge of the evaporation hole and an edge of the first opening; the second evaporation angles is an included angle formed between a second connecting line and the first surface, and the second connecting line connects the hole edge of the evaporation hole and the edge of the first opening. Also see annotated figure.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Bai, Bai discloses the hole edge of the evaporation hole includes a first hole edge, the first hole edge corresponding to the first edge; the first connecting line connects a midpoint of the first hole edge and a midpoint of the first edge. Also see annotated figure above and Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 16, in modified Bai, Bai discloses the second connection line is described in association with an opposing side of the first opening. However, additionally, the hole edge of the evaporation hole includes a second hole edge, the second hole edge is adjacent to the first hole edge and forms a first intersection, and the second connecting line connects the first intersection and the first edge. As noted above, hole 201 which is inclusive of evaporation hole has a same shape throughout (which appears to be substantially rectangular/maybe square). Since the first opening and second opening have intersections (i.e. corners), so will the evaporation hole, wherein the second connection line can be drawn from a corner of the first edge of the first opening to a corresponding corner of the evaporation hole.
Regarding claim 17, in modified Bai, Bai discloses the structure of a metal mask as claimed and as detailed above.
Further, regarding the steps of forming the mask according to claims 1-12, these limitations are product-by-process claim limitations, wherein the courts have ruled the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-17 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. Additionally, regarding Applicant’s arguments and analysis regarding the thickness of the metal body as taught by Bai, Bai teaches that the thickness is intended to be uniform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Similar to Bai, USP Pubs. 2021/0140061; 2022/0325397; and 20240081120; and WO 2016171337 disclose similar metal masks with similar features, including acknowledging that it is well-known in the art that manufacturing tolerances for the metal masks will typically be minimized in order that they may be used to manufacture a product with the desired characteristics.
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
Prosecution Insights