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 Group I (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on December 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Moraes et al. (U.S. 2020/0295265).
Referring to Figures 1-10 and paragraphs [0023]-[0037], Moraes et al. disclose a direct patterning deposition mask for OLED deposition (pars.[0015]-[0016]), the mask comprising: (a) a sapphire substrate 100 (Fig. 10, par.[0023]); and (b) Silicon Nitride (SiN) membrane 104 (Fig. 10, par.[0025]).
With respect to claim 3, the direct patterning deposition mask of Moraes et al. further includes wherein the sapphire substrate has a diameter in the range of 200mm diameter to 300mm diameter (par.[0023],i.e. diameter of sapphire substrate 100 is equal to the diameter of the processing substrate (i.e. typically ranges from 200mm-300mm diameter)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moraes et al. (U.S. 2020/0295265) in view of Dong et al. (U.S. 2021/0359210) or Wang (U.S. 2021/0132033).
The teachings of Moraes et al. have been discussed above.
Moraes et al. is silent on the sapphire substrate thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm.
Referring to paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0095]-[0096], Dong et al. teach a deposition mask wherein the sapphire substrate thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm since it is a suitable and conventional thickness used for a shadow mask. Referring to paragraphs [0081],[0085], Wang teaches a deposition mask wherein the sapphire substrate thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm since it is a suitable and conventional thickness used for a mask. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Moraes et al. with the sapphire substrate thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm as taught by Dong et al. or Wang since it is a suitable and conventional thickness used for a deposition mask.
With respect to claim 4, the direct patterning deposition mask of Moraes et al. in view of Dong et al. or Wang further includes wherein warpage of the substrate is <10um (i.e. Since the material of the substrate is sapphire and the substrate thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm, the resulting sapphire substrate would yield a warpage of the substrate is <10um).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chan et al.793, Ghosh et al.’543, Ghosh et al.’542, Vazan et al.’925, Vazan et al.’252, Ghosh et al.’901, Ghosh et al.’498, and Chan et al.’652 teach a shadow mask for OLED. Nishida et al.’069 teach a deposition task having substrate made of sapphire. Ju et al.’010 and Walker’881 teach a shadow mask. Korneisel et al. teach controlling the warping of a shadow mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716