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Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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.
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) 1 and 3 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).
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]).
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 130 thickness is between 0.7 and 2 mm since it is a suitable and conventional thickness used for a shadow mask with improved strength and flatness (pars. [0111]-[0112]). 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. since it is a suitable and conventional thickness used for a deposition mask with improved strength.
With respect to the wherein warpage of the substrate is < 10um, 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.
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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that with respect to Dong, the Examiner cites paragraphs [0085]-[0086] and [0095]-[0096]. These paragraphs refer to a rigid carrier 130 that supports an SiN film 111. In fact, the only reference to sapphire in the entire Korean specification is concerning this rigid carrier 130. See FIG. 11A. As noted in paragraph [0068], shadow masks 110 are bonded to the rigid carrier 130 via an adhesion layer. The shadow mask is independent of the rigid carrier. The present invention, as claimed, is directed to a mask having a sapphire substrate. That is, the SiN membrane together with the sapphire substrate comprise the mask.
It should be noted that applicant’s shadow mask includes base for support comprising a sapphire substrate and a silicon nitride membrane for patterning (pars. [0025], [0036]). Similarly, Dong et al. shadow mask module 100 includes a base for support comprising support 112 and sapphire substrate 130 and a silicon nitride membrane 111 for patterning (Figs 10-11). The shadow mask module 100 provides mechanical strength and improved flatness (pars. [0111]-[0112]). Additionally, in paragraph [0067], Dong et al. states that the shadow mask module comprises shadow masks, a rigid carrier, and an adhesion layer. Lastly, claim 1 recites the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Hence, the Examiner considers the rigid carrier as the support part of the shadow mask. Therefore, the apparatus of Moraes in view of Dong et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
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 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
Prosecution Insights