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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 22, 2026 was received. The specification was amended. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued April 22, 2026.
Specification
The objections to the specification are maintained. While Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the specification to clarify figures 7-9 help somewhat, there are still a number of issues that cause the disclosure to be extremely confusing and borderline incomprehensible. The fundamental concept of a single second opening having a specific orthographic projection within the first opening is well explained and well-defined. However, much of the specification still represents these orthographic projections in extremely unclear ways- particularly, figures 7-9 and 11 still attempt to define orthographic projections in a schematic stack against an actual physical opening (121), which is not logical or even possible way to compare elements- the opening itself (121) is a physical element present on the mask body (12), and lining it up next to a number of shaded regions which are called third/fourth/fifth (and so on) orthographic projections imparts no actual understanding of how the invention works, or even is arranged. These are extremely abstract representations of two entirely dissimilar types of elements presented next to each other with no context. Figure 11 further attempts to add the actual, physical graphic units (2601-2605), but adds them onto the same nonsensical distribution of “orthographic projections” of the openings (131) which are previously said to have the same shape as the corresponding graphic units, however figure 11 shows that these orthographic projections (1211-1215) have entirely different shapes than their corresponding graphic units which seemingly contradicts the entire purpose of the instant invention.
Applicant’s arguments seem to try to explain the inventive concept of this invention as having multiple different mask bars with different mask openings, each corresponding to a different type of graphic unit formed on the substrate. This understanding would require the actual, physical shapes of the mask bars and second mask openings to correspond to the graphic units, or be different from each other, or overlap in view in particular ways. However, the specification and instant claims only make reference to the virtual concept of “orthographic projections” of these openings and in doing so needlessly confuses the scope of the invention and the claims, in a massive way. Along with the figures, the description of these elements in the specification renders the entire invention incomprehensible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1 and 4-9 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained. The amendments to claim 1 clarify which elements are being overlapped or not, but the problem with the projections of the second openings of the mask bar overlapping each other remains- there is no physical way for multiple openings on a single mask bar to have projections that even partially overlap each other in the way required by claim 1. If two openings on the same bar have overlapping projections in any way they would instead be one single opening- similar to if a square is cut out from a piece of paper and another square overlapping that square is cut out next to it- you would have one single rectangular hole, not two square holes. Again, the only possible way this can be understood in an actual logical context is if the holes overlap each other in a specific axis or direction, and again for the purposes of examination that understanding will be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2019/0305222) on claims 1, 4-5 and 8-9 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Jung et al. discloses a mask assembly (10) used to form different patterns on an OLED display device, the patterns corresponding to different pixel electrodes (611) which include a number of different graphic units (figure 12), the mask assembly (10) including a first mask (200) having a plurality of opening areas (201) at regular intervals, and mask bars (300) located on a top side of the first mask (200) having a plurality of pattern portions (320) and blocking portions (310) located provided in intervals which can be considered to correspond one-to-one with the intervals of the first mask (200) openings (210) (i.e., two pattern portions (320) and one blocking portion (310) for every opening (210) interval is the same one-to-one interval arrangement), where each hole (h) of the pattern portions (320) is meant to correspond to and overlap the various pixel areas, which are the different graphic units (i.e., red, green or blue pixel electrodes) such that the orthographic projections of each hole (h) (i.e., the 2D representation like in figure 3) corresponds to the graphic units too (pars. 56-60, 63-66, 70-71, figures 1-3 and 12-13).
Jung et al. further discloses that the mask (200) has solid light blocking portions corresponding to non-display areas (NDA1,NDA2) of the substrate and the openings (210) comprise pattern areas that correspond to display areas (DA) of the substrate, where the orthographic projections of the pattern portion (320) holes (h) (i.e., the 2D representation in figure 3) are not overlapped at any point by the solid portion of the mask (200) (see figure 2) but some do overlap each other in at least the Y direction (see figure 2).
Furthermore, while Jung et al. does disclose the pixel areas and graphic units on the substrate (figures 12-13), the preamble limitation “each of the patterns to be formed comprises a plurality of graphic units arranged at intervals, and the graphic units are arranged in multiple types” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As this refers only to the use of the mask, any and all limitations in the claims regarding these graphic units and multiple types are therefore intended use limitations which impart no patentability to apparatus claims, as the mask of Jung et al. is capable of using the holes to correspond to the same arrangement of graphic units and multiple types thereof.
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Jung et al. discloses that a plurality of the pattern portions (320) of the mask bars (300) area each provided inside of one opening (210) of the mask (200) such that the sum of the width in one direction of the orthographic projections of all of those corresponding pattern portion (320) holes (h) would have to be less than the width of the opening (210) in that same direction, and since that opening (210) corresponds to the display area (DA) it is in the pattern area (see figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8: Jung et al. discloses that the mask frame (100) which can be considered part of the first mask (200) has a number of grooves (gr) disposed in the light shielding area (i.e. on the edges of the first mask (200) solid portion) and around the openings (210) which comprise the pattern area (par. 78-80, figures 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 9: Jung et al. discloses that the mask (20) can also be arranged such that a number of grooves (i.e., 6) are provided in one direction such that at least one “second” groove (gr) is arranged between two adjacent “first” grooves (gr) (par. 86, figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jung et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-5 and 8-9 and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2017/0081758) on claims 6-7 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Jung et al. discloses that the first mask (200) has multiple adjacent regions and teaches that both the first mask (200) and second mask (300) can be made of a number of possible materials, some metallic, including stainless steel, invar, and nickel-cobalt alloys (which includes iron-nickel-cobalt, otherwise known as Kovar) (par. 20). Jung et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the second masks (300) can be made from different materials having different magnetic permeability (i.e., one bar made of Kovar and one made of stainless steel).
However, Inoue et al. discloses a similar mask apparatus (101) having a number of frame and bar portions, and teaches that some of the structures in the pattern areas particularly should be made from small thermal strain materials such as invar (iron-nickel) having added cobalt (i.e., Kovar), and structures in areas outside of the main pattern area need less precision and can therefore be made from stainless steel (par. 203). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different materials like Kovar for the precision areas and stainless steel for the less precise areas of the mask of Jung et al. in the way taught by Inoue et al. because Inoue et al. teaches that this helps prevent the mask from being deformed by thermal strain during the evaporation process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the specification is clear regarding the orthographic projection, the Office’s understanding is incorrect as the cited disclosure explains a common first opening used with different masks, claim 1 is not indefinite because it is citing orthographic projections as overlapping, not the openings themselves, and Jung et al. does not read on the claims because it does not cite a common first opening paired with different mask bars or masks corresponding to different types of graphic units.
In response:
Regarding the specification, Applicant’s argument appears to completely contradict the entire premise of the instant invention and claims. Applicant states:
“That understanding assumes that the different second openings and their projected regions must be simultaneously present over the same first opening in one mask. The cited disclosure instead explains a common first opening used with mask bars having different second openings and explains that different patterns are formed by different masks. The Office's resulting one-to- one and physical-overlap concerns therefore arise from a premise that is not the disclosed arrangement.”
This reasoning appears to suggest that the instant invention operates by using different mask bars at different times over the common opening (“must be simultaneously present over the first opening”), however nothing even remotely similar to this function is mentioned in the disclosure. Nothing mentions using different mask bars at different times, and even claim 1 only recites one single mask bar, with openings in that mask bar having the claimed orthographic projections overlapping, partially overlapping or not overlapping. The fact that the independent claim expressly contradicts this interpretation presented in the remarks indicates that it is entirely unsupported by the instant disclosure too. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the instant invention or disclosure, likely related to how it was translated.
This is also why the 112(b) indefiniteness arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 explicitly requires a single mask bar having multiple openings whose orthographic projections can overlap each other. As stated above, this is not physically possible. An orthographic projection of an opening is a two dimensional representation of that opening, and the only possible way these projections can overlap is if the orthographic projection is viewed from a different direction than the top, i.e. from the X or Y axial direction, which is the which is the interpretation cited above and used for examination.
Regarding the prior art, Jung et al. does explicitly teach this exact same thing. Jung et al. has a mask body with a plurality of first openings, and at least one mask bar having a plurality of second openings at intervals that can be considered in one-to-one correspondence with the first openings, where the second openings on the mask bar have orthographic projections (their 2D representations in the figures) which correspond to one of three different pixel features on the substrate, i.e. they have the same position, shape and size as their corresponding pixel unit. Applicant argues that the second openings are somehow “different” from each other but nothing in any of the claims requires this, and even if the word “different” were in the claims it would not be sufficient to distinguish over the holes of Jung et al. which are all different holes having different positions. Applicant appears to be arguing that there are a number of different openings on the mask bar having different shapes and sizes but nothing like this is claimed in any way. Applicant is reminded that 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). This feature is also not mentioned in the specification in any way; the invention is far more concerned with how the orthographic projections of these openings overlap or don’t overlap with each other and fails to present any information or explanation about the actual shapes or sizes of the openings or orthographic projections themselves.
Further, regarding the intended use, Applicant’s argument is again not persuasive. Applicant is trying to argue that the graphic units impart structural limitations to the mask but this cannot be the case when the graphic units cannot be part of the mask. The graphic units are arranged on the display panel which is the article worked on by the mask, and as the claims are drawn specifically to “a mask” then the physical structure of the article worked on by the mask is demonstrably outside the scope of the mask itself. Because the graphic units exist as an extension of the intended use of the mask (the display panel being worked on having graphic units), then they too are intended use limitations, and a reference to the openings or orthographic projections “corresponding” to these graphic units is also an intended use limitation. See MPEP 2115.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/18/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights