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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/272105 filed July 13, 2023. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-17 and 20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 reply filed on January 28, 2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims were all amended to contain subject matter not disclosed by the prior art and thus have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the subject matter is still disclosed by the prior art, as explained in the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The phrase “orthographic projection” when referring to a specific opening is extremely unclear and borderline incomprehensible in some areas. An orthographic projection typically simply refers to the shape of an object when viewed from a particular angle, i.e. from above. A review of the relevant prior art confirms this understanding is the art recognized definition of the phrase. In this specification however, single openings (131) are said to have a plurality of different “orthographic projections” corresponding to different graphic units, which logically does not make sense with the art-recognized meaning of the term orthographic projection. Any single opening should only have one single orthographic projection in any given view, and as the specification makes no mention of referring to different views, this discussion of it makes no sense.
Furthermore, figures 7 to 9 are extremely confusing as they refer to a “schematic distribution diagram” of orthographic projections of the second opening, which is again a nonsensical description of an orthographic projection, and additionally seem to compare the “orthographic projections” (1212-1215) to the first opening (121), which again is borderline incomprehensible because orthographic projections are meant to be virtual shapes in a particular view, which are entirely incompatible in comparison with a literal, physical opening (121). Even further, figures 7 to 9 have no corresponding discussion in the specification, so it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what these images are trying to show.
Figure 11 is also unclear, as it similarly relies on this incomprehensible usage of “orthographic projections” when referring to the third opening (131). The discussion about figure 11 does not clearly define what exactly is being shown or described in this figure. Rectangular shaded zones do not adequately show whatever inventive feature Applicant is referring to here.
Overall, a full understanding of the instant invention based on this specification is currently impossible, and correction is needed. The usage of “orthographic projection” being incorrect is likely due to a translation error somewhere along the line. The best understanding of the inventive concept that can be currently made is that multiple second openings (131) having different shapes are provided for each single first opening (121), such that the sum of the lengths of their individual “orthographic projections” is less than the length of the opening (121) itself. In other words, multiple openings in the mask bar overlap with a single opening of the mask beneath it. This interpretation is at odds with the plain meaning of the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the second openings correspond to the first openings “one-to-one” but another interpretation of this requirement is that each plurality or interval of the second openings corresponds one-to-one with the plurality or interval of first openings, which fits the current understanding of the specification better. For the purposes of examination this interpretation of the claims will be used.
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 1 and 4-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the term “overlapped” a number of times without defining which feature overlaps the claimed feature. Terms like “overlap” require relative relationships between two elements- the element being overlapped and the element which overlaps the other. Nothing in the claims indicates the element which is overlapping (or not overlapping) the claimed “orthographic projections” and “second openings”, which renders the claims indefinite. Further, the discussion of the “second openings corresponding to another part types” being overlapped with “second openings corresponding to part types” makes no logical sense, as two openings on the same bar cannot be physically overlapping each other- they would instead just be one single opening. Therefore it is obvious that this claim is trying to refer to something else, and that the openings cannot possibly be overlapping each other in both the X and Y directions. It is possible that the intention is to state that the openings overlap each other in only one direction (i.e. are spaced apart in the y direction but overlap in the x direction), however this is only a guess, as the claim and specification are extremely indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2019/0305222).
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 are 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
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being 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).
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.
Conclusion
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
4/10/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights