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 18/298539 filed April 11, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (15-20) and species (9), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30, 2025.
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 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (WO 2020036360 attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Lee discloses a mask assembly having a frame (210) with a hollow region (R) which is a frame opening, a sheet unit (220) which is an open sheet connected to the frame (210), having a plurality of openings at mask cell regions (CR) that correspond to the hollow region (R) of the frame (210), where a plurality of suction holes (229) are present in the sheet unit (220) including multiple groups of such holes which are spaced apart from the mask cell regions (CR), where masks (100) are also connected physically to the sheet unit (220) such that they overlap corresponding holes (229) from the plurality of suction holes (229) (pages 8 and 16, figures 5-7 and 15-19).
Regarding claim 2: Lee discloses that each mask (100) has a first cell region (C) in which the openings are provided and an outer region overlapping the corresponding suction holes (229), where a weld bead is applied to the mask (100) and sheet unit (220) by a laser (L) which creates a weld protrusion in the upper surface of the masks (100) (pages 14, 16-17, figures 16, 19).
Regarding claim 3: Lee shows that at least some of the suction holes (229) are closer to the openings in the sheet unit (220) than the weld bead (WB) (see figures 16 and 19).
Regarding claim 4: Lee discloses that the masks (100) are rectangular and can be elongated like stick masks, such that they include short sides and long sides in the pattern region (defined by the dotted line in figure 19), the short sides being connected by the long sides, and where the region outside of the pattern region (outside of the dotted lines) protrude from the short sides and the long sides of the pattern region of the mask (100) (page 7, figure 19).
Regarding claim 5: Lee shows that the suction holes (229) are equally distributed around the sheet (220) openings (CR) such that when a mask (100) has one pair of sides longer than the other, the long sides would overlap more suction holes (229) than the short sides (figure 19).
Regarding claim 6: Lee shows that the suction holes (229) have a rectangular shape in cross section (figure 16) which is quadrangular, and shows that the holes (229) are arranged in the extending directions of the corresponding sides which overlap them (figure 19).
Regarding claim 7: Lee shows that the suction holes (229) have dimensions such that they extend in both directions and are also arranged in the directions corresponding to the sides which overlap them (see figures 16 and 19). Further, since there are two rows of suction holes (229) they can also be considered to be arranged in both directions as well, i.e. the long side holes (229) are arranged in the direction corresponding to the long side (column) as well as the short side (row), as seen in figure 19.
Regarding claim 8: Lee shows that the sheet (220, 221, 223) has an upper surface facing the mask (100), a lower surface opposing the upper surface, and an inner surface defining the suction holes (229), the angles between the upper surface and inner surface, as well as lower surface and inner surface, are all right angles in a cross-sectional view shown in figure 16.
Regarding claim 11: Lee discloses that a welding bead (WB) extends into the upper surface of the sheet (220) at a location which overlaps the frame (210) (figures 15-16).
Regarding claim 12: Lee discloses that the mask (100) as well as the frame (200) which includes the edge frame (210) and sheet (220) can comprise invar (pages 7-8).
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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee.
Regarding claim 10: Lee discloses that the sheet (220) thickness can be between 0.1mm and 1mm, which is 100-1000 microns, such that the width of the suction holes (229) in the thickness direction is between 100 and 1000 microns, within the claimed range (page 9).
Alternatively, while Lee does not explicitly disclose a range identical to that claimed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the size of the holes (229) as well as the thickness of the sheet (220) such that the holes (229) have a width of between 50-300 microns in either dimension because Lee explicitly teaches that these are result effective variables and design choices (pages 9 and 16-17) and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215), and similarly simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance when known to be adjustable (pages 16-17) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13: Lee discloses that the sheet (220) thickness can be between 0.1mm and 1mm, which is 100-1000 microns, overlapping the claimed range of 50-300 microns (page 9) and that the mask (100) thickness is between 10 and 50 microns (page 11).
Alternatively, while Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness range for the sheet (220) identical to that claimed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the thickness of the sheet (220) to be between 50-300 microns because Lee explicitly teaches that this thickness is a result effective variable which determines the structural properties of the invention (page 9) and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Lee, Byung (WO 2020032509, attached translation used for citation purposes, hereinafter referred to as Byung).
Regarding claim 14: Lee discloses a deposition apparatus (1000) including a deposition source (500) spraying an organic material source (600) to a target substrate (900) through a mask assembly, the mask assembly having a frame (210) with a hollow region (R) which is a frame opening, a sheet unit (220) which is an open sheet connected to the frame (210), having a plurality of openings at mask cell regions (CR) that correspond to the hollow region (R) of the frame (210), where a plurality of suction holes (229) are present in the sheet unit (220) including multiple groups of such holes which are spaced apart from the mask cell regions (CR), where masks (100) are also connected physically to the sheet unit (220) such that they overlap corresponding holes (229) from the plurality of suction holes (229) (pages 8, 16, 20-21, figures 5-7 and 15-20).
Lee shows the deposition apparatus (1000) in figure 20 and due to the nature of heating and supplying an organic material it is very clearly meant to take place within a chamber, however Lee does not explicitly disclose that this apparatus (1000) includes a chamber. However, Byung discloses a nearly identical apparatus which states that the process occurs within a process area which can either refer to a space within a closed chamber or an open space (page 17) such that the two are functionally equivalent for this apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chamber for the apparatus (1000) of Lee because Byung teaches that using a chamber or not are functionally equivalent (page 17) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
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
3/5/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717