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 June 2, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 4 and 14 were amended and claims 2-3 were cancelled.
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 March 11, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended to require that all of the adsorption holes are more adjacent to their corresponding sheet opening than the welding protrusions. Regarding this feature, the specification only states “The adsorption holes O-H may be more adjacent to the corresponding sheet opening O-OP among the sheet openings O-OP than the welding protrusions WM illustrated in FIG. 2.” (par. 82) which in no way requires that all of the adsorption holes have this relationship, and even further, figures 5F and 5G clearly show that this is not true for at least the one specific hole O-H shown in that figure, as it appears to be closer in the DR1 direction to the welding protrusion WM than the opening O-OP. Indeed, even figure 2 which paragraph 82 specifically cites as showing this relationship, clearly shows that at least one of the holes O-H overlaps the welding protrusion WM in such a way that it cannot possibly be closer to the opening O-OP than to the welding protrusion WM. This clearly shows that the disclosure as filed has no support for the new limitation that all adsorption holes for a corresponding opening must have this relationship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee (WO 2020036360, translation filed 3/11/2026 used for citation purposes) on claims 1-8 and 11-12 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include subject matter from cancelled claims 2 and 3 as well as additional limitations requiring all of the adsorption holes to be closer to the sheet opening than the welding protrusions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
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). Lee further 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), and 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), however fails to explicitly disclose that all of the suction holes (229) are closer.
However, Lee does state that the shape, size and arrangement of the suction holes (229) are not limited and that the only necessary relationship to the weld bead is that they do not overlap the weld beads (pages 16-17). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the locations of the suction holes (229) or reduce the number of suction holes (229) to be only one row such that all of the suction holes (229) are closer to their corresponding opening than to the weld bead (WB) because Lee teaches that these values are able to change (pages 16-17) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
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 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 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).
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, 4-8 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Lee, Byung (WO 2020032509, translation filed 3/11/2026 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).
Lee further 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), and 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), however fails to explicitly disclose that all of the suction holes (229) are closer.
However, Lee does state that the shape, size and arrangement of the suction holes (229) are not limited and that the only necessary relationship to the weld bead is that they do not overlap the weld beads (pages 16-17). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the locations of the suction holes (229) or reduce the number of suction holes (229) to be only one row such that all of the suction holes (229) are closer to their corresponding opening than to the weld bead (WB) because Lee teaches that these values are able to change (pages 16-17) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the embodiment of Lee shown in figure 16 clearly shows that some of the suction holes are not closer to the corresponding opening, while claims 1 and 14 now require all of them to be closer to the corresponding opening.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments refer only to that one embodiment of Lee, and fail to address the new 103 rejections above which take into account Lee’s disclosure that the arrangement of the suction openings can be different from that shown as long as they do not overlap the weld beads. This means one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try a number of different variations, including one in which there are not two separate rows of suction holes, where the outer row is outside of the location of the weld bead.
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
7/21/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights