DETAILED ACTION Elections/Restrictions 1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 11/05/2025 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 for further examination. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5 . 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. 6 . Claims 5- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 5, line 3 recites “substantially” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “substantially” as any degree. To correct this problem, amend claim 5 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 5, lines 1 & 2 recite “pattern holes”, however pattern holes is previously recited in claim 1, thus it is not clear whether they are the same pattern holes or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “pattern holes” as “the pattern holes”. To correct this problem, amend claim 5 to recite “the pattern holes”. As regards to claim 6, line 3 recites “substantially” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “substantially” as any degree. To correct this problem, amend claim 5 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 6, lines 1 & 2 recite “pattern holes”, however pattern holes is previously recited in claim 1, thus it is not clear whether they are the same pattern holes or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “pattern holes” as “the pattern holes”. To correct this problem, amend claim 6 to recite “the pattern holes”. As regards to claim 7, line 1 recites “pattern holes”, however pattern holes is previously recited in claim 1, thus it is not clear whether they are the same pattern holes or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “pattern holes” as “the pattern holes”. To correct this problem, amend claim 7 to recite “the pattern holes”. As regards to claim 8, line 1 recites “pattern holes”, however pattern holes is previously recited in claim 1, thus it is not clear whether they are the same pattern holes or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “pattern holes” as “the pattern holes”. To correct this problem, amend claim 8 to recite “the pattern holes”. Claim Rejections 7 . 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 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. 8 . 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10. Claims 1- 3 & 5-6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2017/0263867 A1) hereinafter Kim (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Kim are included between parentheses). Regarding claim 1, the recitation “supplying a deposition material so that the deposition material passes through the at least one deposition area of the mask assembly and is deposited on the display substrate”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim since Kim meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of supplying a deposition material so that the deposition material passes through the at least one deposition area of the mask assembly and is deposited on the display substrate , if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and i ntended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau , 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115. As regards to claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus (abs; fig 1-9) , comprising: a chamber (161) ([0097]; [0100]; fig 9); a mask assembly (100) located in the chamber (161) to face a display substrate (11 of fig 9), and comprising at least one deposition area ([0095] -[ 0098]; [0101]-[0102]; fig 9); and a deposition source (200) located in the chamber (161) to face the mask assembly (100), and supplying a deposition material (see fig 9, broken lines coming from 200) so that the deposition material (see fig 9, broken lines coming from 200) passes through the at least one deposition area (see fig 9, open area of 110 & 120 through which deposition material passes) of the mask assembly (100) and is deposited on the display substrate (11 of fig 9) ([0097]-[0103]; fig 9) , wherein the mask assembly (100) comprises: a mask frame (110) comprising an opening area (see fig 8, area containing 130) ([0088] -[ 0095]; fig 8-9) ; at least one shield stick (130) intersecting the opening area (see fig 8, area containing 130) ([0088] -[ 0095]; fig 8-9) ; and at least one mask sheet (120) covering at least part of the opening area (see fig 8, area containing 130) and at least partially overlapping (see fig 8) the at least one shield stick (130) ([0088] -[ 0095]; fig 8-9) , and each of the at least one mask sheet (120) comprises: a first body (body of 121, 221, 321 minus body of 121c, 221c, 321c) comprising a hole area (area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) comprising pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) and covering the at least one deposition area (see fig 9, open area of 110 & 120 through which deposition material passes) ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 3A-4, 7-9) ; and a second body (body of 121c, 221c, 321c) connected to the first body (body of 121, 221, 321 minus body of 121c, 221c, 321c) and fixed to the mask frame (110) , and a maximum width (see fig 3A-4 & 7) of the first body (body of 121, 221, 321 minus body of 121c, 221c, 321c) is greater than a maximum width (see fig 3A-4 & 7) of the second body (body of 121c, 221c, 321c) ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 3A-4, 7-9) . As regards to claim 2 , Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9) , wherein the at least one mask sheet (120) comprises an overlapping area (see fig 3A-4, 7-8, hole area - area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) overlapping (see fig 8) the at least one shield stick (130) in a plan view, and the overlapping area (see fig 3A-4, 7-8, hole area - area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) has a convex shape (see fig 3A-4, 7-8) in a plan view ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 3A-4, 7-9) . As regards to claim 3, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9) , wherein the hole area (area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) comprises: a first hole area ( see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130 ) overlapping the at least one shield stick (130) in a plan view; and a second hole area ( see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h not overlapping 130 ) not overlapping the at least one shield stick (130) in a plan view ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8) . As regards to claim 5, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9) , wherein a number of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) per unit area in the first hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130) and a number of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) per unit area in the second hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h not overlapping 130) are substantially equal to each other ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8) . As regards to claim 6, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9) , wherein, in a plan view, sizes of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) provided in the first hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130) and sizes of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) provided in the second hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h not overlapping 130) are substantially equal to each other ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 11. 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 of this title, 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. 1 2 . The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 1 3 . Claim 4 & 7-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim s 1 & 3 above . As regards to claim 4, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein the first hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130) has a rectangular shape (see fig 8) ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose convex shape. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the hole area , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the hole area . Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) As regards to claim 7, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein a number of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) per unit area provided in the first hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130) remains constant (see fig 8) ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose gradually decreases outward. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the number of the pattern holes , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the number of the pattern holes. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) As regards to claim 8, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein, in a plan view, sizes of the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) provided in the first hole area (see fig 8, area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h overlapping 130), remains constant (see fig 8) ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose gradually decrease outward. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the sizes of pattern holes , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the sizes of pattern holes. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) As regards to claim 9, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein a thickness of the hole area (area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) is the same as a thickness of an area where the pattern holes (121h, 221h, 321h) are not provided (see fig 8) ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose is less than. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the thicknesses , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the thicknesses. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) As regards to claim 10, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein the first body (body of 121, 221, 321 minus body of 121c, 221c, 321c) further comprises an outer area (see fig 3A-4, 7-8, nonshaded white area along edges) located outside the hole area (area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) and overlapping the at least one shield stick (130) in a plan view, and a thickness of the hole area (area comprising 121h, 221h, 321h) and a thickness of the outer area (see fig 3A-4, 7-8, nonshaded white area along edges) are the same as a thickness of a remaining area (122) of the first body (body of 121, 221, 321 minus body of 121c, 221c, 321c) ([0064]-[0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose is less than. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the thicknesses of the areas, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the thicknesses of the areas. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) As regards to claim 11, Kim discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-9), wherein, in a plan view, the outer area (see fig 3A-4, 7-8, nonshaded white area along edges) has a rectangular portion ([0064] -[ 0078]; [0085]-[0087]; fig 8), however Kim does not disclose a convex portion. Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration of the outer area, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration of the outer area. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Conclusion 1 4 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references. 1 5 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7423 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Jethro M. Pence/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1717