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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, Species C and Species E (corresponding to claims 8, 10-12 and 14-16) in the reply filed on 10 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 8 negative pressure generating part which has been interpreted as a vacuum pump and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 95; claim 12 bonding portion (i.e. portion for bonding) has been interpreted as a welding protrusion and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 154.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10, 12 and 14-16 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. Any claim specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 8 recites “a surface” which appears to be a surface of the mask frame and has been interpreted and examined as such. Claim 10 further recites “a first surface” and “a second surface” of the mask frame without relating either to the previously recited “a surface”, rendering claim 10 unclear. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that there may be overlap between the “a surface” of claim 8 and “a first surface” and “a second surface” of claim 10 and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0179354 to Araki et al.
Regarding claim 8: In Fig. 14 and the accompanying text, Araki et al. disclose a mask assembly comprising: a mask frame (262) comprising a frame opening (267) and a first flow path (264), the first flow path extending through the mask frame; a mask (212) disposed on the mask frame; and a negative pressure generating part (266), the first flow path connected to the negative pressure generating part to allow the mask to be adhered to the mask frame, wherein the first flow path comprises a redirection portion (see corner/angle of path 264) having a first shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a surface (e.g. a substantially horizontal surface of the mask frame) facing the mask, the first shape being selected from bent, curved, cornered, and angled.
Additionally, alternatively and more broadly (wherein a specific angle is not claimed), with respect to claim 8, Examiner notes that 224 can be considered a first redirection portion (e.g., redirecting air from the mask assembly to the negative pressure generating part) having a first shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a surface (e.g. a substantially horizontal surface of the mask frame) facing the mask, at various portions, the first shape being angled at approximately 0 degrees or 90 degrees with respect to the surface.
With respect to claim 10, in Lee the first flow path further comprises: a first opening extending in a first direction from a first surface (e.g., top substantially horizontal surface of 262) of the mask frame that face the mask; and a second opening extending in a second and different direction from a second surface (e.g., side substantially vertical surface of 262) of the mask frame that faces the negative pressure generating part, the second opening extending from the first opening.
With respect to claim 11, in Lee, an angle between the first opening and the second opening is greater than about zero (o) degrees and equal to or less than about ninety (90) degrees. See, e.g., Fig. 14.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR Patent Pub. No. 10-2020-0093487 to Lee.
Regarding claim 8: In Figs. 4a-b, 5a-b, 6 and 12-14 and the accompanying text/translation, e.g., Lee discloses a mask assembly comprising: a mask frame (70 and 200) comprising a frame opening (Fig. 5, R) and a first flow path (path 76, in holes in 75, and holes 229 in 223), the first flow path extending through the mask frame; a mask (100) disposed on the mask frame; and a negative pressure generating part (pump, not shown see translation), the first flow path connected to the negative pressure generating part to allow the mask to be adhered to the mask frame, wherein the first flow path comprises a redirection portion (see, e.g., corner/angle of path 76 in Fig. 13) having a first shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a surface (e.g. a substantially horizontal surface of the mask frame) facing the mask, the first shape being selected from bent, curved, cornered, and angled.
Additionally, alternatively and more broadly (wherein a specific angle is not claimed), with respect to claim 8, Examiner notes that 229 can be considered a first redirection portion (e.g., redirecting air from the mask assembly to the negative pressure generating part) having a first shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a surface (e.g. a substantially horizontal surface of the mask frame) facing the mask, at various portions, the first shape being angled at approximately 90 degrees with respect to the surface.
With respect to claim 10, in Lee the first flow path further comprises: a first opening (e.g., 229) extending in a first direction from a first surface (e.g., top substantially horizontal surface of 220 as seen in Figs. 4-5) of the mask frame that face the mask; and a second opening (horizontally aligned portioned of 76) extending in a second and different direction from a second surface (e.g., peripheral vertical surface of 70) of the mask frame that faces the negative pressure generating part, the second opening extending from the first opening (via pores in 75 and vertical extending portion of 76).
With respect to claim 11, in Lee, an angle between the first opening and the second opening, corresponding to the redirection portion) is greater than about zero (0) degrees and equal to or less than about ninety (90) degrees. See, e.g., Fig. 13.
With respect to claim 12, in Lee, the mask frame may further comprise a bonding portion bonding portion (WB) bonded to the mask, the bonding portion being spaced apart from the first flow path by a predetermined distance. See, e.g., Fig. 13.
With respect to claim 14, the mask frame comprises a plurality of rows of first flow, the bonding portion being disposed between ones of the plurality of rows of the first flow paths. See, e.g., Figs. 13 and 14.
With respect to claim 15, the mask assembly of Lee further comprises a plurality of support sticks (221 and/or 225) disposed on the mask frame.
With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses disclose with reference to Figs. 12-14 that a similar second flow path may be formed with respect to 221 by forming a step therein that allows for the second flow path to connect and extend through 70 to the negative pressure generating part. Similarly, a second flow path may be formed with respect to 225. Broadly (wherein a specific angle is not claimed), support sticks have a second redirection portion (e.g., redirecting air from the mask assembly to the negative pressure generating part) having a shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a surface (e.g. a substantially horizontal surface of the mask frame) facing the mask, the second shape being angled at approximately 90 degrees with respect to the surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 4,963,921 discloses a mask with a bent flow path and a negative pressure generating part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716