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 Group III (Claims 21-31) in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 21, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bi et al. (US 2023/0085315).
Regarding Claim 21, Bi et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (See page 1, paragraphs [0003]-[0004], teaching the mask are involved in manufacturing OLED displays), the method comprising:
disposing a substrate and a mask assembly in a chamber; and supplying a deposition material from a deposition source and depositing the deposition material on the substrate by passing through the mask assembly (See pages 2-3, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], teaching the mask as a fine metal mask (FMM) for “evaporating” an OLED onto a substrate through the mask; this would have been well-understood to denote a vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE) process wherein there is deposition of the OLED deposition material through the mask via the VTE process within a chamber to implement the vacuum/desired atmospheric conditions; thus the nature of the evaporating of an OLED using presupposes deposition in a chamber since the discussed techniques could not coherently have been performed without one) the mask assembly comprises:
a mask frame comprising an opening region [1]; a support member [4] disposed on the mask frame [1] to divide the opening region into at least two; and a mask sheet [2] disposed on the support member to overlap the opening region, the mask sheet [2] comprising uneven edge portions and a plurality of holes [23] (See page 4, paragraphs [0055]-[0057] Fig. 5, wherein a support plate [4], i.e. support member, is provided over a metal frame [1], i.e. mask frame, clearly having an opening therein, the support plate [4] clearly shown to divide the frame [1] in two in Fig. 5, and a mask frame [2] with even edges having projections and interior openings [23] is disposed over support [4] to overlap the opening in frame [1], thus being a mask sheet as claimed).
Regarding Claim 22, Bi et al. teaches the mask frame [2], i.e. the mask sheet, is stretched and welded as such, thus indicating fixing in a tensioned state since stretching creates tension (See page 5, paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 29, Bi et al. teaches welding the mask frame [2] over the support [4] by a welding process wherein a welding point, i.e. any area of welding, is on an inner side of the projections, i.e. even edge portions, of the mask frame [2], i.e. mask sheet (See page 5, paragraph [0074]). Note nothing in Claim 29 indicates the mask sheet and support member need be welded to one another, only fixed to one another via a welding process. Examiner submits the welding of the protrusion of mask frame [2] on frame [1] fixes the mask frame in place on support [4], thus reading on claim 29.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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(s) 23-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi et al. (US 2023/0085315) as applied to Claim 21, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0192856) and/or Lee et al. (US 2016/0310988).
Regarding Claim 23-24, 29 and 30, Bi et al. teaches the method of Claim 21 as described above. Bi et al. teaches the support plate [4] is welded to the metal frame [1] (See page 4, paragraph [0055] and page 5, paragraph [0072]), and together, these welded components may be considered a support member as claimed, but there is no specific discussion of how this support frame [1],[4] is mounted in the evaporation system for forming the OLED. However, known method for mounting the mask assembly in similar evaporation systems for forming OLEDs would have predictably been suitable. Further, it is standard for framed of the mask assembly, such as metal frame [1] in Bi et al., to be mounted on a support feature having a similar shape as the frame to support and/or adjust mask assembly within the system (See, for example, Sung et al., page 1, paragraph [0002]-[0003], page 3, paragraphs [0032]-[0034] and Fig. 2, teaching a chamber system for mask deposition with a separate fixing member [420] under frame [100] of mask assembly, such as in an evaporation processes for forming an OLED for a display; and/or Lee et al.,, page 1, paragraph [0006],page 4, paragraph [0060], page 6, paragraph [0083] and Fig. 1, teaching a chamber system for holding a mask for a deposition process, such as evaporation processes for forming OLEDs for displays, wherein the mask assembly including frame [221] of mask assembly [120] is supported on a support portion [140], which can implement movement).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to mount metal frame [1] in Bi et al. of the mask assembly on a similarly shaped frame as a support within the system. Doing so is well known to mount the frame assembly in the deposition chamber and also to allow for movement of the mask assembly relative to the substrate. Such a support necessarily has an opening to allow the deposition material to pass through it while structurally supporting the bottom surface of the mask assembly. Such a support is reasonably considered a “mask frame comprising an opening region” as claimed. Thus, as described above, the combination of the metal frame [1] and welded support [4] together are reasonably considered a support member disposed on such a “mask frame” support portion that divides the opening via the welded support [4] in metal frame [1]. Thus, when supported as is standard in similar systems, the metal frame [1] is reasonably part of a support system as claimed
The metal frame [1] in Bi et al. has a plurality of spaced grooves, [10],[12] that receive the protrusions [24] of mask [2], which overlap within said grooves [12], and are welded therein (See page 4, paragraphs [0056] and Figs. 5-7, wherein protrusions [24] of mask [2] are welded into grooves [12] in frame [1] as a welding point).
Regarding Claim 25, the grooves [10],[12] in Bi et al. extend along a distance of the frame and are straight (See Figs. 5-7) and thus are considered to have a line shape in a longitudinal direction as claimed.
Regarding Claim 26, the width of the protruding portion [24] is smaller in the longitudinal direction than groove [12] (See Fig. 7, showing gaps between protruding portions [24] and the edge of groove [12]).
Regarding Claim 27, 28 and 30, Examiner submits “a welding groove overlapping a welding point formed during the welding process” is reasonably interpreted such that a welding groove, which overlaps a welding point, is formed during welding. Bi et al. teaches the groove [12] may have a thickness greater than the thickness of the protrusions [24] (See page 4, paragraph [0056]), thus making a groove still exist, but be at a different depth, in the area where the protrusion is welded in the main groove [12]. Thus, the top of the protrusion [24] is below the top surface of the groove and thus still part of the groove, but creates a different depth of the groove in the area of the weld, thus reasonably making this different groove depth portion formed by welding the overlapping protrusion a welding groove formed during the welding process as claimed. Note since the groove [12] itself is shown to be less than 20% of the thickness of the support member [1] (See Fig. 7), the welding groove certainly would be far less than this, or at the very least the depth of each being less than 20% is obvious due to it being illustrated as such in Fig. 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights