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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 3, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 5, 13 and 17 were amended and claim 4 was 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 4, 2026.
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 1-3 and 5-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the evaporation regions" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2016/0322572) on claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to include the subject matter from now cancelled claim 4 as well as additional requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Shigemura et al. (US 2004/0104197).
Regarding claim 1: Chen et al. discloses a mask (100) having an opening portion (112) which is an evaporation region, surrounded by a peripheral region formed of a solid peripheral area (120) and a thinning portion (114) which is a stress-relieving portion, where the peripheral area (120) includes the outline (112a) of the opening portion (112) which can be considered a first shielding region that has the same thickness as the solid peripheral area (120) which is a second shielding region extending in an outer peripheral direction from the first region, and connected to the first region (112a) at several points (see annotated figure 2 below) such that parts of the thinning portion (114) overlap the first shielding region (112a), and where the thinning portion (114) includes a plurality of separate holes (four holes in figure 2) arranged between the first shielding region (112a) and the second shielding region (120) in what could be considered a “row” direction or a “column” direction, as well as between central axes of the opening portions (112) of adjacent mask structures (110) present on the overall mask (100), which can be considered “centers” thereof (pars. 25-27; figures 1-3). Chen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the thinning portion (114) holes penetrate through the solid region, i.e. are through-holes.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shigemura et al. discloses a similar mask apparatus (20) which includes a plurality of apertures (213) located outside of the pattern area (211) in order to reduce deformation of the pattern area (211) due to tension and as such are stress-relieving portions which are apertures formed through the whole thickness of the mask (20) (par. 101-102, 109-110; figures 12-13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use full apertures as the stress-relieving thinning area holes of Chen et al. as taught by Shigemura et al. because Shigemura et al. shows that through-holes are functionally equivalent for reducing stress and tension in a mask (par. 102) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143) and because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 2: Chen et al. shows that the opening portion (112) both has a plurality of precision through-holes (P) and the shape of the opening portion (112) region is circular (par. 25; figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Chen et al. discloses that each opening portion (112) is arranged as one patterned structure (110) in a number of rows of such structures (par. 25; figure 1).
Claims 5-9, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Shigemura et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2014/0150721).
Regarding claim 5: Chen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the first shielding region is comprised of first, second and third shielding sub-regions having the same thickness or the first and third having the same thickness while the second has a lower thickness. However, Oh et al. discloses a similar mask assembly (100) having three deformation prevention regions (140, 142, 141) surrounding each of the pattern regions (121), where the deformation prevention regions (140, 142, 141) are shielding sub-regions that can have thicknesses equal to the rest of the shielding area or can be half-etched to have a smaller thickness, such that in some areas the thicknesses of the first and last regions (140, 141) are larger than that of the middle (142) (par. 81-87; figures 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use three sub-regions as taught by Oh et al. as the opening outline (112a) shielding region of Chen et al. because Oh et al. teaches that using this arrangement bordering the opening region helps prevent overall deformation of the mask (120) (par. 97).
Regarding claim 6: Chen et al. and Oh et al. show that the three sub-regions (140, 142, 141) are all connected to each other (Oh et al. figure 6) and therefore in the combination would be connected to the peripheral shielding region (120) which is directly connected to the opening outline (112a) (Chen et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 7: Chen et al. and Oh et al. teach that the second sub-regions (142) are half-etched (Oh et al. par. 85) while the first and third art not at all (Oh et al. figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 8: Chen et al. shows that the edge of the thinning portion (114) has a shape matching with the shape of the outline (112a) of the opening portion (112) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9: Chen et al. teaches that the thinning portion (114) is formed at the outer edge of the outline (112a) which would correspond to the claimed third shielding sub-region in the combination, and further shows that the edge of the thinning portion (114) has a shape matching with the shape of the outline (112a) of the opening portion (112) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 13: Chen et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of third stress-relieving holes formed in the second shielding region, or that the mask (100) has a first end and second end for net tensioning. However, Oh et al. discloses a similar mask assembly (100) having split masks (120) which have end portions (128) including a first and second end which are welded to the frame such that they are for net tensioning, further having a number of deformation prevention regions (142) which are third stress-relieving holes arranged on both ends of the split masks (120) such that they are in a direction perpendicular to the arrangement of the two end portions (128), but also arranged at regions separate from the deposition regions (121), i.e. near the ends (128) (pars. 67-69, 82-85; figures 1-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use three sub-regions as taught by Oh et al. as the opening outline (112a) shielding region of Chen et al. because Oh et al. teaches that using this arrangement bordering the opening region helps prevent overall deformation of the mask (120) (par. 97).
Regarding claim 14: Chen et al. and Oh et al. teach the above third holes (142) which are arranged all throughout the length of the split masks (120) such that many are at a side away from the deposition regions (121) and are arranged along a second direction (Y) perpendicular to the direction in which the ends (128) are arranged (X), where the orthographic projections of the deposition regions (121) do not overlap these third holes (142) (see Oh et al. figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 17: Chen et al. fails to explicitly disclose a third shielding region extending from the outline (112a) to the opening portion (112). However, Oh et al. the above mask assembly (100) having three deformation prevention regions (140, 142, 141) surrounding each of the pattern regions (121), where the nearest line (137) of deformation prevention regions (140) can be considered a third shielding region having a number of deformation prevention parts (142) which are fourth stress-relieving holes formed as blind holes half-etched to have a smaller thickness than the rest of the line (137) (par. 81-87; figures 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this line (137) of deformation prevention regions as taught by Oh et al. as part of the opening outline (112a) shielding region of Chen et al. between the rest of the outline (112a) and the opening portion (112) because Oh et al. teaches that using this arrangement bordering the opening region helps prevent overall deformation of the mask (120) (par. 97).
Regarding claim 18: Chen et al. and Oh et al. disclose the above combination in which the line (137) has a number of half-etched holes (142) which have a depth smaller than a thickness of the rest of the line (137) (see Oh et al. par. 86, figures 3-5).
Claims 10-12, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., Shigemura et al. and Oh et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-14 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2022/0002859).
Regarding claim 10: Chen et al., Shigemura et al. and Oh et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the either the first or second thinning portions (114) comprise a first sub-hole or second sub-hole. However, Luo et al. discloses a similar mask having a mesh region (21) as its opening region comprised of a plurality of evenly distributed sub-openings (21A), and further teaches using dummy mesh regions (22) outside of the main pattern region, which would similarly be filled with a plurality of dummy mesh sub-holes, further teaching that these mesh holes (21A) can have any shape such as rectangular, circular or elliptical (par. 63-65; figure 5). 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 dummy mesh having a plurality of holes like that of Luo et al. in place of each thinning portion hole of Chen et al. because Luo et al. shows that this is a functionally equivalent way to design a stress-relieving portion (par. 117) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). Since the third shielding sub-region overlaps with the thinning portion (114) as discussed above, the holes of the mesh in that region can be considered to be the first sub-holes, while other holes of the thinning portion (114) can be placed in the second shielding sub-region.
Alternatively, the fact that the second shielding sub-region is etched means that each of those etched regions can already correspond to “second sub-holes” of the stress-relieving holes, without needing any change in design from the combination discussed above.
Regarding claim 11: Chen et al., Shigemura et al. and Luo et al. teach that the dummy holes can have any geometric shape such as rectangular, circular or elliptical (Shigemura et al. par. 101-102, Luo et al. par. 63).
Regarding claim 12: Chen et al. and Luo et al. show that the openings of the mesh (21A) are arranged and evenly distributed within the mesh (see Luo et al. figure 5C).
Regarding claims 15-16: Chen et al. and Oh et al. disclose the above apparatus, and while Oh et al. states that the deformation prevention regions (140) can have any shape and not just rectangular (par. 83), neither Chen et al. nor Oh et al. explicitly disclose that they have the shape of a semicircle or semi-ellipse. However, Luo et al. discloses the above mask having similar dummy holes teaching that they can have any geometric shape such as rectangular, circular or elliptical (par. 63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circular or elliptical third holes such that they both contain the shape of a semicircle or semi-ellipse, where the outer edge of the peripheral region (120) could be considered to coincide with the center of the circle or ellipse, because Luo et al. teaches that these shapes are well known functional equivalents to rectangular dummy holes (par. 63) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 19: Chen et al. and Oh et al. disclose the above apparatus, and while Oh et al. states that the deformation prevention regions (140) can have any shape and not just rectangular (par. 83), neither Chen et al. nor Oh et al. explicitly disclose that they are round, i.e. have a circular shape. However, Luo et al. discloses the above mask having similar dummy holes teaching that they can have any geometric shape such as rectangular, circular or elliptical (par. 63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circular holes because Luo et al. teaches that these shapes are well known functional equivalents to rectangular dummy holes (par. 63) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
While Chen et al., Oh et al. and Luo et al. do not explicitly disclose that the radius of these holes is between 0.1 and 0.5 mm, Oh et al. does state the that the sizes of each of the deformation prevention regions (140) is a result effective variable dependent on the sizes of the pattern openings (par. 87-88) and therefore 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 sizes of these holes to be between 0.1 and 0.5 mm because 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. and Shigemura et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN 108642440, translation filed 3/4/2026 used for citation).
Regarding claim 20: Chen et al. and Shigemura et al. teach that the mask (100) bar is usually fixed to a mask frame (20) (see Shigemura et al. par. 14; figure 1), but fail to explicitly disclose that it also includes a support bar fixed to the mask frame such that the mask is arranged at a side of the support bar away from the mask frame. However, Li et al. discloses a similar mask assembly in which the mask (100) is fixed to a mask frame (20) as well as a support strip (30) between the mask (100) and the mask frame (20) (par. 119-120; figure 15). 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 mask frame and support strip as taught by Li et al. for the mask of Chen et al. and Shigemura et al. because Li et al. teaches that this helps prevent the mask from sagging and/or stretching during use (par. 119-120).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Chen et al. and Ikenaga et al. do not teach the newly claimed features in claim 1.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Ikenaga et al. reference are moot because that reference is no longer applied to claim 1. Even so, most of Applicant’s arguments regarding this reference only argued that reference on its own, and not the combination cited by the previous Office Action. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the Chen et al. reference, Applicant appears to argue that the thinning portions (114) cannot refer to multiple stress-relieving holes as now required by claim 1. However, this is incorrect, as indicated by the annotated figure 2 presented above. The primary embodiment of Chen et al. specifically shows four separate thinning portions (114) surrounding the opening portion (112), which clearly reads on the claim as it is currently written, which only requires the thinning portions to be partially located within the first shielding region, which can be understood as encompassing the outline (112a) of the opening portion (112) such that the thinning portions (114) are partially within that shielding region and partially between the outline (112a) and the peripheral portion (120) which is the second shielding region. The term “shielding region” is not defined enough in the claim to prevent it from extending partially outside of the outline (112a) such that the transitional area from the outline (112a) to the thinning portions (114) can be read as being part of that shielding region. In general, Applicant’s arguments appear to be mostly related to a much more narrow description of how a “region” is defined than what is currently in the claim.
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
10/6/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
