DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the initial Office Action based on application number 18/362,160 filed on 07/31/2023 with a foreign priority of 11/29/2021. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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.
2. Claims 1, and 3 are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1)
Regarding Claim 1: Chen et al. teach a mask that is comprised of opening portion 112 (evaporation region) with multiple holes P (evaporation opening) [para006, 0025; fig. 2]. The mask also has a peripheral area 120 (solid region) and a thinning portion 114 (stress-relieving portion). The peripheral region 120 and thinning portion 114 are arranged around opening portion 112 as shown in fig 2. The combination of peripheral region 120 and thinning portion 114 corresponds to the claimed peripheral region.
Regarding Claim 3: Chen et al. teach that the mask has plurality of opening portions 112 (evaporation regions) as shown in fig 1, 4, 6 ,8, and 10 and the opening portions are arranged in a column.
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.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN108642440A)
Regarding Claim 2: Chen et al. teach a mask that is comprised of plurality of holes P (evaporation openings) are arranged in a matrix in the opening portion 112 (evaporation region). The shape of opening portions can be circular or of different shapes as shown in fig 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10. However, Chen et al. do not teach evaporation regions that are rectangular with round corners.
Li et al. teach a mask that is comprised of vapor deposition are (evaporation region) that is rectangular in shape with round corners as shown in fig 1 and it can also be circular [para 57]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the vapor deposition area into the invention of Chen et al. because Li et al. teach that when the vapor deposition area 12 is rectangular, the recess is formed on one or more sides of the vapor deposition area 12 [para 57].
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1)
Regarding Claim 4: Chen et al. teach the claimed “second shielding region” and “first shielding region” as shown in the annotated diagram below. The annotated diagram also shows the claimed “first stress relieving hole” between the claimed “first shielding region” and “second shielding region”. Fig 2. shows plurality of holes (stress relieving holes) in thinning portion 114 are in a row and column direction. The stress relieving hole in the annotated diagram also falls within a first shielding region.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, if a region as shown below in a square/rectangle is considered from fig 2., then another multiple stress relieving hole will form (second stress relieving hole) and the stress relieving hole in the annotated diagram would fall within a first shielding region but in a different region (shown below) similar to the one shown above in the annotated diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
825
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen et al. do not teach that stress relieving holes penetrate through thickness direction.
However, Ikenaga teaches a mask comprised of a first alignment mark 34 (stress relieving hole) that penetrates main body of the mask in a thickness direction [para 124]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute holes taught by Ikenaga with the holes of thinning portion because Ikenaga teach that the first alignment mark penetrates a mask in a thickness direction [para 124].
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
5. Claims 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) in view of Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view Oh et al. (US 20140150721 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, 6, and 7: Chen et al. teach a mask that is comprised of a claimed “first shielding region” as disclosed in paragraph 2 above. However, Chen et al. do not disclose “first shielding sub region”, “second shielding sub region”, and a “third shielding sub region” all within a “first shielding region.”
Oh et al. teach a mask and in fig 8 teach three regions which corresponds to the claimed 'first shielding sub region", "second shielding sub region", and "third shielding sub region" and is shown in the annotated figure below. The region corresponding to the first shielding region is labeled as P for clarity. Region P (first shielding sub region) is around deposition region 121(evaporation region), region 123 (second shielding sub region) is around region P, and region 124 (third shielding sub region) is around region 125. Region P and region 124 have the same thickness and region 123 has a smaller thickness than region P. The region P, region 123, and region 124 chronologically distributed from deposition region to first part 141 which is part of deformation prevention region 130 [para 097]. Region 123 is etched to a predetermined depth (partially etched) [para 92]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the 'P' region, region 123, region 124 from the annotated figure below and connect them with a structure of Chen et al. that corresponds to the claimed "second shielding region" because Oh et al. teach that the regions assist in reducing overall deformation of mask 120 [para 97].
PNG
media_image3.png
401
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8: Chen et al. teach a mask as described in paragraph 2 above. Chen et al. further disclose in the annotated diagram below that the edge of thinning portion 144 (stress relieving holes) and the edge of hole P (evaporation hole), located between outline 114a (first shielding region) and peripheral region 120 (second shielding region), are rectangular and same in shape.
PNG
media_image4.png
330
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9: Chen et al teach a mask and a structure similar to “second stress relieving hole” in paragraph 2 above. The size and shape of the structure similar to the “first stress relieving hole” and “second stress reliving holes”, are same as shown in claim 8. Chen et al. do not teach a “second stress relieving hole” within in a “third shielding sub-region”.
However, Oh et al. teach a mask comprised of a region 124 (third shielding sub region) as described above in claim 5. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the region 124 into the invention of Chen et al. and include the structure similar to the “second stress relieving hole” within region 124 because Oh et al. teach the region assists in reducing overall deformation of mask 120 [para 97].
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) in view Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1) and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20140150721 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Luo et al. (US 20220002859 A1)
Regarding Claim 10: Chen et al teach a mask as described in paragraph 2 above. Oh et al. teach a structure similar to the claimed “third shielding sub-region” in claim 5 above. Chen et al., Ikenaga, and Oh et al. do not teach a first sub-hole and a second sub-hole.
However, Luo et al. teach a mask that is comprised of a mesh region 31 (stress reliving portion/holes) that is comprised of plurality of sub-openings 21A (sub holes) [para 116]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the multiple sub-openings into the combination of Chen et al, Ikenaga and Oh et al. and place within the structure similar to the claimed “third shielding sub regions” and the “second shielding region” because Luo et al. teach that each sub openings are used to form display substrates [para 116].
Regarding Claim 11 and 12: Chen et al teach a mask as described in paragraph 2 above and further teach that thinning portion 114 (first stress reliving hole) has a rectangular shape as shown above in claim 8 and fig 2. Oh et al. teach region 123 (second shielding sub region). Chen et al. and Oh et al. do not teach shapes of first sub-hole and a second sub-hole and how the sub-holes are distributed.
Luo et al. teach a mask and disclose shapes of sub-openings 21A (sub-holes) can be a target shape [para 104]. The target shapes are polygon shape (rectangular), circle, and ellipse shape [Abstract]. The sub-openings 21A are arranged and evenly distributed within a region 21 as shown in fig 5C. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the target shaped sub holes distributed evenly within region 123 of the combination Chen et al and Oh et al. because Luo et al. teach that display substrate manufactured using the mask device have higher accuracy and do not appear dark spots, cross-color, and other defects.
7. Claims 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) in view of Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Zong et al. (US 20220290295 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, 14, 15, and 16: Chen et al. teach a mask described in paragraph 2, 3, and 4 above and further teach that teach two ends 100a (first end) and 100b (second end) as shown in fig 6, and 8. However, Chen et al., and Ikenaga do not teach a third stress relieving holes and its shape
Zong et al. teach a film layer which has a groove-like structure similar to the claimed “third stress relieving hole.” The structure is shown in the annotated diagram below. The groove like structures are formed in a sideway direction (second direction perpendicular to the first direction). The shape of the groove like structure is the shape of a semi-circle. The limitation, "an outer peripheral edge of the peripheral region coincides with a diameter of the semicircle." is shown in the annotated diagram below. Also, a semi-circle is a semi-ellipse if viewed from a top view. It is as similar to interpreting a square as a rectangle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the groove like structure (third stress relieving hole) into the structure similar to the claimed “second shielding region” of Chen et al. (shown in paragraph 4) because Zong et al. teach that the groove like structure is used for fastening component 230 for fastening multiple bodies. [para 179]
PNG
media_image5.png
422
873
media_image5.png
Greyscale
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) in view of Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN108642440A).
Regarding Claim 17: Chen et al. teach a mask as described in paragraph 2, 3, and 4 above but do not teach a third shielding portion and a fourth stress relieving hole.
However, Li et al. teach a mask that is comprised of a shielding portion 14 that is extended to evaporation area as shown in fig 5. The shielding portion 14 includes a dummy area 142 (third shielding region). the dummy area includes a groove 1421 (fourth stress relieving hole/blind hole) [para 76; fig 7,8,9]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the shielding portion along with the dummy area and groove into the combination of Chen et al. and Ikenaga because Li et al. teach that the groove 1421 helps reducing the weight of shielding portion 14 [para 77].
9. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) in view of Li et al. (CN108642440A) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Ikenaga (US 20200273735 A1) Regarding Claim 18 and 19: Chen et al. teach a mask describe above in paragraph 2, 3, and 4 but do not teach a fourth stress relieving hole and the radius of the fourth stress relieving hole.
However, Ikenaga teaches a mask comprised of a first alignment mark 34 (fourth stress reliving hole) which is a through hole that penetrates main body of the mask in a thickness direction [para 124]. There is also a second alignment mark 44, that has a diameter range of 0.15 mm to 2.5mm or a radius of 0.075 mm to 1.25 mm. Ikenaga further teaches that the first alignment 34 can have a diameter of 2% to 98% of the diameter of the second alignment mark 44 [para 125], which falls within the claimed radius’ range of "0.1mm-0.5mm"
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the first alignment mark into the combination of Chen et al. and Li et al. because Ikenaga teaches that second alignment mark 34 penetrates main body of the mask in its thickness direction [para 124].
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160322572 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN108642440A).
Regarding Claim 20: Chen et al teach a mask as described in paragraph 2 above but do not teach a mask frame and support strip.
However, Li et al. teach a mas comprised of a mask frame 20, a support strip 30 (support bar). The support strip 30 is fixedly connected to the mask frame 20, and at least one mask 100 is stacked on the support strip 30 and fixedly connected to the mask frame 30. [para 119]. The limitation "the mask is arranged at a side of the support bar away from the mask frame and fixed with the mask frame." is shown in fig 15.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the mask frame and a support strip fixed into the invention of Chen et al. because Li et al. teach that the support strip 30 is located on the evaporation surface of the mask 100 to prevent the mask 100 from sagging during evaporation process [para 120].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717