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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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 second surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying prior art this will be interpreted as referring to “the back surface”. Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 1- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20200308688 by Ikenaga et al. Claim 1: Ikenaga discloses a metal mask structure, comprising: a plate having a front surface and a back surface (0007, figure 9); and a plurality of slits extending along a first direction (see e.g. figure 8) and respectively including a first opening formed on the front surface and a second opening formed on the second surface (figure 9 and accompanying text), wherein the first opening communicates with the second opening to penetrate through the plate (Figure 9), wherein a first longitudinal length of the first opening on the front surface and parallel to the first direction is less than a second longitudinal length of the second opening on the back surface and parallel to the first direction (Figure 8 and 9 and accompanying text), the first opening has a first end and a second end opposite to each other on the first longitudinal length, and the second opening has a third end and a fourth end on the second longitudinal length corresponding to the first end and the second end, respectively (Figure 8), wherein a first distance between the first end and the third end projected on the front surface parallel to the first direction is less than or equal to 200 μm (Figure 8, see H1 at 0137-0143), and wherein a maximum width of the second opening on the back surface and perpendicular to the first direction is defined as an extended width, a width of the third end of the second opening on the back surface and perpendicular to the first direction is a second end width, and the second end width is less than or equal to the extended width (see Figure 8). Here, the dimensions of the first opening on the front side and second opening on the backside are taught by Ikenaga as directly controlling the profile of the deposition material (Compare examples and Comparative examples) and therefore specifically direct one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the opening dimensions , including the first and second opening profile, through routine experimentation and thus determination of the optimum first and second opening dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to provide the desired and optimum deposition profile. Claim 2: Ikenaga discloses a width of the first opening on the front surface perpendicular to the first direction is within the range as claimed (see e.g. 0233, L4 is 40 microns). At the very least, as noted above, the dimensions are directly related to the dimensions of the deposited material (see 0149) and thus determination of the optimum width would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the optimum deposition profile. Claim 3: Ikenaga discloses the extended width is larger than the target width and less than or equal to five times of the target width (See Figure 8, where the maximum width of the second opening is larger than the maximum width of the first opening, but less than 5 times the width). At the very least, as noted above, the dimensions are directly related to the dimensions of the deposited material (see 0149) and thus determination of the optimum width would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the optimum deposition profile. Claim 4: Ikenaga discloses the first longitudinal length of the first opening is larger than or equal to three times of the target width of the first opening (See Figure 8-9 and accompanying text, see e.g. 0139-0142 related to the dimensions) . At the very least, as noted above, the dimensions are directly related to the dimensions of the deposited material (see 0149) and thus determination of the optimum width would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the optimum deposition profile. Claim 5: Ikenaga a slit depth that reads on the claim as drafted (0154-0161 , “or more”, H11 at 0168 and thickness of mask at 133-134 ) and thus encompasses and makes obvious the claimed range. T he slit depth is also recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the metal mask strength and deformation (00157) and therefore determination of the optimum depth/thickness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Claims 6 : Ikenaga discloses there exists a second distance between the third end and a nearest section of the second opening having the extended width is less than or equal to 1 mm (See Figure 8 -9 and accompanying text), where the third end width of the second opening is substantially equivalent to the maximum width of the second opening) . Claim 7 : Ikenaga does not explicitly discloses that the first distance (distance between third end projected on front surface and the first end) is equal to the second distance. However, the dimensions are directly related to the dimensions of the deposited material (see 0149) and thus determination of the optimum width would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the optimum deposition profile. Here, the Claims 8: Ikenaga discloses there exists a second distance between the third end and a nearest section of the second opening having the extended width is 0 (See Figure 8 and accompanying text, where the third end width of the second opening is substantially equivalent to the maximum width of the second opening). Claim 9: Ikenaga discloses the openings are closed geometric pattern having the first longitudinal length in a major axis larger than a width in a minor axis, and the second opening is formed as a closed geometric pattern having the second longitudinal length in a major axis larger than a width in a minor axis (see Figure 8-10). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2940 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 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 Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5166 . 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. /DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718