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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 6/1/2026. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the references fail to disclose a protrusion "terminating in a free end within the central hollowed-out region" and the amended angle language. Examiner notes the free end feature is clearly taught by the primary reference Jung et al. (US 2021/0359025) (See page 25, paragraph [0378] and Fig. 20B, clearly showing mask protruding with a free end [422b] and specifically describing a cantilevered shape), so the fact Guo (US 2019/0144987), Deng (US 2021/0367151), and Bai (US 2021/0363628) do not teach this feature is not dispositive since they are relied on to illustrate that flared, trapezoidal, and widened protrusion bases are known in fine metal masks structural shapes for free end protruding regions in the hollow region to improve structural stability, even if they don’t specifically protrude from the external frame. 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). Whether those bases in Guo, Deng, and Bai sit on a support structure rather than a free-ended protrusion is immaterial, the references being in the same field of endeavor and relied upon for the known availability of the base shape for more stability in fine metal mask (FFM) protrusions. Generally structural stability is relevant to any protrusion in FMM and Applicant has made no demonstration the shape creates improved results only for a terminating free end. Further, Examiner notes Deng specifically illustrates such structure on the frame edge (See Figs. 3, 6, [340A] and [340B]) although they are part of a separate piece, and the prior art clearly indicates shapes for protrusion terminating in a free end in a hollowed-out region as not limited in their shape.
Further, Examiner submits the amended angle limitation is met by that same flared-base teaching when there is curvature in the trapezoidal side, such as in shown in Guo (See Fig. 7). The second side edge is considered a first straight line down from the corner portion of the free end so as to create a 90-degree intersection between this first straight line from the corner and the connection side edge, this 90-degree angle being “an included angle between the connection side edge and an extension line of a contour line extending continuously from a free end prior to arriving at the junction with the third side edge” as claimed. The curving side of the trapezoid will create an increasingly smaller bisecting angle with the connection side edge as it curves outward from the free end toward the connection side edge. A second straight line bisecting the angle of curvature at the connection side edge junction will extend toward the second side edge (i.e. the first straight line described above) and intersect said first straight line/second side edge, i.e. at a “junction,” away from the free end at an angle lower than 90 degrees. This second straight line is a third side edge as claimed and the angle is the claimed “included angle between the first side edge and the third side edge.”
Further, even if the claimed shape did not appear in any single reference (and note Examiner submits the shape in Fig. 7 of Gou reads on the shape as claimed), this is not probative of nonobviousness. Varied protrusion shapes, including complex and base-flared shapes, are a known and freely-implemented design variables in FMM (See, for example, Xu et al., page 4, paragraphs [0084]-[0088] and Figs. 3A-B), and absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). The instant specification's stated stress-relief purpose (See instant USPgPub 2024/0254618, page 3, paragraph [0023]) does not establish criticality of the specified shape and merely broadly implies angles lower than 90 degrees reduce stress, a feature standard trapezoids possess. Such shape are extremely well-known designs in area shielded by FMM (See, for example Jung et al., 22B-C and 23A, showing the top area of a display shielded via a FMM and specifically described as being common for any polygonal shape, and also Wang et al., US2022/0359852, Fig. 23, showing a similar area configured in a trapezoid shape).
Even if the shape in instant Fig. 2 were claimed explicitly, and Examiner submits it is not, there is no evidence this specific shape has any appreciable advantage over the shapes in the prior art. The instant specification only even puts forth that angles less than 90 degrees reduce stress without ever stating the shape in Figs. 2-3 specifically has a specifically advantage over other shapes, such as trapezoid, which are extremely popular for design purposes. Further, no comparative data shows the claimed geometry performing differently from other known base shapes, and attorney argument cannot supply that evidence. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Without any data showing the claimed shape has structural advantages over known designs shapes such as trapezoids known to be formed by similar FMM, and with flared trapezoidal bases known generally for structural support in protrusions in FMM applications, Applicant cannot overcome the previous rejection of obviousness. In order to broadly claim a shape of a protrusion in an area where such protrusions are known to have widely varied shapes, and where wide bases are known to enhance structural support, Applicant must demonstrate at least some advantage for their claimed shape relative to the know shapes in the art, to overcome obviousness. Since no data at all is offered, obviousness is not overcome.
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.
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2021/0359025) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0359852), Xu et al. (US 2021/0404049), Guo et al. (US 2019/0144987), Deng (US 2021/0367151), and/or Bai et al. (US 2021/0363628).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 and 14, Jung et al. teaches a metal mask structure (See page 18, paragraph [0271], wherein the masks discussed are fine metal masks (FMM)), comprising:
an outer frame [422a], surrounding and defining a central hollowed-out region (422a-1), and comprising at least a first side frame (note one side of the outer frame is a side frame);
a protrusion region [422b], less than an area of the hollowed-out region, protruding from the first side frame toward the central hollowed-out region [422a-1] and terminating in a free end within the central hollowed out region, and provided with at least one hole [422b-1], wherein the protrusion region is connected to the first side frame at a connection side edge (See Fig. 19 and pages 22-23, paragraphs [0339]-[0043], wherein sheet shielding portion [422b] is a protrusion region as claimed connected to a frame [422a] and protruding into an opening [422a-1], or hollowed-out region, the protruding region having openings/holes [422b-1]).
Jung et al. does not specifically teach a “connection region” as claimed. However, Examiner submits the “connection region” is nothing more than the protrusion having a specification shape since it is clear the “connection region” and protrusion are integrally form. Examiner notes a trapezoid shape reads on the recited description wherein the angles sides are the third side edge connecting the connection edge, i.e. the connection on the frame, to the top portion of the protrusion.
Jung et al. teaches the protrusion [422b] is a sheet shielding portion that affect patterning during deposition (See page 22, paragraphs [0339]-[0342], teaching the protrusion [422b] as a shielding portion in a deposition process using the mask, thus indicating the shielding portion affects the pattern by blocking deposition in this area). Jung et al. further indicates shapes may be manufactured to variations of disclosed shapes (See page 4, paragraph [0089]), component parts patterned may have varied shapes such as polygons, ovals, triangles, or pentagons (See page 10, paragraphs [0159] and [0164]; and note triangles would have angles less than 90 degrees when connected from the base side; also see, Wang et al., Fig. 19, showing trapezoids as a known design shape in similar display areas), and the sheet body portion [422a] “may have various shapes.” See page 23, paragraph [0341]. Further, in similar FFM applications having shielding protrusions in the hollowed-out area, such as protrusion [422b] in Jung et al., the shape of the protrusion is known to be highly variable based on the patterning design, wherein irregular shapes may be utilized as desired for patterned aesthetic (See, for example, Xu et al., page 6, paragraphs [0084]-[0088] and Figs. 2B, 3A, 3B, wherein the shape of the protrusion, which extends from a frame into an open area, is a design feature and not limit with even irregular shapes being suitable, including the illustration of a shape having a distinct connection base from the main shape in Fig. 3B).
Further, trapezoid-type shapes with curved sides, or protrusions with enlarged bases are well-known in protrusions utilized in FMM masking for more stable support (See, for example, Guo et al., page 4, paragraphs [0055]-[0058] and Figs. 5, 7, teaching protrusions [a2] in FFMs with curved trapezoidal sides having a wider base; Deng, page 3, paragraphs [0035]-[0038] and Fig. 4-6, teaching an extra step of forming protrusions [342] with a wider base for more structural stability in a FMM; and/or Bai et al., page 6, paragraph [0064] and Figs. 3B, 3C, teaching expansion portions [232] with outer contours [2321] that serve as a connection portion for a protrusion [13] to mask frame [21] in a FMM). Thus, it is clear shape variation, including irregular shapes, in similar FMM protrusions, wider bases, such as in curved trapezoids or expanded bases are known in FMM protrusions, and further, wide trapezoidal bases are known to produce more structural stability in FMM protrusions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilized a widened, curved, trapezoidal base for the protrusion [422b] in Jung et al. Doing so would have predictably produced irregular shapes such as are known and may be desired for such applications, while also predictably adding structural stability to the protrusion base, as is well-known in FMM protrusions. Examiner notes changes in shape are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). The instant specification offers no data the claimed shape provides superior utility at all, let alone relative to well-known trapezoidal shapes such as are common for FMM protrusions and for structural stability in known protrusions in FMM applications.
Examiner submits the amended angle limitation is met by that same flared-base teaching when there is curvature in the trapezoidal side, such as in shown in Guo (See Fig. 7). The second side edge is considered a first straight line down from the corner portion of the free end so as to create a 90-degree intersection between this first straight line from the corner and the connection side edge, this 90-degree angle being “an included angle between the connection side edge and an extension line of a contour line extending continuously from a free end prior to arriving at the junction with the third side edge” as claimed. The curving side of the trapezoid will create an increasingly smaller bisecting angle with the connection side edge as it curves outward from the free end toward the connection side edge. A second straight line bisecting the angle of curvature at the connection side edge junction will extend toward the second side edge (i.e. the first straight line described above) and intersect said first straight line/second side edge, i.e. at a “junction,” away from the free end at an angle lower than 90 degrees. This second straight line is a third side edge as claimed and the angle is the claimed “included angle between the first side edge and the third side edge.”
Examiner notes Claim 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are simply related to variations in shape rejectable with the same rationale above absent persuasive evidence, i.e. data, commensurate in scope with the claims that these specific shape variations produce utility relative to known similar masks such as in Jung et al. Examiner submits there is little in the instant specification to indicate these more specific variations in shape have any distinction in utility from the shape of claim 1, or even any advantage to any shape such as a standard trapezoid where the angles are less than 90 degrees on the connection side edge.
Regarding Claim 12, Jung et al. doesn’t specifically teach thickness but thickness of 20-100 microns are well-known for similar FMMs (See, for example, Xu et al., pages 5-6, paragraph [0081], teaching the recessed portion [141] is 80% of the mask, and the forming depth, i.e. the thickness of the mask minus the recessed thickness is as low as 10 microns; thus recess/mask=0.8 and mask – recess = 10 microns, thus making the mask 50 microns thick and the recess 40 microns thick in this scenario). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a mask having 20-100 microns. Such thicknesses are common for similar FMMs and would have predictably been suitable for the desired applications of Jung et al.
Regarding Claim 13, Examiner submits the holes in Jung et al. are “fully etched” through the thickness. Note the holes need not actually be formed by etching as it is a product claim.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., Wang et al. Xu et al., Guo et al., Deng, and/or Bai et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of CN208266250 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5, Jung et al., Wang et al., Xu et al., Guo et al., Deng, and/or Bai et al. render obvious the claimed mask, as described above. Xu et al. further teaches such masks with protrusions are stretched with can cause uneven distributions of stress (See Xu et al., page 3, paragraph [0059]). The references are silent on a wavy edge. However, in FMM, providing a wavy edge is a known means to allow stress distribution when stretching masks (See page 11, paragraph [0021], page 30, paragraph [0050]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a wavy edge, such as to an expanded base in a mask to be stretched as is well-known. Doing so would have predictably compensated for stress when needed as is well-known.
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 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