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. Claim 13 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. In is unclear what is meant by “fully etched hole.” The specification appears to suggest this mean the hole goes all the way through. However, a “hole” would appear to already imply this, and if not, it is unclear if “hole” is meant to read on any reduced thickness bounded area such as are present in Xu et al. (US 2021/0404049), cited below. Examiner interpreted “hole” as implying an “opening” but requires clarification. 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 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2021/0359025) in view of 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 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 [0399]-[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 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 know n 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 (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 a know and may be desired for such applications, while also potentially adding structural stability to the protrusion base. 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. Examiner notes Claim 3, 4, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, and 11 are simply related to variation s 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. Regarding Claim 12, Jung et al. doesn’t specifically teach thickness but thickness of 20-100 microns are well-known for similar FMM s (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 interpreted “fully etched” as being through the thickness. Note the holes need not actually be formed by etching as it is a product claimed. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung 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., 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 provided 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7653 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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