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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 05/24/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the amendment to claim 8 makes the process claim require the limitations of the masks of claim 1. Specifically, the amendment now requires the clearance areas to be in a shape of a circle and polygon. Therefore, the Election/Restriction requirement is no longer proper.
This is not found persuasive because the masks of claim 1 may be made by a different process from that of claim 8. For example, the masks of claim 1 may be formed such the vias and openings may be formed only from a single etching surface on a first or second surface rather than having an etching portion on both surfaces communicating with each other as required by claim 8.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 2-4 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 2 recites the limitations "the first clearance region" in lines 1-2 and “the plurality of etched grooves” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first clearance region" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first clearance region and the second clearance region" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (CN 114107895).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a fine metal mask and an electroluminescent display panel (“a mask, comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface”) (Paragraph [0004]). The masks include a plurality of independent vapor-deposition regions which are arranged along a meshing direction of the mask (“a total etching area; the mask having a plurality of vias in the total etching area, and each of the vias communicating the first surface with the second surface”) (Paragraph [0039]; Figs. 2-3). As shown in figures 9-11, an alignment hole is provided at the edge of the vapor-deposition regions such that the holes formed from the mesh is not provided in an area where the alignment holes are located in order to avoid and improve recognition accuracy (“a plurality of clearance areas; the plurality of clearance areas being arranged in the total etching area”) (Paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). As shown in figure 11, the areas where the alignment holes are provided are surrounded by the holes formed by the mesh (“the plurality of vias of the total etching area surrounding each of the clearance areas”). The alignment holes are further taught to fully penetrate the mask and the shape of the area they are provided in is a square (“wherein each clearance area further has a through hole therein, and the through hole communicates the first surface with the second surface; each of the clearance areas is in a shape of a circle or a polygon”) (Paragraph [0057]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 11, the areas with the alignment holes are in the shape of a square and the white region of the area E may be considered the first region and the dark section may be considered the second region.
Regarding claim 5, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, there are multiple vapor-deposition regions and the alignment hole areas are arranged on the edges of the working area.
Regarding claim 6, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, there are multiple vapor-deposition regions and the alignment hole areas are arranged on the edges of the working area.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114107895) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikenaga et al. (JP 2014-133934).
Regarding claim 2, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 11, the areas with the alignment holes are in the shape of a square and the white region of area E may be considered the first region and the dark section may be considered the second region. As shown in the figure, the white region surrounds the dark region and comprises a majority of area E which would overlap with the first region being at least 5% of the clearance region.
Ding is silent with respect to this white region having a plurality of etched grooves.
Ikenaga teaches a vapor deposition mask which can prevent the formation of wrinkles (Paragraph [0001]). The masks include various areas which include a plurality of effective regions with through holes and stress relaxation regions having stress relaxation recesses (Paragraph [0012]). The recesses are provided such that an area which has a small cross-sectional area can be enlarged allowing for a reduction in rigidity (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the white areas of the area E to further include recesses which enlarge areas with a small cross-sectional area, thereby reducing rigidity, and assisting in the prevention of the formation of wrinkles.
Regarding claim 16, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 11, the areas with the alignment holes are in the shape of a square and the white region of area E may be considered the first region and the dark section may be considered the second region. As shown in the figure, the white region surrounds the dark region.
Ding is silent with respect to this white region having a plurality of etched grooves.
Ikenaga teaches a vapor deposition mask which can prevent the formation of wrinkles (Paragraph [0001]). The masks include various areas which include a plurality of effective regions with through holes and stress relaxation regions having stress relaxation recesses (Paragraph [0012]). The recesses are provided such that an area which has a small cross-sectional area can be enlarged allowing for a reduction in rigidity (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the white areas of the area E to further include recesses which enlarge areas with a small cross-sectional area, thereby reducing rigidity, and assisting in the prevention of the formation of wrinkles.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114107895) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Ding teaches the masks as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 11, the areas with the alignment holes are in the shape of a square and the white region of the area E may be considered the first region and the dark section may be considered the second region. As shown in the figure the white region surrounds the dark region and comprises a majority of the area E which would overlap with the first region being at least 10% of the clearance region.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114107895) in view of Ikenaga et al. (JP 2014-133934).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a fine metal mask and an electroluminescent display panel (“a mask, comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface”) (Paragraph [0004]). The masks include a plurality of independent vapor-deposition regions which are arranged along a meshing direction of the mask (“a total etching area; the mask having a plurality of vias in the total etching area, and each of the vias communicating the first surface with the second surface”) (Paragraph [0039]; Figs. 2-3). As shown in figures 9-11, an alignment hole is provided at the edge of the vapor-deposition regions such that the holes formed from the mesh is not provided in an area where the alignment holes are located in order to avoid and improve recognition accuracy (“a plurality of clearance areas; the plurality of clearance areas being arranged in the total etching area”) (Paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). As shown in figure 11, the areas where the alignment holes are provided are surrounded by the holes formed by the mesh (“the plurality of vias of the total etching area surrounding each of the clearance areas”). The alignment holes are further taught to fully penetrate the mask (“wherein each clearance area further has a through hole therein, and the through hole communicates the first surface with the second surface”) (Paragraph [0057]; Fig. 11).
As illustrated in figure 11, the areas with the alignment holes are in the shape of a square and the white region of area E may be considered the first region and the dark section/alignment hole may be considered the second region. As shown in the figure, the white region surrounds the dark region and comprises a majority of area E which would overlap with the first region being at least 5% of the clearance region.
Ding is silent with respect to this white region having a plurality of etched grooves.
Ikenaga teaches a vapor deposition mask which can prevent the formation of wrinkles (Paragraph [0001]). The masks include various areas which include a plurality of effective regions with through holes and stress relaxation regions having stress relaxation recesses (Paragraph [0012]). The recesses are provided such that an area which has a small cross-sectional area can be enlarged allowing for a reduction in rigidity (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the white areas of the area E to further include recesses which enlarge areas with a small cross-sectional area, thereby reducing rigidity, and assisting in the prevention of the formation of wrinkles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights