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 § 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.
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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (WO 2018/221852, citing US 2021/0140030 as the English translation) in view of Kim (KR20200045385A) and Lee et al. (WO 2018/128304).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Jang et al. (WO’852) teach a producing method of a mask-support assembly for use in a process of forming OLED pixels on a semiconductor wafer (Abstract; Fig. 2; [0016]), the producing method comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a support (silicon wafer); (b) forming a mask metal film on a first surface of the support [0016,0054-0055]. WO’852 fails to teach (c) forming a mask including a mask pattern by etching the mask metal film. Kim (KR’385) is analogous art for producing a mask-support assembly for a process of forming OLED pixels on a semiconductor substrate (silicon) [0002-0003] and teaches a producing method of a mask-support assembly for use in a process of forming OLED pixels on a semiconductor wafer [0002], the producing method comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a support (substrate 21); (b) forming a mask metal film on a first surface of the support; and (c) forming a mask including a mask pattern by etching the mask metal film to form the pattern (Fig. 10(a);[0013,0016,0022,0091-0092,0094,0096-0098]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of WO’852 by etching the mask metal film formed on a first surface of the silicon wafer in WO’852, because KR’385 suggests etching a metal mask film formed on a first surface of a silicon substrate to form a pattern in the metal mask film.
WO’852 teaches heat treatment on the mask metal film and the support at a temperature of between 300 to 800 C to reduce a coefficient of thermal expansion of the mask metal film [0070,0082-0083,0102] and suggests that a heat treatment process can change a position of a pattern formed on the mask [0070,0079,0082]. KR’385 suggests heat treatment after the metal mask film is formed and before it is removed [0098-0099]. The combination of WO’852 in view of KR’385 fails to teach heat treating specifically between steps (b) and (c), performing heat treatment on the mask metal film and the support. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by performing heat treatment any time between forming the film and separating the film, including before etching in order to reduce a coefficient of thermal expansion of the mask metal film, because WO’852 suggests heat treating can change the position of the mask so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to heat treat the mask to lower the coefficient of thermal expansion before etching the pattern in the mask to avoid problems of movement in the pattern were the pattern etched first. In addition, it is prima facie obvious to perform the step at any time after forming the film and before separating to obtain a heat-treated and etched metal mask. MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
WO’852 teaches that after the heat treatment at a temperature in the range of 300-800 C, a connection portion is formed between and connecting the mask metal film and the support, since they are attached (Fig. 5; [0082]). The combination of WO’852 in view of KR’385 fails to teach that the connection portion is an intermetallic compound including Fe, Ni, and Si, the Fe and Ni being derived from the mask and the Si being derived from the support. Lee et al. (WO‘304) is analogous art in the field of mask manufacturing, including electroforming a Invar or Super Invar film on a silicon substrate [0001,0025-0026] and provides evidence that a heat treatment of an Invar or Super Invar plating film on a silicon substrate is likely to cause nickel or iron of Invar to penetrate the silicon substrate and form nickel or iron silicide [0092]. As in WO’852, WO’304 teaches a heat treatment at a temperature in the range of 300-800 C [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of WO’852 in view of KR’385 so that after heat treatment, a connection portion is formed between and connecting the mask metal film and the support, wherein the connection portion is an intermetallic compound including Fe, Ni, and Si, the Fe and Ni being derived from the mask and the Si being derived from the support, because WO’852 teaches heat treatment of an Invar or Super Invar film on a silicon substrate at a temperature range of 300-800 C, and WO’304 suggests that a heat treatment of a Invar or Super Invar film on a silicon substrate at a temperature within the range of 300-800 C is likely to cause nickel and/ or iron from the Invar or Super Invar film to penetrate the silicon substrate and form iron and/ or nickel silicide.
Regarding Claim 3, WO’852 teaches the producing method of claim 2, wherein in step (b), the mask metal film made of an Invar or Super Invar material is formed on the substrate by an electroforming method (plating [0015, 0054,0077,0079,0082], and likewise KR’385 [0048,0100,0136].
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, WO’852 teaches that the metal mask film can include nickel (Ni) and iron (Fe) (i.e. Invar) [0079], and the mask film grows in thickness from the surface of the substrate as the film is deposited [0080]. Therefore, the initial growth of the mask film can be considered to be step (a2) of forming a connection portion including at least one of Ni as well as including a connection portion including at least one of Fe and Ni formed between the mask metal film and the support.
Regarding Claim 5, in step (b), WO’852 teaches that the mask metal film is formed on the connection portion by an electroforming method, since the mask metal film can be considered to be later growth on top of initial growth as the film becomes thicker [0080].
Regarding Claim 9, the heat treatment in WO’852 is performed at a temperature in a range of 300 C. to 800 C [0082] as also in KR’385 [0099].
Regarding Claim 10, WO’852 teaches a a patterned insulating portion 45 formed of a photoresist, silicon oxide, or silicon nitride on an upper part of the mask metal film (Fig. 5; [0076], and KR’385 teaches that in step (c), a patterned insulating portion including a photoresist is formed on an upper part of the mask metal film, and that the mask metal film exposed between the patterned insulating portions is etched (Fig. 5; [0013,0132]) to make a clear mask pattern [0118]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by providing an insulating portion including a photoresist, silicon oxide, and/ or silicon nitride formed on an upper part of the mask metal film so that the mask metal film exposed between the insulating portions is etched, because KR’385 suggests these steps to make a clearer pattern and WO’852 teaches masking materials for patterning the metal mask film.
Regarding Claim 11, WO’852 teaches laser “processing” to form the mask pattern [0060]. KR’385 teaches that to etch the mask metal film, the film can be etched using at least one of dry etching, wet etching, or laser etching [0133]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of WO’852 by etching with any of “laser processing,” dry etching, or wet etching, because the combination of references suggests these methods for removing or otherwise etching a metal film to form a patterned metal mask.
Regarding Claim 12, WO’852 teaches a grid DP (Figs. 2-3). WO’852 fails to teach forming a support including an edge portion and a grid portion DP by etching the support on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support. KR’385 teaches forming a support including an edge (border 221) portion and a grid portion (223, 225) by etching the support on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support to achieve a grid of optimal width and shape (Figs. 21-25,27; [0018,0052-0059,0147-0162]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by forming a support including an edge portion and a grid portion by etching the support on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support.
Regarding Claim 13, WO’852 teaches that the support and the mask have a circular shape (Figs. 2-3), and the grid portion includes a plurality of first grid portions extending in a first direction and having both ends connected to the edge portion; and a plurality of second grid portions extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, intersecting with the first grid portions, and having both ends connected to the edge portion [0056-0057,0064-0065]. KR’385 also teaches the grid portion includes a plurality of first grid portions extending in a first direction and having both ends connected to the edge portion; and a plurality of second grid portions extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, intersecting with the first grid portions, and having both ends connected to the edge portion (Fig. 4; [0045,0055]).
Regarding Claim 14, WO’852 teaches a mask thickness of less than 5 to 20 μm [0076]. WO’852 fails to teach a template. KR’385 teaches steps (c2) adhering a template onto the mask through a temporary adhering portion to adhere the mask to the frame [0089,0108,0113]; and (c3) reducing a thickness of at least a portion where the grid portion is to be formed on the second surface of the support [0076]. KR’385 teaches a thickness of about 30 to 50 μm [0076] and also a thickness of 25 to 500 micron, which should be reduced [0085-0086]. The combination of references fails to teach the recited range of 50-200 μm. However, KR’385 evidences that the thickness is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect resolution of OLED [0076] and the rigidity of the mask as tradeoffs [0004,0058-0059]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by reducing a thickness of at least a portion where the grid portion is to be formed to 50-200 μm on the second surface of the support through routine optimization to achieve a mask with sufficient resolution and rigidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 3, 10-11, and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 3, 10-11, and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the combination of WO’852 in view of KR’385 fails to teach or to fairly suggest that a connection between a metal film and a substrate includes an intermetallic compound, including Ni, Fe, and Si, the Fe and Ni derived from the mask and the Si derived from the support (Remarks, pp. 8-10) Lee et al. (WO 2018/128304) is now cited as evidence that such an intermetallic compound is likely to form when the same or obviously identical Invar or Super Invar film as in WO’852 on the same or similar silicon substrate as in WO’852 is heated at a temperature within the same range as in WO’852, and would thus be expected to have the same benefits.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
