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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 1 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
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 9-10 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the section perpendicular" in line 5 thereof. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, based on their understanding of the disclosed and claimed inventions, Examiner assumed the claim was meant to recite “the second section in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction and parallel to the first surface are the same” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 10 also refers to “the section”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the cutting groove has a first section width and a second width corresponding to the first section and the second section, respectively; wherein in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the cutting groove has a maximum first depth and a maximum second depth corresponding to the first section and the second section, respectively;” and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested. Examiner’s assumptions are made in good faith, but are for expediting examination only, they are not meant to either implicitly or explicitly imply support exists in Applicant’s original disclosure. If Examiner’s understanding is incorrect or unsupported by the original disclosure, it is Applicant’s responsibility to provide the necessary clarifications and/or corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0355468 to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 1: Wang et al. disclose a metal mask structure comprising a plate (02), the plate at least comprising: a pattern area (e.g. area comprising 21) formed with at least one slot (e.g. 21); a non-pattern area (e.g. 22) disposed on one side of the pattern area; and a cutting groove extending along an extending direction (e.g. AA, in Figs. 2a-b) comprises an opening (e.g. 22a) formed on a first surface (e.g. 221) of the plate and an inner grove surface (e.g. 220) concave with respect to the first surface, wherein the plate further comprises at least one rib structure (e.g. in between concave portions of cutting groove), wherein the at least one rib structure is formed on the inner groove surface, extends along the extending direction, and does not protrude from the opening. See, e.g., Figs. 2a-b, 3.
With respect to claim 2, in Wang et al., portions of the inner groove surface divided by the at least one rib structure are each formed into a concave surface. See, e.g., Figs. 2a-b, 3.
With respect to claim 3, in Wang et al. the plate comprises a second surface (222) opposite to the first surface, and a plate thickness between the inner groove surface and the second surface is larger than or equal to 6 µm (see, e.g., para. 44, 100 µm [overall thickness of plate] minus 4.5 µm [depth of inner groove surface]).
With respect to claim 5, in Wang et al., the plate comprises a second surface (222) opposite the first surface, and a plate thickness between the first surface and the second surface of the plate is between 10 µm and 150 µm (see, e.g., para. 44, usually 100 µm).
With respect to claim 6, in Wang et al., the opening has an opening width perpendicular to the extending direction (e.g. perpendicular to AA), on the first surface, the at least one slot has a predetermined width parallel to a minor axis (e.g. same direction as direction perpendicular to AA) of the at least one slot, and the opening width is larger than the predetermined width (see, e.g., Figs. 2a-b, 3; esp. Fig. 2a).
With respect to claim 7, in Wang et al., the plate comprises a second surface (222) opposite to the first surface, and on the second surface the at least one slot has an enlarged predetermined width parallel to the minor axis. The predetermined width is considered enlarged (i.e. larger) than a depth thereof. Note: The claim does not recite a basis for comparison with respect to claim term “enlarged”.
With respect to claim 9, in Wang et al., the cutting groove is divided into at least two sections based on the at least one rib structure, and the at least two sections at least comprise a first section and second section; and wherein maximum section widths of the cutting groove respectively corresponding to the first section and the second section in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction and parallel to the first surface are the same. See, e.g., Figs. 2a-b, 3.
Note: The claim language does not require the plate itself to be metal. Applicant is invited to clarify this feature is desired. According to an intended use of the apparatus the plate could be used to deposit a metal material onto a metal substrate, generically making the overall apparatus a metal mask structure, as opposed to a mask comprising a metal material, etc.. Either way, the feature(s) is well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0131075 to Lee.
Regarding claim 1: Lee discloses a metal mask structure (e.g., Fig. 1, MKA) comprising plate of metallic material (CMK), the plate at least comprising: a pattern area (e.g. Fig. 5A, EVP) formed with at least one slot (e.g. Figs. 6A and 6B, MPT-a, MPT-b); a non-pattern area (NEVP) disposed on one side of the pattern area; and a cutting groove extending along an extending direction (DR1) comprises an opening (e.g. PP_1, PP_2) formed on a first surface (e.g. bottom surface in Fig. 5A) of the plate and an inner groove surface (not individually numbered) concave with respect to the first surface, wherein the plate further comprises at least one rib structure (e.g. in between concave portions of cutting groove), wherein the at least one rib structure is formed on the inner groove surface, extends along the extending direction, and does not protrude from the opening.
With respect to claim 2, in Lee, portions of the inner groove surface divided by the at least one rib structure are each formed into a concave surface.
With respect to claim 3, in Lee, the plate comprises a second surface (e.g. bottom surface in Fig. 5A) opposite to the first surface, and a plate thickness between the inner groove surface and the second surface is larger than or equal to 6 µm (see, e.g., para. 104).
With respect to claim 4, in Lee, the plate thickness between the inner groove surface and the second surface may be between 8 µm and 9 µm. In Lee, the thickness of the of the plate (NPTT) is disclosed to be “several to several tens of micrometers”. So, e.g., ~4-79 micrometers. Lee also teaches that the thickness between the inner groove surface and the second surface may be “about 5-95% of the thickness of NPTT of the non-pattern portion”. Therefore, values between 8 µm and 9 µm are disclosed therein.
With respect to claim 5, in Lee, the plate comprises a second surface (e.g. bottom surface in Fig. 5A) opposite the first surface, and a plate thickness between the first surface and the second surface of the plate is between 10 µm and 150 µm (see, e.g., para. 104).
With respect to claim 6, in Lee, the opening has an opening width perpendicular to the extending direction (e.g. DR1), on the first surface, the at least one slot has a predetermined width parallel to a minor axis (e.g. DR2) of the at least one slot, and the opening width is larger than the predetermined width (see, e.g., esp., Figs 4A and 4B).
With respect to claim 9, in Lee, the cutting groove is divided into at least two sections based on the at least one rib structure, and the at least two sections at least comprise a first section and second section; and wherein maximum section widths of the cutting groove respectively corresponding to the first section and the second section in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction and parallel to the first surface are the same. See, e.g., Figs. 4A and 4B.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0126507 to Ko et al.
Regarding claim 1: Ko et al. disclose a metal mask structure comprising a metal mask frame (Fig. 1, 50) and a plate (e.g., Fig. 1, 100; Fig. 5A, 300), the plate at, the plate at least comprising: a pattern area (310) formed with at least one slot (325); a non-pattern area (320 and 330) disposed on one side of the pattern area; and a cutting groove extending along an extending direction (e.g. Fig. 1., “X”) comprises an opening (321, 322, 323) formed on a first surface (e.g. bottom surface in Fig. 5A) of the plate and an inner grove surface (corresponding to radius R1, R2 and R3) concave with respect to the first surface, wherein the plate further comprises at least one rib structure (between R1 and R2, R2 and R3), wherein the at least one rib structure is formed on the inner groove surface, extends along the extending direction, and does not protrude from the opening.
With respect to claim 2, in Ko et al., portions of the inner groove surface divided by the at least one rib structure are each formed into a concave surface. See, e.g., Fig. 5A.
With respect to claim 10, in Ko et al. the cutting groove is divided into at least two sections based on the at least one rib structure, and the at least two sections at least comprise an adjacent first second and an adjacent second section; wherein in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction (e.g. Fig. 1, “Y”) and parallel to the first surface, the cutting groove has a first section width and a second width corresponding to the first section and the second section, respectively; wherein in a direction perpendicular to the first surface (e.g. Fig. 1, “Z”), the cutting groove has a maximum first depth and a maximum second depth corresponding to the first section and the second section, respectively; and wherein the first section is closer to a center of the cutting groove than the second section and the first section width is larger than the second section width, and the maximum first depth is deeper than the second depth. See, e.g., Fig. 5A.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-5, 6 and 9 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0183435 to Ohshita.
Lee discloses the metal mask structure substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, as is well known in the art, Wang et al. and Lee disclose that the predetermined width (i.e. corresponding to dimensions related to the desired pattern to be deposited using the claimed mask).
However, Lee fails to explicitly disclose the opening width is between 80 µm and 120 µm, and the predetermined width is between 20 µm and 50 µm.
Ohshita teaches that a shape (inclusive of opening width) of openings (i.e. false openings) is not specifically limited and may have any form provided that it is possible to ensure an effect of absorbing distortion during an addition of tension, as well as forming adhesive blocking areas outside the pattern area (i.e. display area) (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 12A-12C and paras. 56—57). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have optimized the dimensions of the opening width and the predetermined width in order to ensure an effect of absorbing distortion during an addition of tension, as well as forming adhesive blocking areas outside the pattern area (and to use dimensions opening width is between 80 µm and 120 µm, and the predetermined width is between 20 µm and 50 µm as desired and/or appropriate) as taught by Ohshita.
Conclusion
The prior art fairly extensively teaches providing masks with a non-pattern areas with a cutting groove, wherein the dimensions are variable based on overall mask size (also related to intended use of mask, i.e. what type of substrate is being worked upon) and also optimizing various dimensions of the mask to address stress, tension, bowing, etc. In order to advance examination, Examiner suggests adding to an independent claim with an exact configuration including shape and dimensions that are considered by Applicant to be non-obvious, and providing evidence of the same.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2014133934; CN 11952027; USP Pubs.: 20180163290; 20180040857; 20170179390; 20160322572; 20210355572 disclose mask assemblies with non-pattern areas including cutting grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights