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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 7/15/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of the instant amendments to the claims.
All other rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 20200308688).
As to claim 1, Ikenaga discloses a metal mask comprising:
A metal plate having an evaporation surface and back surface opposite each other with a plurality of through holes extending from the evaporation surface to the back surface (abstract; paragraph 7: metal plate mask; figure 1: evaporation side and back side of mask 20 with openings/through holes 25);
Each of the through holes forms a first opening in the evaporation surface and a neck opening between the evaporation surface and the back surface with the first opening tapering towards the neck opening (figure 7, figure 9: showing embodiment with top opening [evaporation source side] and neck opening at 31 with tapered surface between top opening and ‘neck’ opening);
the first opening having opposing first long edges and opposing first short edges, the neck opening having two opposing second long edges and two opposing second short edges (figure 8: showing orientation of top opening and neck opening with long sides length L1/L3 for top and neck openings);
wherein an angle between a line from the first long edge and second long edge and back surface is greater than a second angle between a line between the first short edge and the second short edge and the back surface (figure 8: showing top perspective view of rectangular through-holes and figures 9 and 10 having views along directions IX-IX and X-X respectively [the short and long cross sections of the through hole], figures 9 and 10 showing the ratio difference of H1 to H11 [fig 9] versus H2 to H12 [fig. 10] with neck opening ‘closer’ to top opening in figure 10 – the geometry resulting in the angle difference of the long edges to the back side and the short edges to the back side, with the long edges forming a larger angle).
As to the limitation of the length ratio of the second long edge to the second short edge, Ikenaga discloses the through holes with rectangular shape and second long edge L1 and second short edge L2 (figure 8 -10) with differences between L1 and L2 of 2-300 micron (paragraph 138-139) and values for L1 of 17-350 micron and L2 of 15-150 micron (paragraphs 140-142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ratios of 2.5 or larger for L1/L2 [second long/ second short] as the ranges encompass this value and overlap the ‘or larger’ range with a ratio range of 1.01 to 21 (152/150 to 315/15 [smallest and largest ratios possible with disclosed values and differentials]).
As to claim 2, Ikenaga discloses a second opening on the back surface corresponding to the back surface and an outline of the second opening corresponds to an outline of the neck opening with corresponding third long and short edges, and the neck opening size is less than the first and second opening (figure 7: showing side view of top ‘first’ opening, smallest middle ‘neck’ opening, and bottom ‘second’ opening with tapering towards neck opening from both sides, figures 8-10 showing alternate perspectives and corresponding shapes with long/short edges).
As to claim 3, Ikenaga discloses a thickness between the third short edge and second short edge of less than 4 micron and a perpendicular expansion distance between the second and third short edges of less than 2 micron (figure 9: cross section of short edge direction of figure 8 with a thickness ‘H1’ and expansion ‘K1’; paragraph 158: H1 includes 4 micron or less range; paragraph 240: example with K1 at 2 micron).
As to claims 4-5, Ikenaga discloses the thickness of the deposition mask is 30 micron or less or 25 micron or less and 15 micron or more (paragraph 133: thickness T of mask) and the spacing or pitch between short edges of adjacent through holes may be a range of values including 15-30 micron (figure 8: short edge to short edge spacing c2; paragraph 147: listing of c2 value ranges).
As to claims 6-7, Ikenaga, as discussed above, discloses a height value difference for the second long edge and second short edges, H1 and H2 (figures 8-10) and discloses the various large ranges of values of the height differences from 1 to 10 micron (paragraph 159) which is on the same order as the values of H1 and H2 themselves (paragraph 160). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle difference formed by these values be within 5-10 degrees as the range of angles given by the resulting differential range of Ikenaga includes a large range of values fully encompassed the requisite range, and the selection height differential is disclosed as controlling shadowing effects without losing mask strength (paragraphs 7-9). Therefore the selection of the result effective variable of the height difference, and thus the resulting angle differential, would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the objectives of Ikenaga.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the remarks that the instant mask required by the instant claims requires its structure to be relative to an ‘evaporation surface’ and ‘back surface’. Although these terms indicated intended use of the mask, they do not actually provide structural limitations beyond requirements of a ‘first’ and ‘second’ surface opposite the first. Applicant also argues that the prior art, specifically Ikenaga, discloses the structure in reverse (effectively upside down). However, because the instant claims are directed towards a mask structure (as opposed to a deposition/other vapor processing apparatus containing a mask structure), the fact that the prior art teaches the same structure, but installed upside down, does not negate the fact that the prior art teaches the same mask structure. The fact that the instant specification provides intention to use the mask differently is not relevant to the actually claimed mask structure being taught by the prior art as discussed above.
Applicant further argues that Ikenaga does not explicitly disclose the requisite structural sizes and ratios as required by the instant claims. As discussed within the 35 USC 103 rejections above, Ikenaga teaches a range of values for the requisite structural components, the ranges containing values that either overlap with or encompass the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ranges to obtain the objectives of Ikenaga. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 I provides the basis for overlapping or encompassed ranges for a prima facie case of obviousness, and MPEP 2144.05 II provides the basis for it being within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize result effective variables, such as the structural sizes as taught by Ikenaga as necessary to obtain its masking objective. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ikenaga’s sizing not teaching nor suggesting the instant claims’ requirements are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
