DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to Communication filed 05/28/2026
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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn
Elections/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, drawn to claims 1-9 in the
reply filed on 05/28/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election
was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/28/2026.
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.
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, 4-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20190305222) in view of Morita (US 20220223827), with Xiao et al. (US 20200273924) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Jung teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a mask assembly (mask assembly 20) facing a display substrate (substrate S),
the mask assembly comprises: a mask frame (frame 100) having an opening area (first opening area 101); a first mask (first mask 200) on the mask frame and having a first opening (second opening areas 201); and a second mask (second mask 300) on the first mask and having a plurality of second openings (pattern portions 320 which include holes h) overlapping with the first opening and positioned within a circumference of the first opening in a plan view (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2, the pattern portions 320 overlap with the second opening areas 201), and a deposition source (deposition source 440) facing the mask assembly on a side opposite the display substrate [Fig. 1-3, 6 & 0060, 0069, 0082, 0089].
Jung does not specifically disclose a corner curvature radius of each of the second openings being 6 µm or less.
Morita teaches a corner curvature radius of each of the second openings being 6 µm or less (the corner 11SC has a curvature radius R of less than or equal to 4.5 μm) [Fig. 5 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a mask of Jung to have a corner curvature radius of each of the second openings being 6 µm or less since Morita discloses such a range, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is noted that the holes of the second mask of Jung may have various shapes such as circles ellipses, or polygons [Jung - 0024]. Xiao et al. (US 20200273924) also discloses that utilizing rounded corners would be beneficial so to reduce manufacturing difficulty [Morita - 0097].
Regarding Claim 4:
The limitations of claim 4 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 5:
The limitations of claim 4 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 8:
The limitations of claim 8 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding Claim 9:
The limitations of claim 9 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20190305222) in view of Morita (US 20220223827), with Xiao et al. (US 20200273924) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 20190345597), with Jo et al. (US 20200238323) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Jung does not specifically disclose wherein a shortest distance between two adjacent ones of the second openings is 10 µm or less.
Uchida teaches wherein a shortest distance between two adjacent ones of the second openings is 10 µm or less (the width α of the rib portion is equal to or more than 5 μm and equal to or less than 40 μm; the width β of the top portion 43 is equal to or less than 2 μm) [Fig. 4, 29 & 0137-0138].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a mask of modified Jung to have the distance between second openings being 10 µm or less since Uchida discloses such a range, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is also noted that Uchida discloses that the hole size and the rib distance between holes are result effective variables. Specifically, the rib and hole widths can be adjusted to change utilization efficiency and mask strength [Uchida - 0137-0138]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum widths for ribs and holes to obtain desired mask properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Jo et al. (US 20200238323) also discloses a distance between holes equal to or less than 10 µm [Jo - 0066].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Jung does not specifically disclose wherein a minimum width of a rib of the second mask defining the second openings is 10 µm or less.
Uchida teaches wherein a minimum width of a rib of the second mask defining the second openings is 10 µm or less (the width α of the rib portion is equal to or more than 5 μm and equal to or less than 40 μm; the width β of the top portion 43 is equal to or less than 2 μm) [Fig. 29 & 0074, 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a mask of modified Jung to have a corner curvature radius of each of the second openings being 6 µm or less since Uchida discloses such a range, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is also noted that Uchida discloses that the hole size and the rib distance between holes are result effective variables. Specifically, the rib and hole widths can be adjusted to change utilization efficiency and mask strength [Uchida - 0137-0138]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum widths for ribs and holes to obtain desired mask properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20190305222) in view of Morita (US 20220223827), with Xiao et al. (US 20200273924) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Seong et al. (US 20200227640),
The limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Jung does not specifically disclose wherein the second mask comprises a hump protruding from an inner surface of the second openings, and wherein a height from one surface of the second mask facing the display substrate to the hump is 0.5 µm or less.
Seong teaches wherein the second mask comprises a hump protruding from an inner surface of the second openings (as evidenced by Fig. 10, the deposition mask 100 comprises a protruding hump), and wherein a height from one surface of the second mask facing the display substrate to the hump is 0.5 µm or less (height H1 may be 5 micrometers or less) [Fig. 10, 22 & 0212].
Furthermore Seong does disclose that the distance between a mask surface and a hump is a result effective variable. Specifically, Seong discloses that the distance determines deposition pattern spread [Seong - 0367]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum distance between a mask surface and a hump to obtain a desired deposition spread. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's further noted that adjusting the height H1 would also change the height H1. It's also noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20190305222) in view of Morita (US 20220223827) and Seong et al. (US 20200227640), with Xiao et al. (US 20200273924) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 6 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20210292883).
The limitations of claims 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Jung does not specifically disclose wherein a width of the hump protruding from the inner surface of the second opening in the plan view is 1 µm or less.
Although Du does not specifically disclose "wherein a width of the hump protruding from the inner surface of the second opening in the plan view is 1 µm or less," Du does disclose that protrusion amount is a result effective variable. Specifically, deposition width is determined by protrusion amount and the dimensions of an upper opening [Du - 0112]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum protrusion amount and optimum upper opening dimensions to obtain a desired deposition width. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Park et al. (US 20220052127) and Shinno et al. (US 20200274068) teach deposition masks [Park – Fig. 10B; Shinno – Fog. 4].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights