DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18/443,670 filed on February 16, 2024.
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 the Group I invention in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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 1-4, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikenaga (US 2025/0122606).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches a mask assembly 10 comprising:
a mask frame 15 including an opening area 15op (see, e.g., par. 0163); and
a mask sheet 20, wherein the mask sheet 20 comprises (see, e.g., par. 0163):
a first metal layer 26 arranged on the mask frame 15 and including a first opening 26op (see, e.g., par. 0176);
a second metal layer 27 arranged on the first metal layer 26 and including a plurality of second openings 27op overlapping the first opening 26op in a plan view (see, e.g., par. 0176);
a third metal layer 25 arranged on the second metal layer 27 and including a plurality of third openings 25op overlapping the first opening 26op in a plan view (see, e.g., par. 0176); and
a fourth metal layer 21 arranged on the third metal layer 25 and including a plurality of fourth openings 21op overlapping the first opening 26op in a plan view (see, e.g., par. 0172).
Regarding Claim 2, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches that the first opening 26op is formed corresponding to a cell area of the mask sheet 20, and the first metal layer 26 is arranged along a perimeter of the cell area (see, e.g., Fig. 2, pars. 0166-0167).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches that the first metal layer 26 and the third metal layer 25 comprise a same material (see, e.g., pars. 0188-0189).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches that the first metal layer 26 and the second metal layer 27 comprise different materials, and the first metal layer 26 and the fourth metal layer 21 comprise different materials (see, e.g., pars. 0186-0190).
Regarding Claim 12, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches that a thickness of the third metal layer 25 is in a range of 0.3 μm to about 0.7 μm (see, e.g., par. 0181).
Regarding Claim 14, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches that in a plan view, one of the plurality of second openings 27op, a corresponding one of the plurality of third openings 25op, and a corresponding one of the plurality of fourth openings 21op are arranged to overlap one another.
Regarding Claim 15, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 14. Ikenaga (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 3), teaches thst in a plan view, the corresponding one of the plurality of fourth opening 21op is smaller than the corresponding one of the plurality of third openings 25op, and the corresponding one of the plurality of third openings 25op is smaller than the one of the plurality of second openings 27op.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 2025/0122606) in view of Niboshi (US 2018/0002803).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the first metal layer comprises invar.
Niboshi (see, e.g., Fig. 1), in similar mask devices to Ikenaga, on the other hand, teaches that the first metal layer 33 comprises invar, to inhibit deformation of the mask section 3 by radiation heat during vapor deposition (see, e.g., par. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Ikenaga’s device the first metal layer comprising invar, as taught by Niboshi, to inhibit deformation of the mask section by radiation heat during vapor deposition.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 2025/0122606) in view of Ren (US 2021/0233770).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the second metal layer comprises tantalum nitride (TaN).
Ikenaga discloses the claimed invention except for the use of TiN instead of TaN for the second metal layer. Ren (see, e.g., Fig. 5), on the other hand teaches that TaN and TiN are equivalent materials known in the art (see, e.g., par. 0081). Therefore, because these masking materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute TaN for TiN since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a coefficient of thermal expansion of the second metal layer is in a range of about 3.0*10-6/K to about 4.0*10-6/K.
Ikenaga discloses the claimed invention except for the use of TiN instead of TaN for the second metal layer. Ren (see, e.g., Fig. 5), on the other hand teaches that TaN and TiN are equivalent materials known in the art (see, e.g., par. 0081). Therefore, because these masking materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute TaN for TiN since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The specific claim limitation that “a coefficient of thermal expansion of the second metal layer is in a range of about 3.0*10-6/K to about 4.0*10-6/K” is a property of the second metal layer in Ikenaga’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Ikenaga and Ren teach the same TaN layer as recited in the claim, therefore, the layer will have the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 2025/0122606) in view of Fredenberg (US 2009/0183992).
Regarding Claim 8, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga teaches that the fourth metal layer comprises a Fe-Ni alloy or a Ni-Co alloy (see, e.g., pars. 0186-0187). Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the fourth metal layer comprises titanium nitride (TiN).
Fredenberg, on the other hand, teaches using a layer TiN, NiCo, etc., to prevent corrosion, diffusion, or electromigration of layers (see, e.g., par. 0036).
Ikenaga discloses the claimed invention except for the use of NiCo instead of TiN for the fourth metal layer. Fredenberg, on the other hand teaches that NiCo and TiN are equivalent materials known in the art used to prevent corrosion, diffusion, or electromigration of layers (see, e.g., par. 0036). Therefore, because these masking materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute TiN for NiCo since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 2025/0122606).
Regarding Claim 9, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a thickness of the first metal layer 26 is greater than a thickness of the third metal layer 25 (see, e.g., pars. 0181-0183).
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the first metal layer and the third metal layer in Ikenaga’s device. The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the thickness of the first and third metal layers in Ikenaga’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness in Ikenaga’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 9. Ikenaga does not teach that the thickness of the third metal layer 25 is greater than a thickness of the second metal layer 27 and a thickness of the fourth metal layer 21.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the third metal layer, the second metal layer, and the fourth metal layer in Ikenaga’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 9 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 11, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga does not teach that a thickness of the first metal layer 26 is in a range of about 10 μm to about 15 μm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the first metal layer in Ikenaga’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 9 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 13, Ikenaga teaches all aspects of claim 1. Ikenaga is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a thickness of each of the second metal layer 27 and the fourth metal layer 21 is in a range of about 0.05 μm to about 0.15 μm (see, e.g., pars. 0177, 0184).
See also the comments stated above in claim 9 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights