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
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 07/27/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 9-15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
(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, 6, 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al (US 20170121816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a display device, the apparatus comprising:
a chamber (110, [0028]);
a mask assembly (150+130, [0039]) disposed inside the chamber to face a display substrate (210, [0028]); and
a deposition source unit (120, [0030]) that is disposed inside the chamber to face the mask assembly, supplies a deposition material ([0029]), and deposits the deposition material on the display substrate by passing through the mask assembly, wherein the mask assembly comprises:
a first mask layer (150) comprising a first mask opening (gap between 150); and
a second mask layer (130) disposed on the first mask layer and comprising a second mask opening (gap between 130) overlapping the first mask opening, and the second mask layer (130) comprises:
a first inorganic layer (131, [0031]);
a first organic layer (133, [0034]) disposed on the first inorganic layer; and
a second inorganic layer (132, [0032]) disposed on the first organic layer.
Regarding claim 6, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first organic layer is greater than a thickness of the first inorganic layer and a thickness of the second inorganic layer in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering taking the thickness at different location of 131 and 132 meets the limitation since the location of measuring the thickness is not defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second mask layer further comprises: a second organic layer disposed on the second inorganic layer; and a third inorganic layer disposed on the second organic layer (considering top layer and the bottom layers of 133 and 132 meets additional layers, KIM also teaches multiple of layers in 132 and 133, [0031]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose a mask assembly comprising:
a first mask layer (150, [0027]) comprising a first mask opening (gap between 150); and
a second mask layer (130, [0031]) disposed on the first mask layer and comprising a second mask opening (gap between 130s) overlapping the first mask opening, wherein the second mask layer comprises:
a first inorganic layer (131, [0031]);
a first organic layer (133, [0034]) disposed on the first inorganic layer; and
a second inorganic layer (132, [0032]) disposed on the first organic layer.
Regarding claim 19, The mask assembly of claim 16, wherein a thickness of the first organic layer is greater than a thickness of the first inorganic layer and a thickness of the second inorganic layer in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering taking the thickness at different location of 131 and 132 to make greater than one another to meet the limitation since the location of measuring the width is not defined in the claim).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KIM et al (US 20170121816 A1) in view of TOWNSEND et al (WO 03085724 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Figure 1 of KIM does not teach that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first mask layer (150) comprises a silicon material. Or
The mask assembly of claim 16, wherein the first mask layer comprises a silicon material.
However, KIM teaches that mask material can be formed of alumino-silicate or silicon dioxide ([0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mask comprising silicon material according to the teaching of KIM in order to form a mask with lower cost and improved masking, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as mask comprising silicon material in a mask assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1 and 16 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device, the apparatus comprising: “a first inorganic opening disposed in the first inorganic layer, with no portion of the first organic layer and no portion of the second inorganic layer extending into the first inorganic opening; a first organic opening disposed in the first organic layer, with no portion of the first inorganic layer and no portion of the second inorganic layer extending into the first organic opening; and a second inorganic opening disposed in the second inorganic layer, with no portion of the first inorganic layer and no portion of the first organic layer extending into the second inorganic opening” in combination with the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-5, these claims are allowed as they depend on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 17, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches mask assembly comprising: “a first inorganic opening disposed in the first inorganic layer, with no portion of the first organic layer and no portion of the second inorganic layer extending into the first inorganic opening; a first organic opening disposed in the first organic layer, with no portion of the first inorganic layer and no portion of the second inorganic layer extending into the first organic opening; and a second inorganic opening disposed in the second inorganic layer, with no portion of the first inorganic layer and no portion of the first organic layer extending into the second inorganic opening” in combination with the limitation of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is allowable as it depends on an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments/amendments regarding the rejection of claims 2-5 and 17-18, filed on 07/27/2026, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because newly added limitation to the claims 2-5 and 17-18 are allowable based on the current search and consideration.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1 and 16 filed on 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument regarding claims 1 and 16 include: In rejecting claims 1 and 16, the office action suggests that the claimed features noted above are found in Kim's disclosures of mask 131, SAM 133 and intermediate layer 132. According to the office action, Kim's mask 131 can be mapped to the claimed first inorganic layer, Kim's SAM 133 can be mapped to the claimed first organic layer and Kim's intermediate layer 132 can be mapped to the claimed second inorganic layer. The applicants disagree. In Kim, the mask 131 is immediately surrounded by the intermediate layer 132 and the intermediate layer 132 is immediately surrounded by the SAM 133. Thus, whereas the first organic layer is disposed on the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer is disposed on the first organic layer in the claimed invention, Kim's disclosure has a different configuration with a second inorganic layer disposed on a first inorganic layer and the SAM disposed on the second inorganic layer. That is, in a comparison between the claimed invention and Kim, the first organic layer and the second inorganic layer are flipped in Kim relative to claims 1 and 16.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); < In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). In this case, Figures 1-3 of KIM teach that the second mask layer (130) comprises: a first inorganic layer (131, [0031]); a first organic layer (133, [0034]) disposed on the first inorganic layer; and a second inorganic layer (132, [0032]) disposed on the first organic layer on a broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 extension fee 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 KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights