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 Applicant Election filled on 02/27/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 9-15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 and 16-19 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 2, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second mask opening comprises: a first inorganic opening (in between 131) disposed in the first inorganic layer (131); a first organic opening (in between 133) disposed in the first organic layer; and a second inorganic opening (in between 132) disposed in the second inorganic layer.
Regarding claim 3, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 2, wherein a width of the first organic opening (in between 133) is greater than a width of the second inorganic opening (in between 132) in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering the first organic opening at the side of 120 and the second inorganic opening at the 210 side meets the limitation since the location of measuring the width is not defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 3, wherein a width of the first inorganic opening (in between 131) and the width of the second inorganic opening (in between 132) are same as each other in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering taking the width at different location of 131 and 132 to make it equal meets the limitation since the location of measuring the width is not defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the apparatus of claim 2, wherein a width of the first inorganic opening, a width of the first organic opening, and a width of the second inorganic opening are same as each other in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering taking the width at different location of 131,132 and 133 to make it equal meets the limitation since the location of measuring the width is not defined in the claim).
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 17, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the mask assembly of claim 16, wherein the second mask opening comprises: a first inorganic opening (in between 131) disposed in the first inorganic layer; a first organic opening (in between 133) disposed in the first organic layer; and a second inorganic opening (in between 132) disposed in the second inorganic layer.
Regarding claim 18, Figures 1-3 of KIM disclose that the mask assembly of claim 17, wherein a width of the first organic opening is greater than a width of the second inorganic opening in a cross-sectional view (on a broadest reasonable interpretation, considering taking the width at different location of 133 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).
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 a mask materials 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).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
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-Friday, 8:00 AM - 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.
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 .
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