DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments, filed 9/18/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 11-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/18/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner; however, the arguments are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20230031623 by Dong et al.
Claim 1: Dong discloses a evaporation mask (abstract), comprising:
a mask body, comprising a plurality of evaporation holes (see e.g. Figure 5, 0078-0081); and a support frame (120), located on a first side of the mask body (see e.g. Figure 5, 0089-0090),
the support frame comprising: a support body, having an opening, disposed correspondingly to the plurality of evaporation holes, wherein the opening extends along a thickness direction of the mask body and passes through two sides parallel to the first side of the support body (see Figure 4-5, 0089-0090)
wherein a composition material of the mask body comprises a metal (0061 “the membrane 110 may be ceramic, metallic, elemental, or polymeric in nature. Membrane 110 may include one or more of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, Fe—Ni alloy, silicon (amorphous, polycrystalline, or single crystalline), or polyimide.”. 0079 “The interlayer may be a resin or a ferromagnetic material. The interlayer may cover the entire first ceramic layer or only parts of it. In some embodiments, the interlayer is polyimide, Fe, Ni, or a Fe—Ni alloy”), and a composition material of the support frame comprises at least one of silicon, sapphire, and silicon carbide (0092 “The top layer 121 comprises at least one of silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride with an atomic ratio of oxygen larger than 30%, oxides of different elements, amorphous silicon, polycrystalline silicon”)
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes Dong does not explicitly disclose the combination of a metal mask and silicon frame; however, Dong discloses that the mask comprises metal and the frame may comprise silicon(with respect to claim 1) or silicon and silicon nitride (with respect to claim 2) as noted above. Therefore, at the very least, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the combination of disclosed materials with a reasonable expectation of predictable results. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
As for the requirement of blind hole, Dong discloses the plurality of the blind holes are distributed on the first side and/or the second side (see e.g. 0082-0088, Figure 5 and accompanying text, Figure 9a-9d, 11, 12a-12c, 14a), wherein the blind holes do not extend through the mask body.
As for the thickness of “a region” where any one of the blind holes is disposed is less than a thickness of “a region” of the mask body where no blind hole disposes, the examiner notes breadth of the undefined region and the metes the bounds of this requirement. Here the regions can be any size and location. All that is required by the claims is some undefined region that has blind holes and some other undefined region that does not have a blind hole and a relative thickness of the mask body at those undefined regions, where the relative regions are not defined by the claims nor the specification. Here, Dong discloses such at e.g. Figure 11 at 115 or Figure 14a at 117b, where the region embodied by 115 at Figure 11 or 117b of Figure 14a has an increased thickness and no blind hole and can read on the broadly “a region of the mask body where no blind hole is disposes” has a larger thickness than that of the region that include the blind holes, i.e. “a thickness of a region of the mask body where any one of the blind holes is disposed is less than a thickness of a regio of the mask body where no blind hole is disposed”
Therefore, taking the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to have provided a mask body with a plurality of blind holes as claimed to reap the benefits as outlined by Dong. Additionally, it would have been obvious, in view of the entire disclosure of Dong to provide a mask body that includes a “region” without a blind hole that has a thickness greater than a “region” where any one of the blind holes is disposed as instantly claimed with a reasonable expectation of predictable and success results in providing a mask.
Claim 2: Dong discloses support frame comprises: a first support frame, located on the first side of the mask body, wherein a composition material of the first support frame comprises at least one of silicon, sapphire, and silicon carbide (see 0089-0093, 0092 “The top layer 121 comprises at least one of silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride with an atomic ratio of oxygen larger than 30%, oxides of different elements, amorphous silicon, polycrystalline silicon”; and a second support frame, located on one side of the first support frame facing away from the mask body, wherein a composition material of the second support frame comprises one of silicon nitride and metal (0093, “The lower layer 123 includes at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride with the atomic ratio of oxygen less than 30%, oxides of different elements such as aluminum oxide, metals such as nickel, iron, or nickel-iron alloys, and polymers such as parylene, polyimide or PMMA.”)
Claim 3: Dong discloses mask body comprises a first side and a second side placed oppositely, the evaporation holes extend along the thickness direction of the mask body and pass through the first side and the second side; and the mask body further comprises a plurality of blind holes (corrugations as shown by Dong reasonably read on the broadly drafted blind hole); wherein a thickness direction of the blind holes is the same as the thickness direction of the mask body (see e.g. 0082-0088, Figure 5 and accompanying text, Figure 9a-9d, 11, 12a-12c).
Claim 4: Dong discloses the plurality of the blind holes are distributed on the first side and/or the second side (see e.g. 0082-0088, Figure 5 and accompanying text, Figure 9a-9d, 11, 12a-12c).
Claim 5: Dong discloses the plurality of blind holes are alternately distributed on the first side and the second side (see e.g. Figure 5, where the blind hole alternate between the first and second side).
Claim 6: Dong discloses the plurality of blind holes are evenly distributed on the first side, and the plurality of blind holes are evenly distributed on the second side (see e.g. Figure 5, where the plurality of blind holes are evenly distributed on the first and second side).
Claim 7: Dong discloses least one of the blind holes is located between at least a set of adjacent two of the evaporation holes (see e.g. Figure 5, where the “blind hole” is between adjacent holes).
Claim 8: Dong discloses the plurality of evaporation holes are arranged in the first and second directions ; wherein a plurality of the blind holes are arranged and connected along the second direction between adjacent two first sets of the evaporation holes arranged in the first direction to constitute a first groove, and a plurality of the blind holes are arranged and connected along the first direction between adjacent two second sets of the evaporation holes arranged in the second direction to constitute a second groove; and wherein the first set of the evaporation holes comprises a plurality of the evaporation holes arranged in the second direction, the second set of the evaporation holes comprises a plurality of the evaporation holes arranged along the first direction, and a plurality of the first grooves and a plurality of the second grooves are cross-arranged to constitute a network structure (see e.g. Figure 5, where the “blind hole” are arranged in cross arrangement to constitute a network structure).
Claim 9: Dong discloses the plurality of evaporation holes are arranged in the first and second directions; wherein some of the blind holes are positioned between two adjacent evaporation holes arranged along the first direction, and some of the blind holes are positioned between two adjacent evaporation holes arranged along the second direction, and a plurality of the blind holes are arranged along the first direction and the second direction (see e.g. Figure 5, where the “blind hole” are arranged between some of the holes in the first direction and some of the holes in the second direction and a plurality of holes are arrange in both the first and second direction as claimed).
Claims 3-9: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above related to the explicit disclosure of Dong, the examiner notes Dong disclose the arrangement of the blind holes and their respective shape and location are adjustable to achieve the desired patterning (0082-0088) as well as to “reducing the shadow effect and increasing mechanical strength” (0002) and therefore it would have been obvious to adjust the location and pattern of the blind holes to provide a mask with a desired properties. As for the regions as claimed in claim 1 as it relates to the various embodiments of claims 3-9, such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 taking into consideration the broadly drafted claims that fail to define the metes and bounds of the regions as claimed that would differentiate from the region as taught by Dong that has a thickness larger than a regions that includes a blind hole.
Claim 10: Dong discloses the mask body is ferromagnetic (0079 “The interlayer may be a resin or a ferromagnetic material. The interlayer may cover the entire first ceramic layer or only parts of it. In some embodiments, the interlayer is polyimide, Fe, Ni, or a Fe—Ni alloy”.)
Conclusion
Pertinent prior art is cited on attached PTO 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
