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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 5/27/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai (US PG Pub 2018/0230585; hereafter ‘585).
Claim 1: ‘585 discloses a mask (title) comprising:
a plurality of deposition pattern portions (region 200, Fig. 4 and ¶s 44-46); and
rib portions disposed between the plurality of deposition pattern portions (see regions between region 200 which correspond with applicant’s disclosed rib portions #546 in applicant’s Fig. 7),
wherein a plurality of openings is defined in each of the plurality of deposition pattern portions (see ¶ 40),
the mask has a width in a first direction and a length in a second direction which intersects the first direction (Fig. 4),
sides of each of openings which are parallel to the first direction, among the plurality of openings, have a first taper angle (see Figs. 5 & 6 and ¶ 60), and
the first taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claim 2: The first taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claim 3: The mask has a first surface, a second surface, which is opposite to the first surface, a first side, which is extended to the first surface, and a second side, whci is extended to the second surface (see Figs. 4-6), and
the first and second sides are extended to each other (see Fig. 6).
Claim 4: A diameter of the plurality of openings gradually decreases in a direction from the second surface to the first surface (see Fig. 6).
Claim 8: ‘585 discloses a mask (title) comprising:
a plurality of ribs portions disposed between a plurality of openings (Fig. 4, see regions between region 200 which correspond with applicant’s disclosed rib portions #546 in applicant’s Fig. 7, wherein region 200 are plurality of openings).
wherein the mask has a width in a first direction and a length in a second direction which intersects the first direction (see Fig. 4),
the plurality of rib portions includes first rib portions, which are disposed between openings spaced apparat from one another in the second direction among the plurality of openings, and second rib portions, which are disposed between openings to be spaced apart from one another in the first direction among the plurality of openings (see regions between openings and a sections between a plurality of openings can be chosen such that they read on the first and second rib portions, Fig. 4),
sides of each of the first rib portions have a first taper angle (see Figs. 5 & 6), and
the first taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claim 9: The first taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claims 5-7 & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ‘585.
Claim 5: ‘585 does not explicitly disclose the taper angle formed in a direction perpendicular to the line D of Fig. 5 it is implied that the same structure is present based on the disclosure and it is reasonable to presume the same structure would be present.
Thus, it is apparent that ‘585 discloses sides of each opening which are parallel to the second direction, among the plurality of openings, have a second taper angle, and the second taper angle is 12-30º (see Figs 5-6 & ¶ 60).
However, if ‘585 does not implicitly disclose a second taper as recited it would have been obvious to use the same taper angle as disclosed in ‘585 on all sides of the openings because it would have predictably controlled deposition as desired and overcome the shortcomings noted in ‘585 when a taper angle is not used.
Claim 6: The second taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claim 7: The first and second taper angles are angles defined by an imaginary line, connecting points where the first and second sides meet and points where the second surface and the second side meet, and a plane, extended from the second surface (see Fig. 6).
Claim 10: ‘585 does not explicitly disclose the taper angle formed in a direction perpendicular to the line D of Fig. 5 it is implied that the same structure is present based on the disclosure and it is reasonable to presume the same structure would be present.
Thus, it is apparent that ‘585 discloses sides of each opening which are parallel to the second direction, among the plurality of openings, have a second taper angle, and the second taper angle is 12-30º (see Figs 5-6 & ¶ 60).
However, if ‘585 does not implicitly disclose a second taper as recited it would have been obvious to use the same taper angle as disclosed in ‘585 on all sides of the openings because it would have predictably controlled deposition as desired and overcome the shortcomings noted in ‘585 when a taper angle is not used.
Claim 11: The second taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60).
Claim 12: Each of the first rib portions and the second rib portions includes a first surface, a second surface, which is opposite to the first surface, a first side, which is extended to the first surface, and a second side, which is extended to the second surface (see Figs. 4-6), and
the first and second sides are extended to each other (see Figs. 4-6).
Claim 13: The first and second taper angles are angles defined by an imaginary line, connecting points where the first and second sides meet and points where the second surface and the second side meet, and a plane, extended from the second surface (see Fig. 6).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsueda et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0287064; hereafter ‘064) in view of ‘585.
Claim 14: ‘064 discloses a mask assembly (a mask module, Fig. 3A & ¶ 11) comprising:
a frame in which a frame opening is defined (see Fig. 3A, ¶ 63); and
a plurality of masks disposed on the frame, covering the frame opening and having a width in a first direction and a length in a second direction which intersects the first direction (see Fig. 3A and ¶s 63-64), each of the plurality of the masks including:
a plurality of ribs portions disposed between a plurality of openings, the plurality of rib portions (see Figs. 3A, 3C, & 5) including:
first rib portions, which are disposed between openings spaced apart from one another in the second direction among the plurality of openings (see Figs. 3A, 3C, & 5); and
second rib portions, which are disposed between the openings to be spaced apart form one another in the first direction among the plurality of openings (see Figs. 3A, 3C, & 5),
wherein sides of each of the first rib portions have a first taper angle (see Figs. 3A, 3C, & 5).
‘064 does not teach that the first taper angle is 54º or less.
‘064 is directed to masks for deposition of OLED elements (¶ 59).
However, ‘585 which is also directed towards an OLED deposition mask (abstract), discloses a mask of the same design/structure (see Figs. 4-6) and teaches that a desirable taper angle for the openings in said mask is 12-30º (¶ 60) wherein the taper angle controls the coating process and produces the desired result (see ¶s 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘585 into ‘064 such that the first taper angle is 12-30º because as recognized by ‘585, such a taper angle provides the desired control of the coating material during deposition OLED elements and would have predictably been a suitable taper angle for the mask of ‘064.
Claim 15: ‘064 teaches that the each of the plurality of masks includes fixing portions (¶ 64, #505, Fig. 3A), which overlap the frame and are fixed to the frame (¶ 54, #505, Fig. 3A), and
the fixing portions are disposed at opposite ends, in a length direction, of a corresponding mask (see Fig. 3A, # 505).
Claim 16: The first taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60, ‘585).
Claim 17: ‘585 does not explicitly disclose the taper angle formed in a direction perpendicular to the line D of Fig. 5 it is implied that the same structure is present based on the disclosure and it is reasonable to presume the same structure would be present.
Thus, it is apparent that ‘585 discloses sides of each opening which are parallel to the second direction, among the plurality of openings, have a second taper angle, and the second taper angle is 12-30º (see Figs 5-6 & ¶ 60).
However, if ‘585 does not implicitly disclose a second taper as recited it would have been obvious to use the same taper angle as disclosed in ‘585 on all sides of the openings because it would have predictably controlled deposition as desired and overcome the shortcomings noted in ‘585 when a taper angle is not used.
Claim 18: The second taper angle is 12-30º (¶ 60, ‘585).
Claim 19: Each of the first rib portions and the second rib portions includes a first surface, a second surface, which is opposite to the first surface, a first side, which is extended to the first surface, and a second side, which is extended to the second surface (see Figs. 3A-5), and
the first and second sides are extended to each other (see Figs. 3A-5).
Claim 20: The first and second taper angles are angles defined by an imaginary line, connecting points where the first and second sides meet and points where the second surface and the second side meet, and a plane, extended from the second surface (see Fig. 6, ‘585 and Fig. 5, ‘064).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights