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 Group I claims 1-6 in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
“cover is 0.5 mm or more and 2.0 mm or less”A suggested revision is as follows:
“cover is equal to 0.5 mm or greater than 0.5 mm and equal to or less than 2.0 mm”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being JP-2000231880 A (hereinafter ‘880).
Regarding claim 1, JP '880 teaches a mask jig used in a thermal spraying method the mask jig (5) comprising: a main body portion (5) including a first surface (bottom in Fig. 1b) and a second surface (top in Fig. 1b) located opposite to the first surface; and a mask cover (7) disposed on the second surface side of the main body portion so as to overlap with the main body portion, the mask cover including a third surface (top) and a fourth surface (bottom) located opposite to the third surface, wherein the mask cover (7) is composed of an imide-based resin (polyimide). (See JP '880, Abstract, Machine Translation, page 2, paragraphs 8-10, page 4, paragraphs 4-7; and and Figs. 1, 5, and 7.)
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.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2000231880 A (hereinafter ‘880) in view of JP-H08148955 to Hidenobu et al (hereinafter Hidenobu).
Regarding claim 2, JP '880 teaches the main body portion (5) is provided with a first through hole extending from the first surface to reach the second surface, the mask cover (7) is provided with a second through hole extending from the third surface to reach the fourth surface. (See JP '880, Abstract, Machine Translation, page 2, paragraphs 8-10, page 4, paragraphs 4-7; and Figs. 1, 5, and 7.)
JP -880 does not explicitly teach a diameter of the second through hole is equal to or more than a diameter of the first through hole.
Hidenobu teaches the second through hole can be equal to or greater than the lower mask. (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4a-b, page 6, paragraph 10 of the Machine Translation (MT) )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a diameter of the second through hole is equal to or more than a diameter of the first through hole, because Hidenobu teaches this would enable the mask opening to be adjusted to achieve the desired shape of the deposition (30a). (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4a-b, page 6, paragraph 10 of the Machine Translation (MT) )
Regarding claim 3, JP -880 does not explicitly teach a diameter of the second through hole is more than a diameter of the first through hole.
Hidenobu teaches the second through hole can be greater than the lower mask. (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4a-b, page 6, paragraph 10 MT.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a diameter of the second through hole is more than a diameter of the first through hole, because Hidenobu teaches this would enable the mask opening to be adjusted to achieve the desired shape of the deposition (30a). (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4a-b, paragraph 10 MT.)
Regarding claim 4, JP -880 teaches the main body portion (5) is provided with a first through hole extending from the first surface to reach the second surface, the mask cover (7) is provided with a second through hole extending from the third surface to reach the fourth surface. (See JP '880, Abstract, Machine Translation, page 2, paragraphs 8-10, page 4, paragraphs 4-7; and Figs. 1, 5, and 7.)
JP ’ 880 does not explicitly teach an inner wall of the first through hole extends in a direction inclined with respect to a direction orthogonal to the first surface and the second surface, and a diameter of the second through hole is equal to or more than a minimum diameter of the first through hole and is equal to or less than a maximum diameter of the first through hole.
Hidenobu teaches an inner wall of the first through hole (20a) extends in a direction inclined with respect to a direction orthogonal to the first surface and the second surface, and a diameter (w, w1) of the second through hole is equal to or more than a minimum diameter of the first through hole and is equal to or less than a maximum diameter (S )of the first through hole. (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4b, page 6, paragraph 10 MT.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the through hole, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have a diameter of the second through hole is equal to or more than a minimum diameter of the first through hole and is equal to or less than a maximum diameter of the first through hole, in order to provide the optimal size deposition (30a). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4b, page 6, paragraph 10 MT.)
Regarding claim 5, JP -880 does not explicitly teach a minimum angle between the inner wall and each of the first surface and the second surface is 30 or more and 60 or less (See JP '880, Abstract, Machine Translation, page 2, paragraphs 8-10, page 4, paragraphs 4-7; and Figs. 1, 5, and 7.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to minimum angle between the inner wall and each of the first surface and the second surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the have a minimum angle between the inner wall and each of the first surface and the second surface is 30 or more and 60 or less, in order to provide the optimal size deposition (30a). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4b, paragraph 10 MT.)
Regarding claim 6, ‘880 does not explicitly teach a thickness of the mask cover is 0.2 mm or more and less than 0.5 mm.
Hidenobu teaches the thickness of the opening must be adjusted to adjust the height of the protrusion. (See Hidenobu, Abstract, last paragraph page 5. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness of the mask cover, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the have the proper dimensions of the masks, in order to provide the optimal height for the protrusion (30a). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Hidenobu, Abstract, Fig. 4b, paragraph 10; last paragraph of page 5 MT.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights