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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0042159 to Cho in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0240870 to Kawato et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-4, e.g., Cho discloses a deposition mask comprising: a mask body (100) comprising a silicon substrate, wherein a plurality of holes (OP1) is defined through the mask body; and wherein the mask body further comprised mask grids (solid portions of mask body between holes) extending to define the holes, wherein a cross section of each mask grid has a reverse taper shape having a width increasing from a back surface (S2) of each mask grid to an upper surface (S1)each mask grid, and each side surface of each mask grid defining a hole of the plurality of holes comprises a first curved surface (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and paras. 78-82 and 139).
Cho broadly discloses a curved surface in para. 80, but does not explicitly illustrate the same. However, Cho also teaches that the tapering and curvature are meant to prevent clogging wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find provision of a concave structure with additional surface area intersecting a deposition material more to lead to clogging than prevent it.
Additionally, Kawato et al. a mask having a tapered and convexly curved surfaces recessed relative to an imaginary plane contacting a corresponding end of a back surface and a corresponding end of an upper surface defining a tapered shape for the purpose of suppressing edge blur, reducing frequency of replacement of the deposition mask and thus throughput and productivity can be improved at the time of mass production (see, e.g., Figs. 11-16C; and paras. 183-199, esp. Fig. 16B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the tapered, curved surface in Cho as a convex surface in order to suppress edge blur, reduce frequency of replacement of the deposition mask and thus improve throughput and productivity at the time of mass production as taught by Kawato et al.
With respect to claims 3, 7, as detailed above, in modified Cho, Cho and Kawato et al. disclose the first concave surface as disclosed above. However, modified Cho fails to disclose a depth of the first concave curved surface disposed on each side of each side surface of each mask grid with respect to the imaginary line is less than or equal to about 20% of a thickness of the mask grid or a taper angle of each mask grid is in a range of about 65 degrees to about 88 degrees. First, it is noted that the first curved surface has a variety of depths and angles, depending on how they are set forth and to be measured, such that at least some would be selected to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 8, in modified Cho, Cho discloses the mask grids comprise silicon (i.e. the mask body is silicon).
With respect to claim 10, in modified Cho, each side surface of each mask grid comprises a plurality of concave curved surfaces (i.e. corresponding to each hole of the plurality of holes to which it is adjacent) each of which is recessed relative to the imaginary plane.
Regarding claim 11: In Figs. 1-4, e.g., Cho discloses a deposition mask comprising: a mask body (100) comprising a silicon substrate, wherein a plurality of holes (OP1) is defined through the mask body; and wherein the mask body further comprised mask grids (solid portions of mask body between holes) extending to define the holes, wherein a cross second of each mask grid has a reversed taper shape having a width increasing from a back surface (S2) of each mask grid to an upper surface (S1) of each mask grid, and each side surface of each mask grid defining a hole of the plurality of holes comprises a first curved surface (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and paras. 78-82 and 139).
Cho broadly discloses a curved surface in para. 80, but does not explicitly illustrate the same. However, Cho also teaches that the tapering and curvature are meant to prevent clogging wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find provision of a concave structure with additional surface area intersecting a deposition material more to lead to clogging than prevent it.
Additionally, Kawato et al. a mask having a tapered and convexly curved surfaces recessed relative to an imaginary plane contacting a corresponding end of a back surface and a corresponding end of an upper surface defining a tapered shape for the purpose of suppressing edge blur, reducing frequency of replacement of the deposition mask and thus throughput and productivity can be improved at the time of mass production (see, e.g., Figs. 11-16C; and paras. 183-199, esp. Fig. 16B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the tapered, curved surface in Cho as a convex surface in order to suppress edge blur, reduce frequency of replacement of the deposition mask and thus improve throughput and productivity at the time of mass production as taught by Kawato et al.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Cho, Cho discloses the mask grids comprise silicon as an inorganic layer (i.e. the mask body is silicon).
With respect to claims 13 and 17, as detailed above, in modified Cho, Cho and Kawata et al. disclose the first concave surface as disclosed above. However, modified Cho fails to disclose a depth of the first curved surface disposed on each side of each mask grid is less than or equal to about 20% of a thickness of the mask grid or a taper angle of each mask grid is in a range of about 65 degrees to about 88 degrees. First, it is noted that the first curved surface has a variety of depths and angles, depending on how they are set forth and to be measured, such that at least some would be selected to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cho as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0359210 to Dong et al.
Modified Cho discloses the deposition mask substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Cho fails to specifically various dimensions of the deposition mask, e.g., modified Cho fails to particularly disclose a distance between neighboring holes of the plurality of holes is less than or equal to 5µm; a maximum width of each mask grid is less than or equal to about 10µm; wherein a maximum thickness of each mask grid is less than or equal to about 15 µm.
Dong et al. discloses a high-resolution deposition mask wherein dimensions are minimized and optimized for the purpose of using the deposition mask for manufacturing applications and devices requiring ultra-high resolution such as virtual reality and augmented reality applications (see, e.g., paras. 3-5, 37, 43, 45, 56). Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the deposition mask of modified Cho with optimized and minimized dimensions in order to use the deposition mask for manufacturing applications and devices requiring ultra-high resolution such as virtual reality and augmented reality applications as taught by Dong et al.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cho as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2026/0049387 to Lee et al.
Modified Cho discloses the deposition mask substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Cho fails to disclose the back surface of each mask grid comprises a second concave curved surface.
Lee et al. teach providing a plurality of concave curved surfaces (see, e.g., Figs. 17 and 19, RB) on a back surface of a plurality of mask grids for the purpose of making the strength of the deposition mask uniform regardless of direction (see, e.g., paras. 181-200).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art allowing the mask to have provided in modified Cho the back surface of each mask grid comprises a second concave curved surface in order to make the strength of the deposition mask uniform regardless of direction as taught by Lee et al.
Claim(s) 9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cho as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0149133 to Kim et al.
Modified Cho discloses the deposition mask substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, regarding claims 9 and 19-20, modified Cho fails to disclose the mask grids further comprise at least one material being a metal layer selected from copper, nickel, aluminum, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium and invar; or the mask grid has a multilayer structure in which the inorganic layer (comprising at least one of silicon, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, amorphous silicon, and aluminum oxide) and the metal layer are alternately stacked.
Kim et al. discloses providing a stacked multilayer structure on a mask body having an inorganic layer (e.g., aluminum oxide) and a metal layer (e.g., aluminum or tungsten) for the purpose of improving the anti-corrosion property of the mask body (see, e.g., paras. 90-108).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a stacked multilayer structure on the mask grid of the mask body of modified Oh having an inorganic layer (e.g., aluminum oxide) and a metal layer (e.g., aluminum or tungsten) in order to improve the anti-corrosion property of the mask body as taught by Kim et al.
Response to Arguments
Rejections previously set forth under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s correcting and clarifying amendments.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, filed 31 August 2026, with respect to the previously relied upon prior art references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the newly presented amended claims.
In response to Applicant's argument that the combination of prior art references Cho and Kawato fail to disclose the claimed feature of a mask grid with a reverse tapered shape having width increasing from a back surface of each mask grid to an upper surface of each mask grid, and each mask grid comprise a first concave curved surface, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It is the combination of the Cho and Kawato that renders the feature obvious, wherein Cho teaches a reverse tapered shape having width increasing from a back surface of each mask grid to an upper surface of each mask grid, as well as a generic curved shape, AND Kawato discloses and illustrates side surfaces of a mask grid with a concave curved shape. Notably, although not expressly relied upon in the rejection, Kawato also discloses mask grid shapes with reverse tapered shapes that do increase continuously from a back surface of each mask grid to an upper surface of each mask grid. This part of the Kawato disclosure is considered further evidence that incorporating a curved surface as set forth in Kawato would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic. Further still, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, it is noted that the courts have ruled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the reasons set forth above, the above prior art rejections are considered to render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. No. 2019/0259951 and WO 2011148750 disclose deposition masks having tapered, curved surfaces. USP Patent No. 9,142,779 discloses a deposition mask for high resolution patterning. USP Patent Pub. 2021/0246548 discloses a second concave curved surface on the back surface.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights