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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/645176 filed April 24, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 16, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the fixing device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification indicates that the fixing device corresponds to any number of fixing chucks which operate using suction or electrostatic force (par. 191-192).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (WO 2007088945, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Takeda et al. discloses a display device manufacturing apparatus which includes a substrate (2) which is inherently supported by some manner of stage, a deposition mask (104) which can be considered a mold that comprises a shielding unit (1041) which is a first mold and a contact portion (41) which is a second mold surrounded by the first mold, where the apparatus includes a spray (105) with an injection port (107) which is a discharge head which can supply ink, and means for applying UV radiation to the substrate (2), where the mask (104) is aligned to have a predetermined positional relationship and then placed onto the substrate (2) (pages 6-8, 17, figures 3-5). While Takeda et al. does not explicitly mention an actual fixing device for creating the predetermined positional relationship and placing the mask (104) onto the substrate, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use some manner of fixing device (i.e., robotic gripper or stage) for this process because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2: Takeda et al. discloses that the contact portion (41) is spaced apart from the shielding unit (1041) such that it can be considered an “island-type” mold (figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 3: Takeda et al. discloses that the contact portion (41) can include a fluorine compound (p. 17, par. 82).
Regarding claim 5: Takeda et al. discloses that the mask (104) can be made of resin or metal (p. 13, par. 55), and can be coated with a fluorine compound to make it liquid repellent, which is another way of describing a “release agent” (p. 16-17, par. 81-82).
Regarding claim 10: Takeda et al. discloses that either of the contact portion (41) or shielding portion (1041) can have tapered, inclined or curved side surfaces (p. 17 par. 85, figures 29-30).
Regarding claim 11: Takeda et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the substrate (2) includes a through hole, and therefore fails to explicitly disclose that a length of a lower surface of the contact portion (41) is greater than or equal to a length of such a through hole. However, it is noted that materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus in a claim do not patentably impact apparatus claims (MPEP 2115). Therefore, the length of the contact portion (41) can be considered to be larger greater than or equal to the length of a through hole of a substrate, if the apparatus is provided with one having a small enough through hole.
Regarding claim 12: Takeda et al. discloses an embodiment in which the height of the shielding portion (1041) is greater than that of the contact portion (41) by a small distance (t1) (p. 16, par. 77, figures 25-26).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 10-12 above and further in view of Yamada (JP 2001232251, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 4: Takeda et al. discloses that the mask (104) can have a fluorine coating in order to repel liquid, but fails to explicitly disclose that the coating is PTFE or the resin material of the mask (104) is PDMS. However, Yamada discloses a similar display device manufacturing apparatus using a mask which coats the contact portion of the mask with PTFE in order to repel the liquid coating being applied (page 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PTFE coating as taught by Yamada rather than the generic fluorine coating described by Takeda et al. because Yamada teaches that this is a well known equivalent coating for repelling liquid on a mask, and using a known element to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and further simple substitution of functional equivalents (generic fluorine coating for PTFE) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 above and further in view of Truskett et al. (US 2010/0104747).
Regarding claim 6: Takeda et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the fixing device includes at least one of a vacuum suction chuck or an electrostatic chuck. However, Truskett et al. discloses a similar semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus using a mold which supports the substrate (12) on a chuck (14) held by a stage (16), and further uses a template chuck (28) to support the mold template (18) as well as an imprint head (30) which can be considered another fixing device, both of the chucks using either vacuum suction or electromagnetic support (pars. 18-21, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use vacuum or electromagnetic chucks like those of Truskett et al. rather than the generic fixing means of Takeda et al. because Truskett et al. teaches that this is a well known equivalent mechanism for positioning a mask relative to a substrate, and using a known element to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and further simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 7: Takeda et al. discloses that the mask (104) can be made of metal (p. 13, par. 55), which is a conductive material.
Regarding claim 8: Takeda et al. and Truskett et al. disclose the above combination which includes a substrate chuck (14), a mold chuck (28) and an imprint head (30) which can be considered a separate fixing device which fixes either of the contact portion (41) or the shielding portion (1041) of the mask (104) (see Truskett et al. pars. 18-21, figure 1).
Regarding claim 9: Takeda et al. and Truskett et al. disclose the above combination, but fail to explicitly disclose that the substrate (2) includes a through hole. However, it is noted that materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus in a claim do not patentably impact apparatus claims (MPEP 2115). Furthermore, the limitations regarding what the third fixing device is meant to do are deemed to be limitations with regard to the intended use of the apparatus and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the third fixing device is capable of moving inside a through hole of a substrate, if provided with a substrate having a large enough through hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/27/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights