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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including calculating a vertical distance from each of the first sites other than the second site and the third site to the first straight line, wherein the plurality of first sites further comprises a fourth site, a vertical distance from the fourth site to the first straight line comprises a first vertical distance, and the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm or less than or equal to 10 μm; in a case that the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm and not greater than 15 μm, determining a type of the metal mask, wherein the type comprises a first type; in a case that the metal mask is of the first type, calculating a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the second site and the third site, and the second distance is a distance between the fourth site and a central point of the first long side; and calculating a percentage of the second distance to the first distance, and the percentage is less than 15% or greater than or equal to 15%.
These limitations taken together qualify as an abstract idea because they recite mathematical relationships/calculations. The abstract idea shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—mathematical analysis of investment data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as mathematical analysis of metal mask data; see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)—mathematical calculations with extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are ineligible). These cases describe similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The independent claims also recite "providing a metal mask and evaluating the metal mask, wherein the metal mask has a plurality of sites, a first long side, and a second long side, the first long side and the second long side are respectively located on two opposite sides, the plurality of sites comprises a plurality of first sites arranged along the first long side, the plurality of first sites comprises a second site located at a head and a third site located at a tail, the second site and the third site form a first straight line" (claim 13 also adds a frame body comprising a first frame wall and a second frame wall located on two opposite sides). However, this merely sets forth the field-of-use for the mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This is a similar situation to Flook (see above), where limiting the use of the formula to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects was still ineligible because the limitations represented a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim.
Independent claim 8 recites "in a case that the first vertical distance is less than or equal to 10 μm, or the metal mask is of the first type and the percentage is less than 15%, stretching the metal mask" and independent claim 13 recites "in a case that the first vertical distance is less than or equal to 10 μm, or the metal mask is of the first type and the percentage is less than 15%, stretching the metal mask, and fixing two opposite ends of the metal mask on the first frame wall and the second frame wall, respectively, wherein the two opposite ends are located in an extension direction of the first long side." These limitations would be sufficient to provide a practical application but for the fact that they are presented in a contingent manner. In other words, the claim reads on a situation where these steps are not performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (claim construction of method steps that only need to be performed if certain conditions are met reads on an embodiment where these steps are not performed). See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Other than these limitations, the claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of a computer itself and instead improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One.
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they only set forth a field-of-use for the mathematical calculations and add contingent limitations that only occur under some but not all conditions). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the same abstract idea identified above without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea by adding more mathematical relationships/calculations without adding any new additional elements beyond it; see claims 4, 6-7, 10, 15, 17-18 (claim 17 also recites a mental comparison step)).
Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite the same or similar field-of-use limitations (i.e., by setting forth in what environment the mathematical calculations are being applied—see claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 14) and contingent limitations that are not required unless certain conditions are met (see claims 2, 11, 16).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The limitations of the dependent claims do not recite an inventive concept for the same reasons the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., the only non-abstract limitations set forth a field-of-use or contingent limitations that are not required unless certain conditions are met). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu, TW I757041 (Foreign Pat. Reference N of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Fu teaches a method for detecting a metal mask, comprising: providing a metal mask, wherein the metal mask has a plurality of sites, a first long side, and a second long side, the first long side and the second long side are respectively located on two opposite sides, the plurality of sites comprises a plurality of first sites arranged along the first long side, the plurality of first sites comprises a second site located at a head and a third site located at a tail, and the second site and the third site form a first straight line (Figs. 2, 6; see also pgs. 5-6 of the attached translation).
With respect to the limitations calculating a vertical distance from each of the first sites other than the second site and the third site to the first straight line, wherein the plurality of first sites further comprises a fourth site, a vertical distance from the fourth site to the first straight line comprises a first vertical distance, and the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm or less than or equal to 10 μm; and calculating a percentage of the second distance to the first distance, and the percentage is less than 15% or greater than or equal to 15%, these ranges cover every possible eventuality. Thus, one of ordinary skill would recognize that they read on Fu's depictions regardless of its dimensions.
With respect to the limitations in a case that the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm and not greater than 15 μm, determining a type of the metal mask, wherein the type comprises a first type; in a case that the metal mask is of the first type, calculating a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the second site and the third site, and the second distance is a distance between the fourth site and a central point of the first long side, these are contingent limitations that are not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable construction of the claim. See Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II.
As per claim 2, Fu teaches claim 1 as above. Claim 2 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met.
As per claim 3, Fu teaches claim 1 as above. Fu further teaches the plurality of sites further comprises a plurality of fifth sites arranged along the second long side, the plurality of fifth sites comprises a sixth site located at a head and a seventh site located at a tail, and the sixth site and the seventh site form a second straight line (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 4, Fu teaches claim 3 as above. Claim 4 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met, and ranges that cover every possible eventuality. Thus, the claim reads on Fu for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, Fu teaches claim 1 as above. Fu further teaches the metal mask comprises a metal body (Translation pg. 2 ¶ 1), a surface of the metal body comprises a plurality of rectangular areas arranged along an extension direction of the first long side, each of the rectangular areas has two opposite sides parallel to the first long side and the second long side, and the plurality of first sites and the plurality of second sites are arranged along the two opposite sides, respectively (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 6, Fu teaches claim 1 as above. Fu further teaches each of the plurality of sites has a coordinate, the coordinate of the second site is (x1, y1), the coordinate of the third site is (x1, y1), and the second site and the third site form a straight-line equation [Formula 1]: y-y1=y1-y2x1-x2x-x1 (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 7, Fu teaches claim 6 as above. Fu further teaches the coordinate of the fourth site is (x3, y3), and a value of the first vertical distance is calculated by the following formula [Formula 2]: d=ax3+by3+ca2+b2; where a and b are coefficients of x and y in [Formula 1], respectively, and c is a constant (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 8, Fu teaches a providing a metal mask and evaluating the metal mask, wherein the metal mask has a plurality of sites, a first long side, and a second long side, the first long side and the second long side are respectively located on two opposite sides, the plurality of sites comprises a plurality of first sites arranged along the first long side, the plurality of first sites comprises a second site located at a head and a third site located at a tail, the second site and the third site form a first straight line (Figs. 2, 6; see also pgs. 5-6 of the attached translation).
With respect to the limitations calculating a vertical distance from each of the first sites other than the second site and the third site to the first straight line, wherein the plurality of first sites further comprises a fourth site, a vertical distance from the fourth site to the first straight line comprises a first vertical distance, and the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm or less than or equal to 10 μm; and calculating a percentage of the second distance to the first distance, and the percentage is less than 15% or greater than or equal to 15%, these ranges cover every possible eventuality. Thus, one of ordinary skill would recognize that they read on Fu's depictions regardless of its dimensions.
With respect to the limitations in a case that the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm and not greater than 15 μm, determining a type of the metal mask, wherein the type comprises a first type; in a case that the metal mask is of the first type, calculating a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the second site and the third site, and the second distance is a distance between the fourth site and a central point of the first long side; and in a case that the first vertical distance is less than or equal to 10 μm, or the metal mask is of the first type and the percentage is less than 15%, stretching the metal mask, these are contingent limitations that are not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable construction of the claim. See Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II.
As per claim 9, Fu teaches claim 8 as above. Fu further teaches the plurality of sites further comprises a plurality of fifth sites arranged along the second long side, the plurality of fifth sites comprises a sixth site located at a head and a seventh site located at a tail, and the sixth site and the seventh site form a second straight line (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 10, Fu teaches claim 9 as above. Claim 10 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met, and ranges that cover every possible eventuality. Thus, the claim reads on Fu for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 11, Fu teaches claim 10 as above. Claim 11 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met. Thus, the claim reads on Fu for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Lin, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0164087 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 12, Fu teaches claim 8 as above. Fu does not explicitly teach providing a frame body, wherein the frame body comprises a first frame wall and a second frame wall respectively located on two opposite sides; and connecting the metal mask with the frame body, wherein two opposite ends of the metal mask are fixed to the first frame wall and the second frame wall respectively and have tensions, and the two opposite ends are located in an extension direction of the first long side. However, this is taught by Lin (¶¶ 0005, 58, 62). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of metal masks. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 13, Fu teaches a method for manufacturing a vapor deposition jig, comprising: providing a metal mask, wherein the metal mask has a plurality of sites, a first long side, and a second long side, the first long side and the second long side are respectively located on two opposite sides, the plurality of sites comprises a plurality of first sites arranged along the first long side, the plurality of first sites comprises a second site located at a head and a third site located at a tail, the second site and the third site form a first straight line, and the frame body comprises a first frame wall and a second frame wall respectively located on two opposite sides (Figs. 2, 6; see also pgs. 5-6 of the attached translation).
With respect to the limitations calculating a vertical distance from each of the first sites other than the second site and the third site to the first straight line, wherein the plurality of first sites further comprises a fourth site, and a vertical distance from the fourth site to the first straight line comprises a first vertical distance, and the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm or less than or equal to 10 μm; and calculating a percentage of the second distance to the first distance, and the percentage is less than 15% or greater than or equal to 15%; these ranges cover every possible eventuality. Thus, one of ordinary skill would recognize that they read on Fu's depictions regardless of its dimensions.
With respect to the limitations in a case that the first vertical distance is greater than 10 μm and not greater than 15 μm, determining a type of the metal mask, wherein the type comprises a first type; in a case that the metal mask is of the first type, calculating a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the second site and the third site, and the second distance is a distance between the fourth site and a central point of the first long side; and in a case that the first vertical distance is less than or equal to 10 μm, or the metal mask is of the first type and the percentage is less than 15%, stretching the metal mask, and fixing two opposite ends of the metal mask on the first frame wall and the second frame wall, respectively, wherein the two opposite ends are located in an extension direction of the first long side, these are contingent limitations that are not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable construction of the claim. See Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II.
Fu does not explicitly teach a frame body; which is taught by Lin (¶¶ 0058, 62), and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 12 above.
As per claim 14, Fu in view of Lin teaches claim 13 as above. Fu further teaches the plurality of sites further comprises a plurality of fifth sites arranged along the second long side, the plurality of fifth sites comprises a sixth site located at a head and a seventh site located at a tail, and the sixth site and the seventh site form a second straight line (Figs. 2, 6).
As per claim 15, Fu in view of Lin teaches claim 14 as above. Claim 15 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met, and ranges that cover every possible eventuality. Thus, the claim reads on Fu for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, Fu in view of Lin teaches claim 15 as above. Claim 16 only adds contingent limitations that are not required to be performed unless the requisite conditions are met. Thus, the claim reads on Fu for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anzai, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0349037 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Yang, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0320438 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Morita, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0223827 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Kawasaki, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0013415 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Shinno, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0362464 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Shinno, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0078194 (Reference G of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Lin, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0092861 (Reference H of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Ohta, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,414,741 (Reference I of the attached PTO-892) relates to detecting a metal mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights