DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2022/0152748) in view of Kim (US 2022/0181595).
In regards to claim 1, Moon teaches a mask assembly (MA) comprising:
a mask frame (FR) defining a first opening (OP-FR) (fig. 2-3; para. 62);
an mask body (MK, open mask) above the mask frame, and defining second openings (OP-MK) arranged in a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction (fig. 2-3; para. 65-66);
first sub-mask (ML, unit mask) above the mask body, and defining a third openings (H-ML, unit opening), the third openings have an area that is less than an area of each of the second openings in plan view (fig. 2-3; para. 68-70); and
second sub-mask (RL, cell mask) above the first sub-mask, and defining fourth openings (H-RL, cell openings), one of the fourth openings have an area that is less than the area of the third openings (fig. 2-3; para. 70-71).
Moon does not explicitly teach more than one unit masks and more than one cell masks.
However, Kim teaches a plurality of structural stick masks (110, unit masks) placed on frame (200) which has support portions (230). Kim teaches each of the structural stick masks comprises an opening portions (111) (fig. 2-3, 22-26; para. 101-104).
Kim teaches a plurality of cell-unit masks (120) which are placed over each of the opening portions of the structural stick masks. Kim teaches the cell-unit mask comprises a deposition area (121) which comprises a plurality of holes/openings (fig. 2-3, 22-26; para. 101, 117-119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the plurality of structural stick masks and plurality of cell-unit masks of Kim onto the first sub-mask and second sub-mask of Moon because Kim teaches it will facilitate maintenance and repair (para. 49).
In regards to claims 10-11, Moon and Kim as discussed, where Moon teaches the mask body (MK, open mask) and the first sub-mask (ML, unit mask) comprises Invar material (para. 67-68)
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2022/0152748) and Kim (US 2022/0181595) as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0110661).
In regards to claim 2, Moon and Kim as discussed, where Kim teaches the claimed the unit masks comprise a first unit mask defining a first unit opening (see openings portion 111), and a second unit mask defining a second unit opening (see openings portion 111). Kim teaches the claimed first unit mask provide two first long side portions and two first short side portions together with the claimed second unit mask provide two second long side portions and two second short side portions (fig. 2-3, 22-26; para. 101-104).
Moon and Kim do not explicitly teach the first unit mask comprising the two first long side portions extending in the first direction, the two first short side portions extending in the second direction, and the second unit mask comprises: two second short side portions extending in the first direction, and the two second long side portions extending in the second direction.
However, Lee teaches an open mask (120) comprising a plurality of opening parts (121/122). Lee teaches the opening parts-121 provides an area defined by two first long side portions extending in the first direction, the two first short side portions extending in the second direction and the opening parts-122 provides an area defined by two second short side portions extending in the first direction, and the two second long side portions extending in the second direction (fig. 1, 3; para. 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the opening parts arrangements of Lee onto the structural stick masks of Moon and Kim because Lee teaches it will improve cleaning and durability (para. 54).
In regards to claim 3, Moon, Kim and Lee as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the first unit opening is substantially equal to an area of the second unit opening in plan view.
However, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the opening parts to have substantially equal to areas in plan view, because it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP2144.04-IV-A).
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative areas for the first unit opening and the second unit opening.
In regards to claim 4, Moon, Kim and Lee as discussed, where Lee teaches the first short side portions and the first long side portions have a same first width in plan view, and the second short side portions and the second long side portions have a same second width in plan view, the second width being less than the first width (fig. 1, 3).
In regards to claim 5, Moon, Kim and in view of Lee as discussed, where the prior art combination teaches first unit mask and the second unit mask are provided in plurality in the first direction (Lee-fig. 1, 3).
In regards to claims 6-7, Moon, Kim and in view of Lee as discussed, where the prior art combination teaches the first long side portions is greater than a length of the second long side portions and the length of the first short side portions is greater than a length of the second short side portions (Lee-fig. 1, 3).
In regards to claim 8, Moon, Kim and Lee as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a first thickness of the first unit mask is greater than a second thickness of the second unit mask.
However, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the thickness of the first unit mask to be greater than the thickness of the second unit mask, because it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP2144.04-IV-A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
