Detailed Correspondence
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 Invention group 1 and Species 1-C, Figs. 13-17, in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicants designated claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 read into the elected Species, and the preliminarily amended claims 5 and 10.
Note the examiner reconsiders the decide to examine invention groups 1 and 2 together.
The examiner contacted Applicants’ representative, Attorney Mao Wang, Applicants further elected Species B-3 (Fig. 26) in group B and designated claims 15-19 as belongs to group B on 08/03/2026. (Note Fig. 26 seems to include all feature of Fig. 13).
The examiner also notices claims 6 and 9 are features of Figs. 9-12 and should also be withdrawn along with dependent claim 10. A phone call to Attorney Mao Wang was sent on 08/07/2026 to agree on this designation, attorney Wang considers it will take long time to review the claims and requests the examiner go ahead with the examiner’s designation and examine accordingly.
Claims 6, 9-10, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group 3, Species A1-A2, A4, B1-B2, and B4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2026.
Claim Interpretations
The “applicable to a side of a to-be-evaporated substrate provided with a plurality of sub-pixel regions spaced apart from each other” of claims 1 and 15, the substrate, as well as the features on the substrate, is considered an intended use of the mask apparatus.
As such “a plurality of evaporation through-holes penetrating through the mask plate, the plurality of evaporation through-holes corresponding to the plurality of sub-pixel regions one by one such that a plurality of sub-pixels of different colors are formed by an evaporation source evaporating in the plurality of sub-pixel regions … the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate extends to at least one adjacent sub-pixel region, and a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in a sub-pixel region corresponding to the evaporation through-hole is different from a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in the at least one adjacent sub-pixel region” is also considered an intended use of the apparatus.
The “the to-be-evaporated substrate of a display panel” and “materials evaporated by respective evaporation sources are different” of claim 15 are also considered as an intended use of the apparatus.
Similarly, the reference of sub-pixel regions in dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 are also considered an intended use of the apparatus.
The “two through-hole angles” in various claims, this includes a single through-hole having two different angles (e.g. Applicants’ Fig. 3 or 8) or two through-holes each having an angle (e.g. Fig. 13). Note in [0113], it refers the through-hole angles as being angle of the wall of the sub-through-hole 01k1.
The “an opening portion” of claim 13, Applicants’ Fig. 23 shows an opening portion is a plate structure with through-holes 01K and will be examined accordingly. This is not a space that is open (or the through-hole itself).
The “difference value between the evaporation angle and the through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole is less than a difference threshold” of claim 15, and as the threshold is not defined by the claim, it can be a very large number.
Claims 17 and 19 recites “correlated” multiple times, this is considered a relationship between multiple objects (see OneLook.com), but not a statistical correlation (which requires multiple positions). And as the evaporation source are movable, when it is capable of moving to the prescribed spatial relationship, it is considered reading into these limitations.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 each recites “an opening of the evaporation through-hole on a side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is …”, this raises antecedent issue with “a plurality of evaporation through-holes”.
This portion of claims 1 and 15 will be examined inclusive “an opening of one of the evaporation through-holes on a side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is …”
There are numerous dependent claims having the same issue.
Claim 4 recites “in the two through-hole angles of the evaporation through-hole, a through-hole angle proximal to an upstream direction in which the evaporation source moves is less than a through-hole angle distal to the upstream direction in which the evaporation source moves”, Applicants’ Fig. 1 shows evaporation sources move in both directions, “a plurality of evaporation sources are disposed in the same evaporation chamber and move back and forth along the moving direction” ([0077]). Therefore, it is not clear which direction is the upstream direction in which the evaporation source moves.
Claim 4 will be examined inclusive either moving direction.
Claim 13 recites “a through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole is less than an angle between the frame portion and the to-be-evaporated substrate”, it is not clear what is “an angle between the frame portion and the to-be-evaporated substrate”, as frame being a three dimensional object and substrate is also, it is not clear which line or which surface of these two objects are used to construct this angle. Note Fig. 23 shows there are many different planal surface from the frame 001.
Also as there are more than one through-hole angle in each of the evaporation through-hole(s), any one of these angle can be considered for the limitation of claim 13, this is broad, but not indefinite.
Claim 13 will be examined inclusive all possible angles for “an angle between the frame portion and the to-be-evaporated substrate”.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of evaporation sources … a plurality of sub-pixels of different colors are formed by an evaporation source evaporating in the plurality of sub-pixel regions … a nozzle of each evaporation source … materials evaporated by respective evaporation sources are different”, raises various antecedent issues in cascade, it is not clear whether the “an evaporation source”, “each evaporation source” and “respective evaporation sources“ is one of the “a plurality of evaporation sources” or another evaporation source(s).
This portion of claim 15 will be examined as all bold-faced terms is referring to “the plurality of evaporation sources”.
Claim 15 also recites “an evaporation angle is formed between the nozzle of the evaporation source and the to-be-evaporated substrate”, this has the same problem as claim 13 above and will be similarly examined.
Claim 16 recites “the evaporation angle of each evaporation source is equal to one, closer to the evaporation source, of the two through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole”, it is not clear in many ways. First of all, the evaporation angle is not clear from claim 15. Is it of one degree of angle? Or is it only one evaporation angle instead of two or more as cited elsewhere in various claims? Or is it “one of the two through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole?
Claim 16 will be examined inclusive of any of possible interpretations.
Claim 19 recites “a distance between each two adjacent evaporation sources is negatively correlated with a smallest through-hole angle of the two through-hole angles of the evaporation through-hole”, this raises antecedent issue because the parent claim 15 does not have “two through-hole angles”, only claim 16 has this term.
Claim 19 will be examined inclusive as dependent on claim 16.
Various dependent claims are also rejected under USC 112(b) at least due to dependency to parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAWASAKI et al. (US 20200035923, hereafter ‘923).
‘923 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: METHOD FOR PRODUCING VAPOR DEPOSITION MASK, METHOD FOR PRODUCING ORGANIC SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ORGANIC EL DISPLAY (title), the step of forming a vapor deposition pattern of the present disclosure described above is applied to each of light-emitting layer forming steps for colors of R (red), G (green) and B (blue) in an organic EL device, vapor deposition patterns are formed for light-emitting layers for the colors on the substrate ([0126], 2nd sentence), the resin mask openings 25 for millions of pixels may exist in one screen, where one resin mask opening 25 is one pixel ([0077], last sentence, includes the claimed “An evaporation mask, applicable to a side of a to-be-evaporated substrate provided with a plurality of sub-pixel regions spaced apart from each other”, note the feature on the substrate is not part of the structure of the apparatus, see claim interpretation above),
the vapor deposition mask 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, and as the vapor deposition mask is seen in cross-sectional view, the resin mask 20 includes a resin mask opening 25a, a resin mask opening 25b, a resin mask opening 25c and a resin mask opening 25d as the resin mask openings 25. In the mode shown in FIG. 2, all the resin mask openings 25 include the same sectional shapes (Fig. 2, [0049], see also Figs. 3-4, includes the claimed “wherein the evaporation mask comprises: a mask plate; and a plurality of evaporation through-holes penetrating through the mask plate, the plurality of evaporation through-holes corresponding to the plurality of sub-pixel regions one by one such that a plurality of sub-pixels of different colors are formed by an evaporation source evaporating in the plurality of sub-pixel regions”);
Fig. 6 (or Fig. 5) shows the claimed “and wherein for each of the evaporation through-holes, an aperture of an opening of the evaporation through-hole on a side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is less than an aperture of an opening of the evaporation through-hole on a side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate, the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate extends to at least one adjacent sub-pixel region, and a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in a sub-pixel region corresponding to the evaporation through-hole is different from a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in the at least one adjacent sub-pixel region”, note as the substrate is not part of the structure of the mask apparatus, a smaller pitch arrangement of color pixels would have neighboring color pixel overlapped the bottom aperture of the opening 25.
Clam 2: the step of forming a vapor deposition pattern of the present disclosure described above is applied to each of light-emitting layer forming steps for colors of R (red), G (green) and B (blue) in an organic EL device, vapor deposition patterns are formed for light-emitting layers for the colors on the substrate ([0126], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of sub-pixel regions are arranged in an array, and a plurality of sub-pixels evaporated in the plurality of sub-pixel regions comprise a plurality of sub-pixels of three colors, and the sub-pixels are sequentially arranged in an order of every three sub-pixels of different colors in a row direction”);
note as the substrate is not part of the structure of the mask apparatus, a smaller pitch arrangement of color pixels would have two neighboring color pixels overlapped the bottom aperture of the opening 25, includes the claimed “and the opening of each evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate extends to two adjacent sub-pixel regions”, see also claim interpretation above.
Claim 3: Formation of a vapor deposition pattern using a vapor deposition mask is typically performed by bringing the vapor deposition mask in which openings corresponding to a pattern to be produced by vapor deposition are provided into close contact with a vapor deposition target, and causing a vapor deposition material released from a vapor deposition source to adhere onto the vapor deposition target through the openings ([0002], note as the substrate is not part of the structure of the mask apparatus, a smaller pitch arrangement of color pixels would have neighboring color pixel overlapped the bottom aperture of the opening 25, includes the claimed “wherein a distance between openings of each two adjacent evaporation through-holes on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is greater than a distance between two sub-pixels formed in two sub-pixel regions corresponding to the two adjacent evaporation through-holes”, see also claim interpretation above).
Claim 7: Figs. 2-4 show the claimed “wherein a cross-section of the evaporation through-hole is trumpet-shaped in a direction perpendicular to the to-be-evaporated substrate”.
Claim 11: Fig. 1 shows the holes 25 are rectangular from top view (includes the claimed “wherein an orthographic projection of the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is circular, elliptical, or rectangular; and an orthographic projection of the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is elliptical or rectangular”.
Claim 12: the resin mask openings 25 for millions of pixels may exist in one screen ([0077], includes the claimed “wherein a ratio of a thickness of the mask plate to the aperture of the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is greater than or equal to 2”).
Claim 13: he vapor deposition mask 100 according to each embodiment of the present disclosure described above is fixed to a frame 60 (Fig. 13, [0103], includes the claimed “wherein the mask plate comprises a frame portion and an opening portion, the frame portion being configured to define the opening portion, and the opening portion being configured to form the plurality of evaporation through-holes”, as there are many possible angles for mask openings 25, and there are many ways to contrasted an angle between frame and substrate, it includes the claimed “wherein a through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole is less than an angle between the frame portion and the to-be-evaporated substrate”).
Claim 15: FIG. 6 is a diagram showing relation between a vapor deposition material released from a vapor deposition source and resin mask openings ([0021], in FIG. 6, a mode in which the vapor deposition material is released from three vapor deposition sources is employed ([0046], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “An evaporation device, comprising a plurality of evaporation sources and an evaporation mask”);
the resin mask openings 25 for millions of pixels may exist in one screen ([0077], includes the claimed “the evaporation mask is applicable to a side of a to-be-evaporated substrate provided with a plurality of sub-pixel regions spaced apart from each other”),
the vapor deposition mask 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, and as the vapor deposition mask is seen in cross-sectional view, the resin mask 20 includes a resin mask opening 25a, a resin mask opening 25b, a resin mask opening 25c and a resin mask opening 25d as the resin mask openings 25. In the mode shown in FIG. 2, all the resin mask openings 25 include the same sectional shapes (Fig. 2, [0049], see also Figs. 3-4, includes the claimed “wherein the evaporation mask comprises: a mask plate; and a plurality of evaporation through-holes penetrating through the mask plate, the plurality of evaporation through-holes corresponding to the plurality of sub-pixel regions one by one such that a plurality of sub-pixels of different colors are formed by an evaporation source evaporating in the plurality of sub-pixel regions”);
Fig. 6 shows the claimed “and wherein for each of the evaporation through-holes, an aperture of an opening of the evaporation through-hole on a side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate is less than an aperture of an opening of the evaporation through-hole on a side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate, the opening of the evaporation through-hole on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate extends to at least one adjacent sub-pixel region, and a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in a sub-pixel region corresponding to the evaporation through-hole is different from a color of a sub-pixel evaporated in the at least one adjacent sub-pixel region”, and also “the plurality of evaporation sources are disposed on one side of the evaporation mask distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate of a display panel, and the plurality of evaporation sources are arranged at intervals along a direction parallel to the to-be-evaporated substrate;
wherein a nozzle of each evaporation source faces the evaporation mask, the evaporation source is configured to evaporate a material onto a sub-pixel region of the to-be-evaporated substrate through the evaporation through-hole in the evaporation mask so as to form a sub-pixel, and materials evaporated by respective evaporation sources are different; and
an evaporation angle is formed between the nozzle of the evaporation source and the to-be-evaporated substrate, and a difference value between the evaporation angle and the through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole is less than a difference threshold”. Note as the substrate is not part of the structure of the mask apparatus, a smaller pitch arrangement of color pixels would have neighboring color pixel overlapped the bottom aperture of the openings 25.
Claim 16: Fig. 6 shows the claimed “wherein the evaporation device comprises two evaporation sources; the evaporation through-hole comprises two through-hole angles disposed oppositely in the direction parallel to the to-be-evaporated substrate”,
as there are many possible angles of the openings 25, and many different ways to define the evaporation angle, it reads into “the evaporation angle of each evaporation source is equal to one, closer to the evaporation source, of the two through-hole angle of the evaporation through-hole”.
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 4-5, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘923, as being applied to claims 1 and 15 rejection above, in view of SHIRAISHI et al. (JP 2005298971, from IDS, hereafter ‘971).
‘923 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: in the mode shown in FIG. 2, relation between the “slopes” in the resin mask opening 25a is θ1≠θ2 ([0049], last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the evaporation through-hole comprises two through-hole angles disposed oppositely in a direction parallel to the to-be-evaporated substrate; and the two through-hole angles of the evaporation through-hole are unequal”).
Claim 8: Fig. 6 shows the claimed “wherein the evaporation through-hole comprises a plurality of sub-through-holes spaced apart from each other along a direction parallel to the to-be-evaporated substrate”.
‘923 is silent on the movement of the vapor deposition source(s), and does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: and in the two through-hole angles of the evaporation through-hole, a through-hole angle proximal to an upstream direction in which the evaporation source moves is less than a through-hole angle distal to the upstream direction in which the evaporation source moves.
Claim 8: and wherein openings of the plurality of sub-through-holes on the side proximal to the to-be-evaporated substrate are overlapped with each other, and openings of each two adjacent sub-through-holes on the side distal to the to-be-evaporated substrate are spaced apart by the mask plate.
‘971 is analogous art in the field of MASK FOR VAPOR DEPOSITION (title), an organic EL panel (English translation, [0002]). ‘971 teaches that The vapor deposition material is disposed on the vapor deposition source while the vapor deposition source is moved, or the vapor deposition mask is rotated together with the vapor deposition member. It is made to vapor-deposit (Fig. 1, [0009], last two sentences). ‘971 further teaches that the shielding wall 19 partially covers the first opening 12a1 (Fig. 6 or 7, [0031]), The shielding wall 19 is configured by the first and second opaque portions 19a1 and 19a2 being spanned in the longitudinal direction of the first opening 12a1 in order to partially cover the first opening 12a1 ([0032]), for the purpose of serving as the film thickness adjusting portion ([0044]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the movement capability of the vapor deposition source, as taught by ‘971, to each of the vapor deposition sources in Fig. 6 of ‘923, and to have added shielding wall 19, to the bottom of mask 20 in Fig. 6 of ‘923, for the purpose of serving as the film thickness adjusting portion, as taught by ‘971 ([0044]) and/or for obvious of changing the shape. A change of shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
The combination of ‘923 and ‘971 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 5: ‘923 teaches various angle relationship ([0049]-[0052]) and ‘971 teaches right angle mask hole (various Figures), it would have been obvious to include a right angle to at least one hole in ‘923 (includes the claimed “wherein in the two through-hole angles of the evaporation through-hole, one through-hole angle is a right angle, and another through-hole angle is an acute angle”).
Claims 17-19: as the vapor deposition sources in the combined apparatus is movable it is considered capable of fitting the correlation prescribed in claims 17-19.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘923, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of Watanabe et al. (JP 20220131116, hereafter ‘116).
‘923 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 14: wherein the frame portion is made of single crystal silicon, and the opening portion is made of at least one of single crystal silicon, silicon oxide, or silicon nitride.
‘116 is analogous art in the field of VAPOR DEPOSITION MASK (title), manufacturing an organic light emitting diode (OLED) ([0002]). ‘116 teaches that FIGS. 15A and 15B each illustrate a vapor deposition mask (shadow mask) 101 formed of a single-crystal silicon … a silicon frame 102 ([0006], Fig. 15 B shows the frame 102 and the mask 103 is a single body), for the purpose of high tensile strength ([0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted single crystal silicon of ‘116 as the mask and frame of ‘923, for the purpose of high tensile strength, as taught by ‘116 ([0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20060222965 is cited for bar-shaped reinforcing sections 3 (Fig. 1) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 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, 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights