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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/27/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu Junling (CN 111993768 A) (hereinafter Junling).
Regarding claim 1, Junling discloses a mask (11 and 12), configured to mask a back plate (21, 22), wherein the back plate comprises a substrate (21), and an insulation layer (22) and a pad group (23, 24) that are located on the substrate, the pad group comprises at least two pads (23, 24), the insulation layer comprises openings (132), and the pads protrude towards a side away from the substrate relative to the insulation layer at the openings (Fig. 3B-3C); and the mask comprises: through holes (131), wherein orthographic projections of the through holes on the substrate overlap orthographic projections of the pads on the substrate; and a blind hole (132), wherein the blind hole surround the through holes (Fig. 3C), a size of the blind hole (132) in a thickness direction of the mask is greater than or equal to a size of the pad protruding from the insulation layer, and an orthographic projection of the blind hole on the substrate and the orthographic projections of the through holes on the substrate after spliced cover the orthographic projections of the pads on the substrate (Fig. 3C -notice 131 and 132; ¶0043).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu Junling (CN 111993768 A) (hereinafter Junling).
Regarding claims 2 , the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Junling. Junling further disclose the thickness of buffer layer (12) is 1-20 mm. The thickness should not be too thick, otherwise it will affect the printing accuracy and lead to poor soldering. The thickness should not be too thin either, otherwise the buffering effect will be insufficient and it will still damage the substrate to be printed. In specific applications, the thickness should be selected according to the actual process requirements (¶0039). Given the wealth of knowledge, a person of ordinary skill can select appropriate thickness of the blind hole based on actual process requirements.
Regarding claim 3, Junling discloses the orthographic projections of the through holes on the substrate are located within the orthographic projection of the pads on the substrate (¶0043).
Regarding claim 5, Junling discloses wherein the orthographic projections of the through holes (131) on the substrate are located within an orthographic projection of the pad group (23) on the substrate (21), and the orthographic projections of the through holes on the substrate overlap orthographic projections of the at least two pads of the pad group (23, 24) on the substrate and an orthographic projection of a space between the pads on the substrate (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 6, Junling discloses one blind hole (132) surrounds one through hole (131) (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 7, Junling disclose wherein the orthographic projection of the blind hole (132) on the substrate extends in a direction away from the through hole (131) relative to the orthographic projection of the pad (23) on the substrate (Fig. 3c).
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junling as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Chung (US Pat. No.: 6,316,289 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 and 3 are taught by Junling as cited above. Junling is silent about limitations of claim 4.
Chung also discloses a conventional mans for a backplane (310) to comprise pixel regions (312, 312’ and 312’’) (Fig. 9). Chung discloses mask (202) comprising one blind hole (204) and a plurality of through holes (214, 216) (Fig.8) during manufacturing of wiring circuit board (310). The mask (202) openings and holes is representative of three patterns of openings for three substrates or devices contained on a common substrate with mask (200) is to be utilized. The every two adjacent through holes (214) form a through hole group corresponding to one on pad group (312), one pixel region corresponding to at least two through hole groups, and one blind hole (204) surrounds through holes (214) in the at least two through hole groups corresponding to one pixel region (Fig. 8-9 -notice the picture depicted below).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chung mask to manufacture pixel regions on substrate. The benefit of doing so would have been to manufacture substrate with various different pixel regions.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Junling discloses the thickness should not be too thick, otherwise it will affect the printing accuracy and lead to poor soldering. The thickness should not be too thin either, otherwise the buffering effect will be insufficient and it will still damage the substrate to be printed. In specific applications, the thickness should be selected according to the actual process requirements (¶0039). Chung discloses the mask and holes can be manufactured based of configuration (Col 5 and 6). Given the wealth of knowledge, a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily manufacture a mask with holes, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of a boundary of the blind hole away from the through hole on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the pad on the substrate is greater than or equal to 30 µm, wherein a distance between two adjacent blind holes is greater than or equal to 100 µm. The benefit of doing so would have been to manufacture a final product with desired characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights