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 Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes the Species restriction is withdrawn as directed to obvious variants and both being dependent on an allowable claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikenaga (US 2025/0154639).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikenaga teaches a deposition mask (See page 7, paragraph [0127]) comprising:
a silicon substrate [15] (See page 7, paragraph [0133] and page 15, paragraph [0183], teaching the mask substrate [15] is a silicon wafer) including:
a plurality of cell areas [23]; a mask frame area [17] excluding the plurality of cell areas, the mask frame area including a mask rip area [18a],[18b] partitioning the plurality of cell areas (See Figs. 21-22 page 14, paragraphs [0176]-[0177] and page 25, paragraph [0295]-[0296], teaching internal cell areas [23] individual forming display regions for organic devices and surrounded by substrate sash bars [18a],[18b] in areas that partition each cell [23] and a substrate frame body [17], each acting as a mask rip area and mask frame area); and
an outer frame area [17] disposed at an outermost portion of the silicon substrate (See Fig. 21, wherein the outer frame is the portion of mask frame area [17] exterior to the array of cells areas [23];
a mask rip [18a],[18b] disposed in the mask rip area (See Fig. 21, and note the substrate sash bars [18a],[18b] themselves are the mask rip and the area in which they reside is the mask rip area, which is similar to how the instant specification refers to these;
a mask membrane [30] disposed in each of the plurality of cell areas [23] (See Figs. 21-22 and page 10, paragraphs [0154] and page 25, paragraphs [0295]-[0296], and note the area where there membrane resides is the cell areas [23] above where as the material, i.e. resin [21], forming the through hole groups [30] form the mask membrane through which patterning occurs);
a first metal frame [22] disposed in the outer frame area [17] (See Figs. 22 and 29 and page 10, paragraph [0150], wherein intermediate layer [22] in the outer frame area [17] is made of metal such as gold, aluminum, chromium, etc. and thus is a first metal frame as claimed); and
a second metal frame [201] surrounding an outer portion of the silicon substrate and connected to the first metal frame (See Figs. 28-29 and pages 26-27, paragraphs [305]-[307], and note frame [201], which material be a metal material, clearly surrounds silicon substrate [15] in the plan view and is coupled, via silicon layer [15], to first metal frame [22]; and note such a intervening coupling is specific included in the claim language, see instant PgPub 2025/0144664, page 3, paragraph [0070], indicating “connected to” is satisfied via connection with intervening elements).
Regarding Claim 2, Ikenaga teaches the silicone substrate is substantially circular in shape (See Fig. 21), and the second metal frame [201] may have an annular shape, i.e. ring shape (See page 27, paragraph [0309]).
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner notes the first metal frame is described as being “in the outer frame area,” which includes the outermost portion of the silicon substrate. This means the metal frame is plausibly the combination of the silicon and metal layer [22] together. Since this combination is clearly thicker than the mask membrane [21], the claim is satisfied. If this interpretation is not desired, Applicant should tighten the claim language because many aspects of the claim separate define the element and the area it exists and the combination of metal and silicon acting as a frame is suitably considered the first metal frame as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Ikenaga teaches the silicone substate form mask rip (See Fig. 22, showing [18a], the mask rip as being formed from silicone substrate [15]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0131076).
Regarding Claim 12, 14 and 15, Ikenaga teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Ikenga teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above, but teaches the mask membrane initially coated on the silicon substrate [15] is resin, not plated metal (See page 8, paragraph [0136]). However, similar masks provided with an array of through-hole group patterns from material plated onto silicon are known to be formed from metal applied to the silicon (See Figs. 4-8 and 5 and page 6, paragraphs [0116]-[0122], wherein a first metal [30] and a second metal [40] are plated onto a silicon substrate [10] and formed into a micro-orifice array forming mask membranes in area [b] separate by mask rips in area [a]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use plated metal, as opposed to resin, for the mask membrane. Such metal plated material is known to formed via suitable methods and for a suitable purpose as desired in Ikenaga, and thus is predictably a suitable alternative material. Such a process would put the metal of the mask in the area of the mask rip on the silicon (since the material is formed in the mask rip and mask membrane area as an alternative to layer [21] in Ikenaga) as in Claims 14 and 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ikenaga teaches the silicon is a thicker support material that acts as a structural support for the mask. There is no apparent motivation to put a first metal frame on top and remove a portion of the silicon to bond the first metal to a second frame since the silicon provide structural support on the second frame. Likewise, the silicon itself provides support for the system, and thus even though metal sheets or strips are well known as support in similar mask, and Ikenaga implies mechanical support for mask is desired (See page 26, paragraph [0301]), inserting the metal sheet on the second frame in Ikenaga (See Fig. 29) would support the silicon itself and now the mask. This makes no sense and thus would not have been obvious.
Note Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0131116) also teaches a silicon substrate to form a mask but has no metal plating and no frame. Chen, cited above, uses silicon as a temporary support for plating that is subsequently removed. None individually of together render the structure of Claims 3-10 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights