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 II (Claims 9-16) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong et al. (US 2019/0259951).
Regarding Claim 9, Seong et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a mask assembly (See Abstract, teaching a disposition mask assembly and deposition method), the method comprising:
preparing a mask frame [200] comprising an opening in a center and preparing a mask sheet, wherein the mask sheet [100] comprises a first zone in which a plurality of holes are arranged (See page 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], and note any region where the hole exist is a first zone; note anything bring the frame and mask sheet into their final form for use is preparing as claimed);
aligning the mask frame [200] and the mask sheet [100] with each other such that the opening comprised in the mask frame and the first zone comprised in the mask sheet overlap each other (See page 2, paragraph [0048], and note the mask sheet [100] is fixed in position as described over the opening in the frame [200] means it must have been aligned there);
tensioning the mask sheet [100] in one direction by applying tensile force to the mask sheet [100] (See page 2, paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Fig. 2, wherein the mask [100] is tensioned in the length direction, i.e. one direction as claimed);
fixing the mask sheet [110] to the mask frame [100]; and
removing a second zone of the mask sheet protruding beyond an edge of the mask frame (See page 2, paragraph [0050], note any area removed is a second area, here this portion is explicitly said to extend beyond the mask frame), wherein the mask sheet comprises a plurality of grooves arranged in the second zone (See Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0070] and [0073], wherein grooves [HF1] and [HF2] are in a non-deposition region NDA separate from a deposition pattern region DA where the plurality of holes exist; Examiner submits the NDA on each side end where removal occurs is a second zone and the DA is a first zone wherein nothing in the claim requires the entire second zone be removed, but only the protruding portion, and nothing requires all grooves be removed, but it is noted grooves[ HF1], [HF2] present on each side beyond the weld, thus being a plurality, are implicitly removed since the weld presumably represents the terminal portion of the mask following cutting).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Seong et al. teaches grooves [HF1],[HF2] certainly extend in the short side direction, and maybe be 120% of the effective region having the through holes, meaning the length of the groove may be greater than the length of the first subzone (See Figs. 4-7, page 4, paragraph [0079], page 6, paragraphs [0112] and [0115]-[0116], wherein the grooves [HF1],[HF2] may be 120%, i.e. greater in length, in the vertical Y direction, shown in Fig. 4 as being short-side length, than the first subzone contain the holes in the mask that define the effective region AA).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Seong et al. teaches the half etching such as [HF1],[HF2] may be formed in both opposing surfaces such as to a half depth of the thickness (See page 3, paragraph [0073] and page 4, paragraphs [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding Claim 14, Seong et al. teaches the opposing grooves are displaced from one another, i.e. alternately arranged, and may vary in number and distribution in the NDA, i.e. the second zone (See page 4, paragraph [0083] and page 5, paragraphs [0090]-[0096], teaching varying numbers and shapes of groove including six of more in the NDA; note although a plurality aren’t explicitly taught as being removed, this is surely obvious since all may be in the NDA and surely multiple could have been disposed beyond the weld in the removal zone since this is a major portion of the NDA and the grooves so no purpose after tensioning, or at least for the reasons below in the rejection of Claims 15 and 16).
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) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. as applied to Claims 9 and 12, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0378983).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Seong et al. teaches the method of Claims 9 and 12 as described above. Seong et al. further teaches the grove appear in “various shapes and in various numbers with a range in the ineffective region,” and as described above, primarily teaches them in the NDA, i.e. second zone, such six or more etching portions on the mask surface and teach symmetrical forming the grooves to uniformly distribute stress during forming (See page 5, paragraphs [0092] and [0096], and page 6, paragraph [0109]). Thus, although Seong et al. does not explicitly teach a spacing or a width relative to spacing, it is clear many variations of grooves, including numerous in the NDA would have been suitable with even spacing and width predictably leading to the uniform dispersing of force, such even space known for such pattern in mask (See, for, example, Lee, Fig. 7 and page 6, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], illustrating grooves [PP1],[PP2] evenly spaced at about their width to distribute stress in a mask and teaching variations in groove thickness, shape etc. may be variously determined according to the tensile force to be received in the mask).
Further, in similar tensile force absorbing pattern in areas meant to explicitly be cut off from the mask after attaching (See, for example, Kim et al., Fig. 3, and page 4, paragraphs [0079]-[0080], wherein cutting part [22] with tensile force absorbing pattern is removed), the shape, number, and arrangement are again taught as being variable to absorb tensile force (See Kim et al., page 6, paragraphs [0109]-[0110]), and a matrix pattern, i.e. grid, with equal size relative to spacing width is taught as being suitable for such a purpose (See Kim et al., page 6, paragraphs [0113]-[0115] and Fig. 7, teaching a matrix pattern with a diameter of 17-22 microns and a spacing of 15-18 microns, an overlap allow even width and spacing). Thus, it is clear variations of shape, spacing, width, and number of tensile absorbing features such as grooves on mask surface are known, including even spacing and grid patterns. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize even spacing and width of groove and/or organization into grid form. Doing is within known variations and would have predictably been suitable to ensure uniform tensile force distribution during mask stretching according to desired absorption requirements.
Conclusion
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