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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102445717, hereinafter KR 717.
Claim 1: KR 717 a stackable mask comprising: a mask body having a rectangle shape; and a stacking guide disposed at a central portion of each of four side edges of the mask body (see Figure 3-Figure 5 and accompanying text). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Italicized indicates intended use of the structure as claimed.
Claim 2: KR 717 discloses the stacking guide is disposed higher than the mask body by a height to load another stackable mask on the stacking guide (see Figure 3-Figure 5 and accompanying text). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Italicized indicates intended use of the structure as claimed.
Claim 3: KR 717 discloses the stacking guide has a guide surface that guides another stackable mask to be loaded onto the stacking guide. (see Figure 3-Figure 9 and accompanying text). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Italicized indicates intended use of the structure as claimed.
Claim 4: KR 717 discloses the guide surface has an inclination that can reasonably be considered to be within a range of about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees with respect to the stacking guide (Figure 9 and accompanying text).
Claim 5: KR 717 discloses the mask that meets the claimed structure and therefore would meet this claim requirement. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 6: KR 717 discloses what can reasonably be considered transferring and loading entrances are disposed on sides of the stacking guide to allow a clamp to enter between the stacked stackable masks, and the transferring and loading entrances are empty spaces (Figure 2, Figures 6-9). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Italicized indicates intended use of the structure as claimed.
Claim 8: KR 717 discloses a stacking guide that has a side surface as claimed meets the claimed structure and the balance of the claim is mere intended use of the structure, loaded on the stacking guide of the another stackable mask. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Italicized indicates intended use of the structure as claimed.
Claim 9: KR 717 discloses a height difference is formed between the stacking guide and a lower end of the guide surface as much as a height of the side surface as broadly defined by by the claims (See Figure 6-8 and accompanying text). Here the various arrangements of the stacking guide as taught by KR 717 would reasonably read on the height difference as broadly defined by the applicant’s claim.
Claim 10: KR 717 discloses the stacking guide is made of a material and such can reasonably be “capable of suppressing generation of static electricity.” Here, the material is not claimed nor is the mechanism for suppressing static electricity and therefore the capability of suppressing is deemed intended use of the structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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.
Claim(s) 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 717 alone or further in view of US Patent 5492223 by Boardman.
Claim 4-9: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes KR 717 discloses the incline and determination of the optimum and appropriate angle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Alternatively, the examiner cites here Board, which discloses stacking rectangular structures and discloses including inclination to the guide member in the middle of the rectangle (see Figure 2, 4) and discloses using the inclination to stack multiple members. As such, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified KR 717 to use an inclination on the guide member as such would have been obvious as a well known method/structure to facilitate stacking. As noted above, the determination of the optimum and appropriate angle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 11: The dimensions of the surface length are considered a design choice and It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the size of the incline, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12: The dimensions of the rectangle are considered a design choice and It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the size of the rectangle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited on PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights