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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending (claim 1 independent), and have been examined herein on the merits.
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.
5. 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.
Claims 1, 7-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), and further in view of Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches deposition equipment (Fig 1) comprising: a chamber(Fig1 , chamber# 1100); a deposition source disposed inside the chamber (Fig1, a source unit 1400); a mask disposed between a first substrate and the deposition source inside the chamber(Fig1, mask assembly#1500) ; and a mask support disposed between the deposition source and the mask and supporting at least a portion of the mask (Fig1, mask support# 1300), wherein the mask comprises a plurality of cell areas and a mask frame area excluding the plurality of cell areas (Fig 2, plurality of pattern holes 1571), the mask frame area comprises a mask rib area separating the plurality of cell areas and an outer frame area disposed at an outermost periphery of the mask (Fig 2, mask frame# 1510), the mask support comprises a plurality of support ribs( Fig 3, paragraph (0022), plurality of supports 1550 and 1530).
Kang doesn’t teach, and each supporting the mask rib area and having a cross-sectional structure having a taper angle, and the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs are different from each other.
However, Dong teaches each supporting the mask rib area and having a cross-sectional structure having a taper angle, and.(Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Kang modified by Dong doesn’t teach the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs are different from each other.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78)
Modified Kang and Kim teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78).
Regarding claim7, Kang teaches a plurality of first supports #1530.
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs is smaller than or equal to a deposition incidence angle formed by the deposition source and each of the plurality of support ribs.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Although Kang modified by Dong doesn’t teach wherein the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs is smaller than or equal to a deposition incidence angle formed by the deposition source and each of the plurality of support ribs.
One of ordinary skill in the art is capable to recognize that vapors from an evaporative CVD source can go in any number of directions upward from the source to the substrate, thus the prior art device would necessarily have at least some deposition incidence angles that are greater than the tapered angle.
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches a deposition source (Fig 1, source unit 1400), a first support rib ( Fig 3, first support unit #1530) which supports a first mask rib area spaced apart from a center of the mask by a first distance ( Paragraph #75), a second support rib (Fig3, second support unit # 1550) which supports a second mask rib area spaced apart from the center of the mask by a second distance (Paragraph# 82) and a third support rib which supports a third mask rib area spaced apart from the center of the mask by a third distance (Fig3, support unit #1540).
Kang does not explicitly disclose the first deposition incidence angle, the second deposition incidence angle greater than the first deposition incidence angle, or a third deposition incidence angle greater than the second deposition incidence angle.
However, a PHOSITA would recognize that any deposition incidence angle stems naturally from the intended use of the apparatus- in this case evaporating a source material from the deposition source.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of providing evaporated source material in a plurality of directions (see Fig 3. From Kang), thus would be capable of having angles of incidence on each of the first-third support ribs as claimed.”
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein a cross-sectional structure of the first support rib has a first taper angle smaller than or equal to the first deposition incidence angle, a cross-sectional structure of the second support rib has a second taper angle smaller than or equal to the second deposition incidence angle, and a cross-sectional structure of the third support rib has a third taper angle smaller than or equal to the third deposition incidence angle.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Kang modified by Dong doesn’t teach wherein a cross-sectional structure of the first support rib has a first taper angle smaller than or equal to the first deposition incidence angle, a cross-sectional structure of the second support rib has a second taper angle smaller than or equal to the second deposition incidence angle, and a cross-sectional structure of the third support rib has a third taper angle smaller than or equal to the third deposition incidence angle.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78).
Modified Kang and Kim teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78).
Although modified Kang by Kim and Dong doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a cross-sectional structure of the first support rib has a first taper angle smaller than or equal to the first deposition incidence angle, a cross-sectional structure of the second support rib has a second taper angle smaller than or equal to the second deposition incidence angle, and a cross-sectional structure of the third support rib has a third taper angle smaller than or equal to the third deposition incidence angle.
However, a PHOSITA would recognize that any deposition incidence angle stems naturally from the intended use of the apparatus- in this case evaporating a source material from the deposition source.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of providing evaporated source material in a plurality of deposition incidence angle (see Figs1,3. From Kang), thus would be capable of having angles of incidence that are greater than the tapered angle of the cross-sectional structure of the first-third support ribs.
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is greater than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is greater than or equal to the third taper angle.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Modified Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is greater than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is greater than or equal to the third taper angle.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78).
Modified Kang and Kim both teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph#78).
Modified Kang further by Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first taper angle is greater than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is greater than or equal to the third taper angle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the taper angle through routine experimentation to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is smaller than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is smaller than or equal to the third taper angle.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Modified Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is smaller than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is smaller than or equal to the third taper angle.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78).
Modified Kang and Kim both teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph#78).
Modified Kang further by Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first taper angle is smaller than or equal to the second taper angle, and the second taper angle is smaller than or equal to the third taper angle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the taper angle through routine experimentation to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the first taper angle.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Modified Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the first taper angle.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78).
Modified Kang and Kim both teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph#78).
Modified Kang further by Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the first taper angle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the taper angle through routine experimentation to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the second taper angle.
However, Dong teaches the taper angle of each of the plurality of support ribs (Paragraph# 85, Fig 10, edge of hollow region of rigid carrier # 130 tapered).
Kang and Dong both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kang reference to include the tapered edge on the support from the teaching of Dong in order to increase clearance for incoming vapors during thin film depositions (Paragraph #85).
Modified Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the second taper angle.
However, Kim teaches the taper angle of a plurality of gas holes are different from each other. (Paragraph #78).
Modified Kang and Kim both teach aspects of support mask and are thus considered aspects of analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph#78).
Modified Kang further by Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first taper angle is equal to the third taper angle, and smaller than the second taper angle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the taper angle through routine experimentation to include different taper angles in order to adjust gas flow for uniform processing. (Paragraph 78). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Kang teaches wherein each of the first through third support ribs has a symmetrical structure in a cross-sectional view. ( plurality of first supports #1530 and second supports# 1550 having symmetrical structure in a cross-sectional view as shown in figures : Figs 2, 3, 6A and 6B).
Regarding claim 19, Kang teaches , wherein the mask further comprises a mask membrane comprising an inorganic layer (paragraph# 81 and 73). Kang reference discloses in paragraph 73, mask frame#1510 can be highly rigid metal, metals are inorganic and comprise a plurality of layers as part of a metal lattice, thus meeting the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Kang teaches , wherein the mask further comprises a mask membrane comprising a metal layer (mask frame #1510, paragraph# 73).
Claims 2,3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1)
as applied to claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 above and further in view of Nakasuji (US Patent 5751538 A).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kang does not teach wherein the mask support further comprises an electrostatic chuck which supports the outer frame area.
However, Nakasuji teaches wherein the mask support further comprises an electrostatic chuck which supports the outer frame area.(Fig 1B, Electrostatic chuck #1, Paragraph 11, Col1 lines62-67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include the electrostatic chuck of Nakasuji to induce an electrostatic force for holding the mask to rectified or eliminate warp if any (Col 3, lines 59-col 4 line 4).
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches the plurality of support ribs (Fig 3, paragraph #22, plurality of supports#1550 and #1530).
Modified Kang does not teach an electrostatic chuck of the mask support is integrally formed with the plurality of support ribs.
However, Nakasaji teaches electrostatic chuck use for mask holding operation ( Fig 1B, Electrostatic chuck #1, Paragraph 11,Col 1 ,lines 62-67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include the electrostatic chuck of Nakasuji to induce an electrostatic force for holding the mask to rectified or eliminate warp if any (Col 3, lines 59-col 4 line 4).
Although modified Kang further by Nakasaji does not explicitly teach the electrostatic chuck of the mask support and the plurality of support ribs are integrally formed. It would be obvious from one of ordinary skill in the art to use these elements integrally based on obviousness rejection of MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) specifically stating that the elements would be functionally equivalent whether they are integral or separate.
Regarding claim 4 , Kang teaches the plurality of support ribs (Fig 3, paragraph #22, plurality of supports#1550 and #1530).
Modified Kang does not teach wherein the electrostatic chuck of the mask support is provided separately from the plurality of support ribs and coupled to some of the plurality of support ribs.
However, Nakasaji teaches electrostatic chuck use for mask holding operation ( Fig 1B, Electrostatic chuck #1, Paragraph 11, Col 1, lines 62-67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include the electrostatic chuck of Nakasuji to induce an electrostatic force for holding the mask to rectified or eliminate warp if any (Col 3, lines 59-col 4 line 4).
Although modified Kang further by Nakasaji does not explicitly teach the electrostatic chuck of the mask support and the plurality of support ribs are coupled to some of the plurality of support ribs. It would be obvious from one of ordinary skill in the art to use these elements integrally based on obviousness rejection of MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) specifically stating that the elements would be functionally equivalent whether they are integral or separate.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1)
as applied to claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 above and further in view of Watanabe (US Patent 4754188).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 are set above.
Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches a mask support (Fig1, mask support# 1300).
Kang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a material of the mask support comprises invar.
However, Kang does teach wherein invar can be used for a mask sheet material.( Paragraph# 88, mask sheet #1570).
It would be obvious to fabricate the mask support of Kang from invar since Watanabe reference teaches invar is an art-recognized material for mask supports ( mask support#15, Col 6, lines 17-20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1)
as applied to claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 above and further in view of Livshultz (US Patent 4854906).
The limitations of claims 1-5, 7-14, 19,20 are set above.
Regarding claim 6, Kang teaches a mask support (Fig1, mask support# 1300).
Kang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a material of the mask support comprises stainless steel.
However, Kang does teach wherein stainless steel can be used for a mask sheet material.( Paragraph# 88, mask sheet #1570).
It would be obvious to fabricate the mask support of Kang from stainless steel since Livshultz reference teaches stainless steel is an art-recognized material for mask supports (mask support#114, Col 9, lines 50-53).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7-14, 19,20 above and further in view of Ahn (US Pub 2011/0139069 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-14, 19, 20 are set above.
Regarding claim 15, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Modified Kang doesn’t teach wherein each of the first through third support ribs has an asymmetrical structure in a cross-sectional view.
However, Ahn teaches wherein each of the first through third support ribs has an asymmetrical structure in a cross-sectional view (Paragraph #51, plurality of support sticks# 300 may have various cross-sections).
Kang and Ahn both teach a support for mask and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kang apparatus to include asymmetric support structures from the teaching of Ahn in order to improve the precision during the deposition process while preventing and minimizing damage to the mask (Paragraph #61).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2021/0210735 A1), Dong (US Pub 2021/0359210 A1) and Kim (US Pub 2005/0194475 A1)
as applied to claims 1,7-14, 19,20 above and further in view of Li (US Pub 2017/0104186 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-14, 19, 20 are set above.
Regarding claim 16, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein heights of the first through third support ribs are different from each other.
However, Li teaches wherein heights of the first through third support ribs are different from each other. (support #30, Paragraph #40).
Kang and Li both teach aspects of mask support, and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filling date of the instant application, to use the teaching of Li for having different support ribs height of modified Kang in order to allow proper thin film layer deposition to form on the substrate (Li, paragraph# 40).
Regarding claim 17, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first support rib has a first height, the second support rib has a second height greater than the first height, and the third support rib has a third height greater than the second height.
However, Li teaches different heights of support ribs (support #30, Paragraph #40).
Li doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first support rib has a first height, the second support rib has a second height greater than the first height, and the third support rib has a third height greater than the second height. But Li teaches this limitation as a result effective variable.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filling date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the appropriate height for mask support through routine experimentation in order to allow proper thin film layer deposition to form on the substrate (Li, paragraph# 40). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Kang teaches a first support rib (Fig 3, support unit #1530), a second support rib ( Fig 3, support unit#1550) and a third support rib ( Fig 3, support unit #1540).
Kang doesn’t teach wherein the first support rib has a first height, the second support rib has a second height smaller than the first height, and the third support rib has a third height smaller than the second height.
However, Li teaches different heights of support ribs (support #30, Paragraph #40).
Li doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first support rib has a first height, the second support rib has a second height smaller than the first height, and the third support rib has a third height smaller than the second height. But Li teaches this limitation as a result effective variable.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filling date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the appropriate height for mask support through routine experimentation in order to allow proper thin film layer deposition to form on the substrate (Li, paragraph# 40). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HAN (US pub 2019/0226084 A1, Fig 1) teaches a deposition apparatus , Kim (US Pub 2017/0263867 A1, Figs 1 and 9) teaches a deposition of organic thin film material inside a chamber, Oh (US Patent 9953828 B2, Figs 1- 3) teaches a mask assembly comprising a unit mask and a frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00.
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 5712725166. 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.
/OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights