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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP2008-162197) in view of JP6943387.
With respect to claim 1, Murakami et al. teaches a screen mask comprising:
a mesh (2);
a first mask layer (3a) having a first thickness and located in a first region of the mesh (2, Figures 1, 2); and
a second mask layer (3b) having a second thickness and located in a second region of the mesh, wherein the first mask layer (3a) has an opening (5) adjacent to a boundary of the second mask layer (3b, Figures 1, 2).
However, Murakami et al. does not explicitly disclose the first mask layer is disposed on each of an upper surface of the mesh and lower surface of the mesh. JP6943387 teaches a screen mask with a mesh (2), a first mask layer (3) and a second mask layer (4), the first mask layer (3) is disposed on each of an upper surface of the mesh and lower surface of the mesh (2 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Murakami et al. to provide a first mask layer disposed on each of an upper surface of the mesh and lower surface of the mesh as taught by JP6943387 for the purpose of providing a simple structure and reducing the printing thickness of the paste.
With respect to claim 2, Murakami et al. teaches the first mask layer (3a) comprises a photosensitive emulsion (Paragraphs 0026, 0036).
With respect to claim 3, Murakami et al. teaches the second mask layer (3b) is made of a film and attached to the first mask layer (3a, Paragraphs 0022, 0037, 0038, 0046).
With respect to claim 4, Murakami et al. teaches the second mask layer (3b) is made of a non-photosensitive material (Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 6, Murakami et al. teaches the second mask layer (3b) comprises a photosensitive emulsion (Paragraphs 0026, 0037).
With respect to claim 7, Murakami et al. teaches the claimed invention with the exception of wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is 30 μm or more.
However, it has been held that held that where general conditions are
disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only
routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art before
the effective filing date of the present application to modify Murakami et al., to provide a
a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is 30 μm or more as claimed since such a modification would provide a more durable screen.
With respect to claim 8, Murakami et al. teaches the first mask layer (3a) and the second mask layer (3b) are integrally formed without an interface (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9, Murakami et al. teaches the mesh (2) is a fiber mesh or a metal mesh (Paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 10, Murakami et al. teaches an inner boundary of the opening (5) corresponds to the boundary of the second mask layer (3b, Figures 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 11, Murakami et al. teaches the first mask layer (3a) comprises a photosensitive emulsion (Paragraph 0026, 0036).
With respect to claim 12, Murakami et al. teaches the second mask layer (3b) is made of a non-photosensitive material (Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 13, Murakami et al. teaches second mask layer (3b) is made of a film and attached to the first mask layer (3a, Paragraphs 0022, 0037, 003
8, 0046).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP2008-162197) in view of JP6943387 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (JP 2017100367).
With respect to claim 5, Murakami et al., as modified, teaches the claimed invention with the exception of wherein at least a portion of the second thickness of the second mask layer is embedded in the first mask layer.
Furukawa et al. teaches a screen mask (1) with at least a portion of the second thickness of the second mask layer (5) is embedded in the first mask layer (4, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the present invention was made to further modify the invention taught by Murakami et al., as modified, to provide a second mask layer embedded in a first mask layer as taught by Furukawa et al. for the purpose of providing a structure excellent in durability and with high precision printing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights