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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on July 2, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-11 were amended. Claims 12-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 21-26 are in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera” in claim 21, “the plurality of guides are configured to remain in their positions within the restrictive space during a process of welding a stick mask to the mask frame” in claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera” in claim 21; “the plurality of guides are configured to remain in their positions within the restrictive space during a process of welding a stick mask to the mask frame” in claim 22
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 3 based on the following informalities: “ a fourth guide disposed adjacent to the first side” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 3.
Claim 1 is objected to for reciting : “a guide disposed at a side of the stage and including a roller disposed at an end portion of the guide facing the mask frame”.
A suggested revision is as follows:
“a guide disposed at a side of the stage and said guide including a roller disposed at an end portion of the guide facing the mask frame”.
Claim 1 is objected to for reciting : “such that horizontal movement” .
A suggested revision is as follows:
“such that a horizontal movement”.
Claim 22 is objected to for reciting :
“welding a stick mask” .
A suggested revision is as follows:
“welding a stick mask”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050045083 A1 to Timothy G. Canan (hereinafter Canan) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 1 and KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 6-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180312957 A1 to Wei Zhang (hereinafter Zhang) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050045083 A1 to Timothy G. Canan (hereinafter Canan) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Wook teaches a mask manufacturing device comprising: a stage (stage 200) for supporting a mask frame (100) configured to seat a stick mask ; and a guide (400-402) disposed at a side of the stage (200), and including an end portion of the guide (400-402) facing the mask frame (100). (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4,page 3, fifth paragraph; page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Wook does not explicitly teach including a roller disposed at end portion of the guide facing the mask frame.
Hwang is directed to an alignment device including a push part.
Hwang teaches the push part can be different configuration. (See Hwang, Abstract, page 4, paragraph 8.)
Kawato teaches a roller (94, 104) disposed at an end portion of the guide (91, 101) facing the mask frame (81). (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a roller disposed at end portion of the guide facing the mask frame, as an art recognized equivalent push part. (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Wook does not explicitly teach wherein the guide and the roller define a restrictive space above the stage configured to accommodate the mask frame levitated at a height above the stage.
Wook teaches alignment units of a second group disposed on other two surfaces stop the horizontal movement of the mask frame and detected contact with the mask frame. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.) Examiner is considering this motion of the alignment units reads on the limitation define a restrictive space above the stage configured to accommodate the mask frame levitated at a height above the stage.
Kawato teaches a roller (94, 104) disposed at an end portion of the guide (91, 101) facing the mask frame (81). (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the guide and the roller define a restrictive space above the stage configured to accommodate the mask frame levitated at a height above the stage, because Wook teaches this structure would enable the centering alignment to be performed. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Wook does not explicitly teach wherein the roller is spaced apart from the mask frame by a predetermined gap such that horizontal movement of the mask frame is restricted within the restrictive space.
Wook teaches alignment units of a second group disposed on other two surfaces stop the horizontal movement of the mask frame and detected contact with the mask frame. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.) Examiner is considering this motion of the alignment units reads on the limitation the roller is spaced apart from the mask frame by a predetermined gap such that horizontal movement of the mask frame is restricted within the restrictive space
Kawato teaches a roller (94, 104) disposed at an end portion of the guide (91, 101) facing the mask frame (81). (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the roller is spaced apart from the mask frame by a predetermined gap such that horizontal movement of the mask frame is restricted within the restrictive space, because Wook teaches this structure would enable the centering alignment to be performed. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Regarding claim 3, Wook teaches the mask frame includes a first side, a second side parallel to the first side, a third side crossing both the first side and the second side, and a fourth side parallel to the third side, and the guide includes a first guide disposed adjacent to the first side, and a second guide disposed adjacent to the second side. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Wook teaches the use of a guide at the end of a side can be used to reduce in misalignment along a first direction. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Wook teaches a third guide (402 on left side of Fig. 2) disposed adjacent to the third side (extending vertically on left side) , and a fourth guide (402 on right side of Fig. 2) disposed adjacent to the fourth side (extending vertically on right side). (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Regarding claim 4, Wook teaches the first guide and the second guide restrict a movement of the mask frame in a first direction within a first predetermined gap. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Wook teaches the third guide (402 on left on vertical side in Fig. 1) and the fourth guide (402 on right on vertical side in Fig. 1) restrict a movement of the mask frame in a second direction crossing the first direction within a second predetermined gap. (See Wook, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, page 4, paragraphs 6-12; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 9-10.)
Regarding claim 5, Wook teaches a plurality of air holes (210) defined in the stage for directing air to the mask frame (mask frame) and for levitating the mask frame above the stage (stage) into the restrictive space above the stage defined by the guide and the roller. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
Regarding claim 9, Wook teaches a mask manufacturing device comprising: a stage (stage); and a plurality of guides (400-402) disposed overlapping a plurality of sides of the stage and forming a restrictive space above the stage (stage) configured to accommodate a mask frame at a height above the stage , (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11,and Figs. 1-3.)
Wook teaches a plurality of air holes (210) defined in the stage for directing air to the mask frame (mask frame) and for levitating the mask frame above the stage (stage), where the plurality of air holes disposed in an edge portion of an upper surface of the stage. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11,and Figs. 1-3.)
Wook does not explicitly teach a plurality of rollers disposed at end portions of the plurality of guides facing the restrictive space.
Hwang is directed to an alignment device including a push part.
Hwang teaches the push part can be different configuration. (See Hwang, Abstract, page 4, paragraph 8.)
Kawato teaches a roller (94, 104) disposed at an end portion of the guide (91, 101) facing the mask frame (81). (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include plurality of rollers disposed at end portions of the plurality of guides facing the restrictive space, as an art recognized equivalent push part. (See Kawato, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 123-126, 366-369, 374, 625, and Figs. 12-15, 20.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050045083 A1 to Timothy G. Canan (hereinafter Canan).
Regarding claim 2, Wook does not explicitly teach the roller includes a ball caster.
Canan is directed to a movable work area system and method.
Canan teaches a ball caster is an art recognized equivalent form of a sliding surface. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the roller include a ball caster as an art recognized equivalent to contact a sliding surface. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220228616 A1 to Yousefi et al (hereinafter Yousefi).
Regarding claim 2, Wook does not explicitly teach the roller includes a ball caster.
Yousefi is directed to a conventional vision system in which mask frame sits on a ball within a housing while allowing for some movement of the mask frame. (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17, 59-61, and 78. )
Yousefi teaches any number of Ball Transfer Units or flat head units may be used (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17, 59-61, and 78. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of rollers comprise each include a ball casters, because this configuration can be optimized to have the geometry provide improved mask frame and vision alignment and reduce contact stress and mask deformation. (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17-18, 45, 49, 59-61, and 78. )
The previous rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Wook does not explicitly teach an alignment camera disposed above the stage.
Bucci is directed to an apparatus for a multiple mask alignment.
Bucci teaches an alignment camera (18) disposed above the stage (12). (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an alignment camera disposed above the stage, because this enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask.
Regarding claim 7, Wook does not explicitly teach the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame while the mask frame is levitated.
Bucci teaches the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame, because this enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 7, Wook does not explicitly teach the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame while the mask frame is levitated.
Wook teaches a plurality of air holes (210) defined in the stage for directing air to the mask frame (mask frame) and for levitating the mask frame above the stage (stage) which minimizes friction between the mask frame and the mask frame stage during alignment and implement an accurate and reliable input/output system. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of air holes defined in the stage for directing air to the mask frame and for levitating the mask frame above the stage, because this would prevent damage by minimizing friction between the mask frame and the mask frame stage during alignment and implement an accurate and reliable input/output system. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180312957 A1 to Wei Zhang (hereinafter Zhang) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 8, Wook teaches a stick mask is disposed on the mask frame. (See Wook, Abstract, page 3, fifth paragraph.)
Regarding claim 8, Kawato does not explicitly teach mask includes: a pattern portion on which a plurality of cell regions is defined, and a dummy portion surrounding the pattern portion.
Zhang is directed to a mask assembly for OLED panel or vapor deposition. (See Zhang, Abstract, paragraphs 4-5.)
Wook teaches mask includes: a pattern portion (working area) on which a plurality of cell regions is defined, and a dummy portion (dummy area) surrounding the pattern portion. (See Zhang, Abstract, paragraphs 4-5, 23, and 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mask includes: a pattern portion on which a plurality of cell regions is defined, and a dummy portion surrounding the pattern portion, because Zhang teaches this would allow a pattern to be formed accurately and uniformly. (See Zhang, Abstract, paragraphs 4-5, 23, and 42.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050045083 A1 to Timothy G. Canan (hereinafter Canan) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Wook does not explicitly teach the plurality of rollers includes a ball caster.
Canan teaches a ball caster is an art recognized equivalent form of a sliding surface. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the roller include a ball caster as an art recognized equivalent to face a surface of the mask frame. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) is being maintained.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) as applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, Wook does not explicitly teach an alignment camera disposed above the stage.
Bucci teaches an alignment camera (18) disposed above the stage (12). (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an alignment camera disposed above the stage, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 11, Wook does not explicitly teach the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame while the mask frame is levitated.
Bucci teaches the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alignment camera is configured to check an alignment of the mask frame, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 11, Wook teaches a plurality of air holes (210) defined in the stage for directing air to the mask frame (mask frame) and for levitating the mask frame above the stage (stage) which minimizes friction between the mask frame and the mask frame stage during alignment and implement an accurate and reliable input/output system. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
Regarding claim 21, Wook teaches the restrictive space is defined by a first predetermined gap ( distance extending between 402 and 401 in x or width direction in Fig. 1) between the mask frame (mask frame) and a first pair of guides ( 402 to 401; 402 to 401 in x or width direction in Fig. 1) , and
a second predetermined gap ( distance extending between 402 and 401 in y or length direction in Fig. 1) between the mask frame (mask frame) and a second pair of guides ( 402 to 401; 402 to 401 in y direction in Fig. 1) . (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
Wook does not explicitly teach the mask frame is constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera.
Bucci teaches a digital camera for acquiring including the first and second sets of alignment features and forwarding the first and second sets to the controller which is operative for processing the digital images and based on the processed digital images to cause alignment system to adjust the position of each combination frame and mask to fine or precision align the first and second set of alignment features. ( See Bucci, paragraphs 70, 73, and 76. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mask frame is constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73, 76, and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 22, Wook teaches the plurality of guides are configured to remain in their positions (tensioned with a clamp during the welding) within the restrictive space during a process of welding a stick mask to the mask frame. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, sixth paragraph.)
Claims 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) .
Regarding claim 23, Wook does not explicitly teach an alignment camera disposed above the stage.
Bucci teaches an alignment camera (18) disposed above the stage (12). (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an alignment camera disposed above the stage, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73 and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Wook does not explicitly teach the plurality of guides are configured to maintain the levitated mask frame within the restrictive space and an imaging area of the alignment camera.
Bucci teaches a digital camera for acquiring including the first and second sets of alignment features and forwarding the first and second sets to the controller which is operative for processing the digital images and based on the processed digital images to cause alignment system to adjust the position of each combination frame and mask to fine or precision align the first and second set of alignment features. ( See Bucci, paragraphs 70, 73, and 76. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of guides are
configured to maintain the levitated mask frame within the restrictive space and an imaging area of the alignment camera, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the alignment features. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73, 76, and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 25, Wook teaches the restrictive space is defined by a first predetermined gap ( distance extending between 402 and 401 in x or width direction in Fig. 1) between the mask frame (mask frame) and a first pair of guides ( 402 to 401; 402 to 401 in x or width direction in Fig. 1) , and
a second predetermined gap ( distance extending between 402 and 401 in y or length direction in Fig. 1) between the mask frame (mask frame) and a second pair of guides ( 402 to 401; 402 to 401 in y direction in Fig. 1) . (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, third paragraph, and paragraphs 7-11.)
Wook does not explicitly teach the mask frame is constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera.
Bucci teaches a digital camera for acquiring including the first and second sets of alignment features and forwarding the first and second sets to the controller which is operative for processing the digital images and based on the processed digital images to cause alignment system to adjust the position of each combination frame and mask to fine or precision align the first and second set of alignment features. ( See Bucci, paragraphs 70, 73, and 76. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mask frame is constrained to an imaging area of the alignment camera, because this would enable the controller to control the stage to adjust the position of the frame and shadow mask. (See Bucci, Abstract, paragraphs 62-73, 76, and Figs. 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19.)
Regarding claim 26, Wook teaches the plurality of guides are configured to remain in their positions (tensioned with a clamp during the welding) within the restrictive space during a process of welding a stick mask to the mask frame. (See Wook, Abstract, pages 3, sixth paragraph.)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) as applied to claim 23 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050045083 A1 to Timothy G. Canan (hereinafter Canan).
Regarding claim 24, Wook does not explicitly teach the plurality of rollers comprise ball casters configured to allow the mask frame to move in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions while remaining within the restrictive space.
Canan is directed to a movable work area system and method.
Canan teaches a ball caster is an art recognized equivalent form of a sliding surface. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of rollers comprise ball casters configured to allow the mask frame to move in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions while remaining within the restrictive space.as an art recognized equivalent to contact a sliding surface. (See Canan, Abstract, paragraphs 64 and 82.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210049265 A to Wook et al (hereinafter Wook) Assignee: KPS Co., Ltd. In view of KR 20150070571 A to Hwang (hereinafter Hwang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130186335 A1 to Kawato et al (hereinafter Kawato) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180363127 A1 to Bucci et al (hereinafter Bucci) as applied to claim 23 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220228616 A1 to Yousefi et al (hereinafter Yousefi) .
Regarding claim 24, Wook does not explicitly teach the plurality of rollers comprise ball casters configured to allow the mask frame to move in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions while remaining within the restrictive space.
Yousefi is directed to a conventional vision system in which mask frame sits on a ball within a housing while allowing for some movement of the mask frame. (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17, 59-61, and 78. )
Yousefi teaches any number of Ball Transfer Units or flat head units may be used (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17, 59-61, and 78. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of rollers comprise ball casters configured to allow the mask frame to move in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions while remaining within the restrictive space, because this configuration can be optimized to have the geometry provide improved mask frame and vision alignment and reduce contact stress and mask deformation. (See Yousefi, Abstract, Figs. 3-4B, 7A, and paragraphs 13, 17-18, 45, 49, 59-61, and 78. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Response to Arguments
First set of rejection based on Kawato
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2-11, Applicants arguments are considered persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Second set of rejection based on Wook in view of Hwang and Kawato
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 21-26 have been considered but are not considered persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 15, fourth paragraph regarding the wrong reference numeral attributed to Wook is not persuasive, because the first occurrence of reference numeral was correct and Applicant’s representative was able to understand the correct reference numerals based on Wook despite this minor typographical error.
Applicant’s arguments on page 16, fourth paragraph to page 17, third paragraph regarding the combination of Wook in view of Hwang and Kawato is not persuasive.
Wook teaches the claimed geometry and Kawato teaches the claimed shape of the contacting device. Hwang explicitly teaches that the use of other shapes is possible. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these different end portions are replaceable and easily substituted for each other.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973)
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights