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 .
During a telephone conversation with Seth Barney on 3/12/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Considering the amendment filed 6/18/26, claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. Claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1,4-16 and 18-20 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment field 6/18/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejection has been necessitated.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1,4-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) further in combination with Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810).
Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches a mask having a monocrystalline substrate (10) (claimed base member) including a thin area (12) (claimed membrane regions) and a thick area (16) (claimed beam region) whereby the thin area (12) (claimed membrane regions) includes penetrating holes (18) (claimed though hole sin membrane (12)). The beam region (16) is thicker than the membrane region (12) and is disposed around and inside the membrane region (12) as well as on an out periphery of the base member (10) (Figs,. 1B and 1C and [0106]-[0109].
Yotsuya (2003/0054646) fails to teach the beam region having magnetic layer thereon.
Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches a mask for forming a thin film having a first pattern against a film forming substrate including a non-magnetic substrate having an aperture corresponding to the first pattern and a magnetic film having a second pattern and arranged on the non-magnetic substrate (abstract). Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches the magnetic material (28) to prevent the gap between the film forming object (claimed substrate) and the mask (M) for suppressing the flexure in the pattern portion of the mask and to attach the mask (M) to the film forming object (claimed mask) [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yotsuya (2003/0054646) by including a magnetic material arranged on the substrate as evidenced by Yotsuya (2006/0191864) with the expectation of preventing gap between film forming object (substrate) and mask by suppressing flexure of the mask.
Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) fails to teach the magnetic material to be formed in the second region and having a recess including the magnetic material therein.
Sung et al. (2010/0055810) teaches a mask for thin film deposition and method of manufacturing OLED using the same. Sung et al. (2010/0055810) teaches the mask/base layer to include a magnet array (40) including bodies (42) having grooves (43) whereby magnetic material is inserted therein (Figs 6A,6B). Sung et al. (2010/0055810) teaches applying the use of a magnet array and a magnetic force to the mask so that the mask is closely adhered to the substrate [0022].
Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) teaches the magnets can be embedded into the shadow frame or into the shadow mask itself [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) magnetic mask to include grooves with magnetic material as evidenced by Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810) with the expectation of providing the mask/substrate to be closely aligned with one another preventing flexing of the mask leading to misalignment of coating.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches the recess is a grid form and located along the periphery of the base member in end portion) (Figs. 5-7) while Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches recess in grid form (Fig. 1A)
Regarding claim 6, the thickness of the magnetic layer being the same as the depth of the recess depth would be suggested by Sung et al. (2010/0055810) which teaches the grooves and magnetic material therein below the depth of the recess but filling to the same level would still provide the advantages of preventing a gap and flexing of the mask by magnetically combining the substrate with the mask using magnets.
Regarding claim 7, Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches the first region is made of only non-magnetic material as it is made of silicon (Fig. 3A and [0058]). Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches the base member to be monocrystal substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Sung et al. (2010/0055810) teaches the recess depth greater than the thickness of the first region as it would be within the ends of the mask (M) of Yotsuya (2006/0191864) or Yotsuya (2003/0054646).
Regarding claim 9, Sung et al. (2010/0055810) teaches the thickness of the magnetic layer is less than the recess depth (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 10, the thickness of the magnetic layer being more than the recess depth would be suggested by the combination of Sung et al. (2010/0055810) which teaches the grooves and magnetic material therein and Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches magnetic material (28) can be outside the mask and hence would suggest filling the grooves to a height above.
Regarding claims 11-13, Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches the mask to be nonmagnetic and include silicon [0059] and Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches monocrystal substrate which would possess the claimed Young’s modulus of greater than or equal to 50GPa.
Regarding claims 14-15, Yotsuya (2006/0191864) teaches forming a layer (30) over the silicon substrate and this would meet the claimed low-hardness material which would be organic as it is formed by thermal oxidation to form silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 18, Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches the beam member (16) surrounding the membrane region (12) (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 19, Yotsuya (2003/0054646) teaches membrane regions (12) not having magnetic material.
Regarding claim 20, Yotsuya (2003/0054646) depicts the beam regions (16) inside the base member (next to regions (12) and on the outer peripheral of the mask (10) to have similar thickness (Fig. 1B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) in combination with Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810) further in combination with WO 2018/155452.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) in combination with Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810) are incorporated here.
Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) in combination with Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810) fails to teach coating the mask surface with a fluororesin.
WO 2018/155452 teaches a mask and film forming device whereby the mask surface is coated with a fluororesin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for ne skilled in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have modified Yotsuya (2003/0054646) in combination with Yotsuya (2006/0191864) in combination with Diehl et al. (2020/0211769) and Sung et al. (2010/0055810) mask to include a fluororesin as evidenced by WO 2018/155452 with the expectation of providing an improved mask for film formation.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,4-16 and 18-20 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.
Applicant argued that the amendment claims is no longer applicable to read upon the same structure having a thicker periphery and crossbeam-inner structure form both the alleged base and beam member.
The Examiner disagrees. The claims recite a base member (substrate 10), a plurality of membrane regions (12) and beam region (16) thicker than membrane region (12) with the beam member (16) being disposed around the membrane regions (12) and the outer periphery (16 – ends) (Fig. 1B). The claims do not preclude the beam regions (16) and the membrane regions from being of the same material and only require the beam regions being thicker and surrounding the membrane area (12) and the outer periphery of the mask. This is clearly depicted in Fig. 1B.
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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 CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights