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
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 04/14/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-10 from the non-final office action, mailed on 01/14/2026, by amending claims 1-2, 9, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 remains withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “wherein a coupling region overlapping the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion overlaps the at least one first deposition opening or the at least one second deposition opening in the second direction” of Claim 9 is a new matter.
The applicants argue that the support for the newly added feature is based on the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 8 shows WA2 overlaps OP1 or OP2 in DR2), see the first paragraph of page 10 in the remarks.
However, the applicants’ Fig. 2B clearly shows the opening OP1 is within the first body part MM1, and OP2 is within the second body part MM2, therefore, the coupling region WA2 does not overlap the OP1 or OP2, rather it is outside the OP1 and OP2, thus the feature is a new matter.
See also 112 2nd paragraph below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Continued from 112 1st paragraph above,
Because the “wherein a coupling region overlapping the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion overlaps the at least one first deposition opening or the at least one second deposition opening in the second direction” of Claim 9 is a new matter, thus the metes and bounds for the feature cannot be clearly determined.
Based on the applicants’ Fig. 8,
The coupling region WA2 overlaps the frame opening M-OP, consequently, for the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein a coupling region overlapping the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion overlaps the frame opening in the second direction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190368025, hereafter ‘025) in view of Wu (US 20140069331, hereafter ‘331).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘025 teaches:
Mask assembly (title, the claimed “A mask assembly”);
the frame 100 according to one embodiment of the present invention may include a frame opening 120 thereinside (Fig. 4, [0071], the claimed “comprising: a frame extending in a first direction and a second direction intersecting each other, the frame including a frame opening”);
a structural auxiliary mask 200 fixed to a frame 100 (Fig. 3 or 6, [0068], the claimed “and a mask sheet coupled to the frame”);
see the 1st illustration below, which is reproduced from Fig. 5 (the claimed “the mask sheet including: a first mask that includes: a first body part having: at least one first deposition opening corresponding to the frame opening; first tension portions protruding from sides of the first body part; and a first coupling portion extending from another side of the first body part; and a second mask that includes: a second body part having: at least one second deposition opening corresponding to the frame opening; second tension portions protruding from sides of the second body part; and a second coupling portion extending from another side of the second body part”);
PNG
media_image1.png
569
1081
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘025 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: wherein a bottom surface of the first coupling portion and an upper surface of the second coupling portion contact each other, and wherein a side surface of the first coupling portion contacts a side surface of the second mask adjacent to the second coupling portion, and a side surface of the second coupling portion contacts a side surface of the first mask adjacent to the first coupling portion.
‘331 is analogous art in the field of mask (title). ‘331 teaches One side edge of the first sub-mask 101 includes a first structure (such as a first platform 1011 in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2)… One side edge of the second sub-mask 102 includes a second structure (such as a second platform 1021 in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) ([0032]), The first structure and the second structure are stacked together ([0033]), and The first sub-mask 101 and the second sub-mask 102 are disposed in parallel and arranged together. The first surface 1012 of the first sub-mask 101 and the third surface 1022 of the second sub-mask 102 are on the same plane. The second surface 1013 of the first sub-mask 101 and the fourth surface 1023 of the second sub-mask 102 are on the same plane ([0034]).
See also the 2nd illustrations below teaching the detailed features, which are reproduced from the applicants’ Fig. 9 and Fig. 2 of ‘331,
PNG
media_image2.png
328
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the coupling portions of the two masks in the 1st illustration above, by stacking the coupling portions, as taught by ‘331, for its suitability as known connecting configuration, such as connecting the bottom surface of the first coupling portion to the upper surface of the second coupling portion and further connecting the side surfaces of the coupling portions to side surfaces of the masks, with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 2,
See the first mask in the 1st illustration above (or Fig. 5 of ‘025) showing the upper and lower tension portions adjacent to the second mask and extending in the Y direction and the coupling portions protruding from the upper and lower tension portion and body portion in the X direction (the claimed “wherein the first tension portions include a first upper tension portion and a first lower tension portion adjacent to the first mask and spaced apart in the first direction with the first body part disposed between the first upper tension portion and the first lower tension portion of the first tension portions, the first coupling portion protrudes from the first upper tension portion, the first body part, and the first lower tension portion in the second direction”);
See the second mask in the 1st illustration above (or Fig. 5 of ‘025) showing the upper and lower tension portions adjacent to the first mask and extending in the Y direction and the coupling portions protruding from the upper and lower tension portion and body portion in the X direction (the claimed “the second tension portions include a second upper tension portion and a second lower tension portion adjacent to the second mask and spaced apart in the first direction with the second body part disposed between the second upper tension portion and the second lower tension portion of the second tension portions, and the second coupling portion protrudes from the second upper tension portion, the second body part, and the second lower tension portion in the second direction”).
Regarding to Claim 3,
The 1st illustration above (or Fig. 5 of ‘025) shows each width of the upper and lower tension portions and body parts is equal to each coupling portion in each mask (the claimed “wherein a width of the first lower tension portion, the first body part, and the first upper tension portion is equal to a width of the first coupling portion in the first direction, and a width of the second lower tension portion, the second body part, and the second upper tension portion is equal to a width of the second coupling portion in the first direction”).
In case the applicants argue that it does not explicitly teach the same width,
‘025 further teaches The structural auxiliary mask 200 may be configured such that sizes, shapes, widths (breadths), and the like of the plurality of shafts 220 are symmetrical so as to uniformly apply a tensile force to the frame 100 and the plurality of cell unit masks 300 ([0079]).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured such that the widths are same, for the purpose of uniformly applying a tensile force to the frame.
Regarding to Claims 4-5,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the connection of the masks is obtained by contacting the bottom surface of the first coupling portion with the upper surface of the second coupling portion. Therefore, a thickness of each coupling portion is thinner than each thickness of the upper and lower tension portions and body part of each mask, and Further, the total thickness at the connected coupling portions is equal to a thickness of the body part of each mask, see also the 2nd illustration above showing thinner thickness of each structure 1011 and 1021, and total thickness of the stacked structures are equal to thickness of the body of each mask 101 and 102 (the claimed “wherein a thickness of the first coupling portion is thinner than a thickness of the first lower tension portion, the first body part, and the first upper tension portion, and a thickness of the second coupling portion is thinner than a thickness of the second lower tension portion, the second body part, and the second upper tension portion” of Claim 4, and “wherein a sum of a thicknesses of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion that overlap each other is equal to a thickness of the first body part or a thickness of the second body part” of Claim 5).
Regarding to Claim 6,
The 1st illustration above (or Fig. 5 of ‘025) shows, at the connection of the masks, the coupling portion of each mask has a width, therefore, ‘025 intrinsically teaches all the limitation “wherein a coupling region overlapping the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion which overlap each other, has a width in the first direction”, and merely silent about the number ranges “of about 500 micrometers to about 5 millimeters”.
However, the width is a controllable parameter to determine the durability of the connection, for instance, narrower width connection is weaker than wider width connection, thus the width at the connection is result effective parameter to control the durability of the connection.
Consequently, even if the reference is silent about the number range as recited, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found a width range, as claimed, for the purpose of providing appropriate durability, and/or since 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 to Claim 8,
‘025 teaches these structural auxiliary mask openings 210 have a grid shape ([0078], see each of the first and second masks in the 1st illustration above or Fig. 5 of ‘025, showing a grid having n rows x m columns, herein n and m are natural numbers, the claimed “wherein the at least one first deposition opening and the at least one second deposition opening are provided in each of n rows x m columns, and the at least one first deposition opening and the at least one second deposition opening are disposed apart from each other in the first direction and the second direction, n and m being natural numbers”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
Based on Figs. 5-6 of ‘025, the coupling portions of the two masks in the 1st illustration above overlaps the opening of the frame 100, see also the 112 rejection above (the claimed “wherein a coupling region overlapping the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion overlaps the at least one first deposition opening or the at least one second deposition opening in the second direction”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
The 1st illustration above (or Fig. 5 of ‘025) shows, at the connection of the masks, the coupling portion of each mask has a rectangular shape (the claimed “wherein each of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion has a rectangular shape extending in the first direction”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘025 and ‘331, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Ha et al. (US 20200083451, hereafter ‘451).
Regarding to Claim 7,
‘025 and ‘331 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 7: wherein the frame, the first mask, and the second mask each comprise at least one of invar and stainless steel.
‘451 is analogous art in the field of mask (title). ‘451 teaches the mask stick assembly 300 may be a thin plate. The mask stick assembly 300 may include one of stainless steel, invar, nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), a nickel alloy, and a Ni-Co alloy ([0050]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the mask of ‘250, with one of stainless steel and invar, for its suitability as known stick mask material, with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 9, 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/449822 (reference application, hereafter ‘822) in view of ‘331.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited features in the claim 1-2, 6, 9, 13-14 teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 5-7, 9 with mere similar terms, except the newly added limitation of Claim 1.
However, the teaching of the new limitation of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above with ‘331.
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the coupling portions of the two masks of ‘822, by stacking the coupling portions, as taught by ‘331, for its suitability as known connecting configuration, such as connecting the side surfaces of the coupling portions to side surfaces of the masks, with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above. The examiner does not agree with the applicants’ argument that the previously cited reference US 20110139357 (hereafter ‘357) does not teach the newly added feature of the amended claim 1. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution and reducing the number of reference, the examiner newly cites ‘331 in the current grounds of the rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights