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
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election, without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply, filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/449822, filed on 08/15/2023.
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 “the plurality of first deposition openings are disposed in a different shape from the plurality of second deposition openings” of Claim 9 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “and 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, 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, 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” of Claim 2 is objected because:
First, the “adjacent to the second mask” should be “adjacent to the first mask”, based on the similar feature in the “first tension portion include…” of Claim 2, see the “adjacent to the first mask” in the first paragraph of page 4.
Second, the “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” is redundant, because same feature is already recited in the “first tension portion include…” of Claim 2, see the second paragraph of page 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 Lee et al. (US 20110139357, hereafter ‘357).
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 there inside (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 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.
‘357 is analogous art in the field of mask (title). ‘357 teaches as shown in FIG. 9, the first mask member 110 is connected to the second mask member 120 to prepare a mask 100 ([0068], note Fig. 9 shows a bottom surface of the bonding portion 122 contacts an upper surface of the bonding portion 112).
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 illustration above, as taught by ‘357, 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, 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 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 second 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 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 “and 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 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 (see also Fig. 9 of ‘357), therefore, a thickness of the coupling portion is obviously thinner than a thickness of the upper and lower tension portions and body part of each mask. Further, the total thickness at the connected portions is equal to a thickness of the upper and lower tension portions and body part of each mask (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 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 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,
‘025 teaches These structural auxiliary mask openings 210 have a grid shape because of convenience of manufacturing and processing, but they need not necessarily be disposed in the grid shape such as when sizes of the structural auxiliary mask openings 210 are different or irregular ([0078], the claimed “wherein the at least one first deposition opening includes a plurality of first deposition openings, the at least one second deposition opening includes a plurality of second deposition openings, and the plurality of first deposition openings are disposed in a different shape from the plurality of second deposition openings”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
The 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 ‘357, 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 ‘357 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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10, filed on 02/03/2025, of copending Application No. 18/646003 (reference application, hereafter ‘003).
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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).
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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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