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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of February 27, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Nam reference.
The Office notes that Applicant’s statement on page 8 of the Remarks: “During the interview [of January 27, 2026] … [t]he Examiner agreed that the proposed amendments, substantially included in this response, appear to overcome the applied references” is incorrect.
Firstly, the newly-presented claim limitations (of February 27, 2026) were not discussed, nor even slated for discussion, in the interview of January 27, 2026 (see Interview Summary having notification date of January 30, 2026 and the attached interview agenda [“Office Action Appendix” in the file wrapper] supplied to the Examiner prior to the interview). Because the newly-presented claim language (of February 27, 2026) was not presented in the interview agenda, nor discussed during the interview, it is impossible for the Examiner to have commented on it with respect to overcoming the rejections based upon the previously-cited references. Secondly, if there had been any discussion of claim amendments which would overcome such rejections, the Interview Summary would contain a clear statement to this effect. However, no such statement appears in the Interview Summary.
Applicant should refrain from automatically including the statement of page 8 in every response to an Office Action which follows an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al., US 2017/0261368 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Nam discloses: An optical device, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a bandpass filter (color filter array 10 including Mie resonance particles 12; paragraphs [0049], [0050] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Nam) configured to:
pass first red light that is within a first wavelength range that is less than a wavelength threshold (transmittance occurs across an entire visible [400 nm to 700 nm] wavelength range, as shown by the “R” line [solid line] in the graph of FIG. 8 of Nam, including a portion of the spectrum [620 nm to 665 nm] which may be identified as “first red light”, wherein 665 nm may be identified as the claimed “wavelength threshold” [upper bound of the first red light]; paragraph [0064] and FIG. 8 of Nam);
reflect second red light that is within a second wavelength range that is greater than or equal to the wavelength threshold (reflectance occurs across an entire visible [400 nm to 700 nm] wavelength range, as shown by the “R” line [solid line] in the graph of FIG. 8 of Nam [transmittance is less than 1.0 across all wavelengths], including a portion of the spectrum [665 nm to 700 nm] which may be identified as “second red light”, wherein 665 nm is the claimed “wavelength threshold” [lower bound of the second red light]; paragraph [0064] and FIG. 8 of Nam; the Office notes that the phenomenon of “Mie scattering” includes scattering of incident radiation in forward directions but also in backwards directions, aka “backscatter”, i.e., reflection); and
reflect some or all of one or more of green light or blue light (reflectance occurs across an entire visible [400 nm to 750 nm] wavelength range, as shown by the “R” line [solid line] in the graph of FIG. 8 of Nam [transmittance is less than 1.0 across all wavelengths], including a portion of the spectrum [450 nm to 570 nm] which includes green light and blue light; paragraph [0064] and FIG. 8 of Nam; the Office notes that the phenomenon of “Mie scattering” includes scattering of incident radiation in forward directions but also in backwards directions, aka “backscatter”, i.e., reflection); and
an optical sensor configured to: generate sensor data regarding the first red light that passes through the bandpass filter to the optical sensor (color filter array 10 may be installed in an image sensor, e.g., image sensor 100 having light sensing layer 110; paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0060], [0068], [0069], [0073] and FIGS. 1, 2, 12 of Nam); and
at least one of: a glass substrate, an adhesive layer, an array of microlenses, or an antireflection coating (transparent dielectric 11 may be formed of siloxane-based spin on glass [SOG]; paragraph [0054] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 2, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the wavelength threshold is between 660 and 670 nanometers range (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1, the claimed “wavelength threshold” may be identified as 665 nm; paragraph [0064] and FIG. 8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 3, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the bandpass filter comprises a set of absorptive layers that is configured to: absorb a particular percentage of light that transmits through the set of absorptive layers (color filters 10A, 10B, 10C are predominantly transmissive of certain wavelength ranges [colors] and are predominantly reflective and absorptive of other wavelength ranges [colors]; paragraphs [0050]-[0053], [0056], [0064] and FIGS. 1, 2, 8, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 4, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses: wherein the set of absorptive layers are positioned closer to an input surface of the bandpass filter than to an output surface of the bandpass filter (the color filters 10A, 10B, 10C of color filter array 10 are positioned closer to microlenses 130 than to sensing layer 110; FIG. 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 5, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical device comprises the glass substrate, wherein the glass substrate is disposed on an output surface of the bandpass filter (transparent dielectric 11 may be formed of siloxane-based spin on glass [SOG] and disposed within color filter array 10 which receives light that has been output from microlenses 130 towards sensing layer 110; paragraphs [0054], [0068], [0069] and FIGS. 1, 2, 12 of Nam), and wherein a difference between a refractive index associated with the bandpass filter and a refractive index associated with the glass substrate satisfies a refractive index difference threshold (the refractive index of the Mie resonance particles 12 may be greater than that of the transparent dielectric 11; paragraph [0054] of Nam).
Regarding Claim 7, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical device comprises the array of microlenses, and wherein: the array of microlenses is disposed over a surface of the bandpass filter; and the array of microlenses is configured to alter light that enters or exits the bandpass filter (microlenses 130 are disposed over a surface of color filter array 10, wherein the plurality of microlenses 130 are arranged so as to focus the incident light on respectively corresponding pixels 110A-110C; paragraph [0069] and FIG. 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 8, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical device comprises the antireflective coating, wherein: the antireflective coating is disposed on an output surface of the bandpass filter (antireflection layer 120 is located at a surface at which light has been output from color filter array 10; paragraph [0068] and FIG. 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 9, Nam discloses: A bandpass filter, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a first set of layers configured to pass first red light that is within a first wavelength range (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of second color filter 10B may be identified as the claimed “first set of layers”, and a first wavelength range may be identified as a range which includes blue light, green light, and the lower portion of red light wavelengths [450 nm to 665 nm], wherein red light [620 nm to 700 nm] predominantly passes through the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of second color filter 10B, and thus light within a range of 620 nm to 665 nm [lower-wavelength red light] is passed; see paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam, but see especially FIG. 8 of Nam);
a second set of layers configured to reflect other light that is within at least one subrange of the first wavelength range (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10A may be identified as the claimed “second set of layers”, and the subrange may be identified as blue and green light [450 nm to 570 nm] which is a subrange of the range 450 nm to 665 nm, wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10A predominantly transmit green light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb red light and blue light; see paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam, but see especially FIG. 7 of Nam);
wherein the at least one subrange of the first wavelength range is associated with at least one of a green wavelength range or a blue wavelength range (blue and green light [450 nm to 570 nm] is a subrange of the range 450 nm to 665 nm [first wavelength range]; FIG. 7 of Nam); and
a third set of layers configured to reflect second red light that is within a second wavelength range (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10C may be identified as the claimed “third set of layers”, and the second wavelength range may be identified as 665 nm to 800 nm [upper portion of red light wavelengths and lower portion of infrared wavelengths], wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10C predominantly transmit blue light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb green light and red light [620 nm to 700 nm] and thus such layers reflect light within the range of 665 nm to 700 nm [upper portion of red light wavelengths]; see paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam, but see especially FIG. 6 of Nam);
wherein: the first wavelength range is less than a wavelength threshold (the first wavelength range [450 nm to 665 nm] has 665 nm as its upper end, and thus 665 nm may be identified as the claimed “wavelength threshold”; FIGS. 6-8 of Nam); and
the second wavelength range is greater than or equal to the wavelength threshold (the second wavelength range [665 nm to 800 nm] has 665 nm as its lower end, wherein 665 nm is identified above as the claimed “wavelength threshold”; FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 10, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the wavelength threshold is between 660 and 670 nanometers (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 9, the wavelength of 665 nm may be identified as the claimed “wavelength threshold”; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 11, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the first wavelength range comprises a visible wavelength range (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 9, the first wavelength range may be identified as a range which includes blue light, green light, and the lower portion of red light wavelengths [450 nm to 665 nm] and thus comprises a visible wavelength range; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam) and the second wavelength range comprises a red wavelength range and an infrared wavelength range (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 9, the second wavelength range may be identified as 665 nm to 800 nm [upper portion of red light wavelengths and lower portion of infrared wavelengths]; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 12, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the at least one subrange of the first wavelength range is associated with the blue wavelength range (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 9, the first wavelength range may be identified as a range which includes blue light, green light, and the lower portion of red light wavelengths [450 nm to 665 nm], wherein blue light [450 nm to 495 nm] is within such range; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 13, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: further comprising a fourth set of layers configured to absorb light in the first wavelength range (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10D may be identified as the claimed “fourth set of layers”, wherein such layers predominantly transmit green light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb red light and blue light, wherein blue light is within the first wavelength range [450 nm to 665 nm]; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 14, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the fourth set of layers are positioned closer to an input surface of the bandpass filter than to an output surface of the bandpass filter (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10D are positioned closer to microlenses 130 than to sensing layer 110; FIGS. 1, 2, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 15, Nam discloses: A bandpass filter, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
at least one first set of layers (the multi-layer structure of color filter array 10 which includes transparent dielectric layers 11, the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filters 10A, 10B, 10C, and the isolation walls 13; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam) configured to:
pass first red light that is within a first wavelength range (a first wavelength range may be identified as the range which includes green light and lower-wavelength red light [450 nm to 664 nm], wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of second color filter 10B predominantly transmit red light; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIG. 8 of Nam);
reflect second red light that is within a second wavelength range that is different from the first wavelength range (the second wavelength range may be identified as 665 nm to 700 nm [upper portion of red light wavelengths], wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10C predominantly transmit blue light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb green light and red light and thus such layers reflect light within the range of 665 nm to 700 nm [upper portion of red light wavelengths]; see paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam, but see especially FIG. 6 of Nam); and
reflect other light that is within at least one subrange of the first wavelength range (green light [495 nm to 570 nm] is a subrange of the range which includes green light and lower-wavelength red light [450 nm to 664 nm], wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10C predominantly transmit blue light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb green light and red light; see paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam, but see especially FIG. 6 of Nam);
wherein the at least one subrange of the first wavelength range is at least one of a green wavelength range or a blue wavelength range (green light [495 nm to 570 nm] is a subrange of the range which includes green light and lower-wavelength red light [495 nm to 664 nm]; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam); and
a second set of layers configured to: absorb a particular percentage of light in the first wavelength range (the multi-layer structure of color filter array 10 which includes transparent dielectric layers 11, the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10D, and the isolation walls 13, wherein the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filter 10D predominantly transmit green light, and thus predominantly reflect and absorb red light and blue light, wherein blue light [450 nm to 495 nm] is within the first wavelength range [450 nm to 664 nm]; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 1-4, 6-8, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 16, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein: a wavelength threshold is between 660 and 670 nanometers, the first wavelength range is less than the wavelength threshold, and the second wavelength range is greater than or equal to the wavelength threshold (a wavelength threshold may be identified as 665 nm, and as explained above in the rejection of Claim 15, the first wavelength range may be identified as the range which includes green light and lower-wavelength red light [450 nm to 664 nm, which is less than 665 nm], and the second wavelength range may be identified as the range which includes higher-wavelength red light [665 nm to 700 nm, which is greater than 665 nm]; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 18, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein the second set of layers are positioned closer to an input surface of the bandpass filter than to an output surface of the bandpass filter (the layers of Mie resonance particles 12 of color filters 10A, 10B, 10C are positioned closer to microlenses 130 than to sensing layer 110; FIGS. 1, 2, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 19, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein a difference between a refractive index associated with the first set of layers and a refractive index associated with the second set of layers satisfies a refractive index difference threshold (the refractive index of the Mie resonance particles 12 may be greater than that of the transparent dielectric 11; paragraph [0054] and FIGS. 1-4, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 20, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein the second set of layers comprises at least one of: tantalum; nickel; copper; aluminum; or niobium (isolation wall 13 may be formed of a metallic material such as aluminum or nickel; paragraph [0056] and FIGS. 1-4, 12 of Nam).
Regarding Claim 21, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein the first red light includes red light associated with a wavelength that is greater than or equal to approximately 640 nanometers and less than approximately 670 nanometers (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 15, a first wavelength range may be identified as the range which includes green light and lower-wavelength red light [450 nm to 664 nm], wherein lower-wavelength red light has a wavelength range of approximately 620 nm to 665 nm; paragraphs [0060], [0064] and FIGS. 6-8 of Nam).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Simpson et al., US 2003/0224182 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 6, Nam discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to further disclose: wherein the optical device comprises the adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is disposed on an input surface of the bandpass filter; and the adhesive layer is configured to attach the input surface of the bandpass filter to a display screen.
Simpson is related to Nam with respect to optical filtering device.
Simpson teaches: wherein the optical device comprises the adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is disposed on an input surface of the bandpass filter; and the adhesive layer is configured to attach the input surface of the bandpass filter to a display screen (filters adhesively secured to a desired substrate such as the glazing of a window or the screen of a computer monitor, wherein such surface would receive an input of light for optical filtering; paragraphs [0252]-[0254] and FIGS. 16, 17 of Simpson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the adhesive layer of Simpson for the device of Nam because such adhesive layer enables the optical filter to be securely attached to a screen of a display device, as taught in paragraphs [0252]-[0254] of Simpson.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights