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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 10, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 22, and 37.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 22, and 37 and has canceled claim 4.
Claims 11-21, 24-26, and 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 27, 2023.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 22, 23, 27-29 and 37 remain pending in this application.
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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Najiminaini et al (US 2018/0170093 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Tsang et al (US 2013/0163005 A1), US patent issued to van Wijk (PN. 5,381,232) and US patent application publication by Hayes et al (US 20090087669 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Najiminaini et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a pixelated Fabry-Perot filter that serve as the spectral filter that is comprised of a first unit filter (such as IF1, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)), having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range, that is included in a first filter array (such as IF1 to IF4), comprising a plurality of first unit filters. Najiminaini et al teaches that the pixelated Fabry-Perot filter comprises a second unit filter (such as IF5) that has a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range. The first unit filter comprises two first metal layers (204 and 208) provide spaced apart from each other and may comprise a first metal, (please see paragraph [0030]), and a first cavity (206) provided between the two first metal reflective layers. The second unit filter comprises two second metal reflective layers (204 and 208) provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a second metal and a second cavity (206) provided between two second metal reflective layers.
Najiminaini et al teaches that the at least two first units filters (IF1 to IF4) are included in the first filter array comprising a plurality of first unit filters (IF1 to IF4, please see Figures 2(A) and 2(B)), and having different center wavelengths included in the first wavelength range based on the different thickness of the first cavities (206, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)).
The thickness of the cavities for the first filter units (IF1 to IF4, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)) and the thickness of the cavities for the second filter units (IF5 to IF8) are different which means the first wavelength range and the second wavelength range are different.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first metal is different from the second metal.
Tsang in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical sensing device having an optical filter structure, serves as the spectral filter, that is comprised of a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the first unit filter (Figure 5, for photodiode 55) having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range, such as UV wavelength range, and a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the second unit filter (Figure 5, for the photodiodes 51, 52 or 53) having a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range, such as ambient color wavelength range, (please see paragraph [0026]). The first unit filter is comprised of two first metal reflective layers (551 and 553, Figure 5) provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a first metal such as aluminum (Al, please see paragraph [0030]) and a first cavity (552) provided between the two first metal reflective layers. The second unit filter that is comprised of two second metal reflective layers (522 and 532, 513 and 522, or 511 and 513), spaced apart from each other and comprising a second metal such as silver (Ag, please see paragraph [0026]) and a second cavity (531, 521 or 512) between the two second metal reflective layer, (please see paragraphs [0026], [0027] and [0030]). The first metal (Al) is different from the second metal (Ag) in order for the first Fabry Perot filters and the second Fabry Perot filter to filter for different wavelength ranges such as UV wavelength range and visible wavelength range. .
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art at time of invention was made to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the pixelated Fabry-Perot filter of Najiminaini et al to make the first metal different second metal for the benefit of allowing the first Fabry Perot filter units and the second Fabry Perot filter units to filter different wavelength ranges of the incident light.
Claim 1 further includes the phrase “wherein the first unit filter further comprises a first dielectric layer that is provided above the first cavity and a second dielectric layer provided below the first cavity”.
These references do not teach such feature explicitly. Van Wijk in the same field of endeavor teaches a Fabry Perot filter that is comprised of a pair of metal mirrors or reflectors (6) separated by a gap or cavity, (3, please see Figure 5). Van Wijk teaches that each of the metal mirror has a dielectric coating (7) that covers a surface of the metal mirror (6) that is facing away from the gap or the cavity. As shown in Figure 5, a first dielectric coating or layer (7) is provided above the first cavity or gap (3) and a second dielectric coating or layer (7) that is provided below the first cavity or gap (3). Van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may has the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) that leads to the advantage of peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon, (please see the abstract). The peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon corresponds to the center wavelength of the etalon or the filter unit. The dielectric coating should be transparent to the wavelength used, particularly transparent to the center wavelength of the filter unit in order to achieve high transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon or unit filter.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of van Wijk to provide a dielectric coating or layer deposited on a surface of the metal mirrors or reflectors of the Fabry Perot unit filter for the benefit of providing anti-reflection function to the unit filter and therefore enhance the peak transmittance of the Fabry Perot etalon or the unit filter.
Claim 1 further includes the phrase “wherein the first metal reflective layers below the first cavities are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction”.
It is known in the art that for a Fabry-Perot filter, the critical factor for determining the critical wavelength that may be filtered is dependent on the refractive index value and the thickness of the cavity defined by the two reflective layers above and below the cavity. The relative position of the Fabry Perot filters does not change the filtering function of the filter. Tsang et al specifically teaches to include a plurality of Fabry Perot filters each having a pair of reflective layers and a cavity disposed between the reflective layers, (please see Figure 5) wherein the reflective layers (522, 513, 511, 551, Figure 5) each below a cavity (531, 521, 512 and 552, respectively) are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the filter device to have the specific design with reflective layers below the cavities to have different levels for the benefit of providing different design since this only involves obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the two first reflective layers comprises one of gold (Au) or titanium nitride (TiN) and wherein the two second metal reflective layers comprise one of copper (Cu), Au or TiN that is different from the two first metal reflective layers”.
Tsang teaches that the first and second reflective layers may comprise different metal materials, (please see Figure 6), that may include aluminum (Al) and silver (Ag). This reference does not teach explicitly that the first and second reflective layers may also comprise the cited metal materials. Hayes et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the reflective metal layers for a Fabry Perot type filter may be selected from a group comprises silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu) and titanium nitride (TiN), (please see paragraph [0062]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hayes et al to modify the Fabry Perot type filter of Tsang et al to make the first and second reflective layers to select different metal layers from the cited group as obvious matters of design for one skilled in the art. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Regard to claim 2, Najiminaini et al teaches that the first unit filter and the second unit filter are provided in one dimensional or two dimensional on a plane, (please see Figures 2(A) and 2(B)).
With regard to claim 3, it is noted that the central wavelength of the Fabry-Perot filter is determined by the thickness of the cavity interposed between the two reflective layers. Tsang teaches that the first center wavelength may be in the first or ultraviolet wavelength range that is shorter than the second center wavelength that may be in the second visible wavelength. It is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to design the first center wavelength in the first wavelength range being shorter than the second center wavelength in the second wavelength range.
With regard to claim 5, Najiminaini et al teaches that the second unit filter is included in a second filter array (IF5 to IF8) comprising a plurality of second unit filters having different center wavelengths.
With regard to claim 6, Tsang teaches that the spectral response or the center wavelengths of the first and second Fabry Perot filters or the first- and second-unit filter may be adjusted by the varying the thickness of the interferometric layers or the cavities, (please see paragraph [0020]).
With regard to claim 7, Najiminaini et al teaches that the first unit filter and the second unit filter each comprises Fabry Perot filter structure with two metal layers spaced apart by a cavity (206, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)). Van Wijk teaches that each of the metal mirror has a dielectric coating (7) that covers a surface of the metal mirror (6) that is facing away from the gap or the cavity. As shown in Figure 5, a first dielectric coating or layer (7) is provided above the first cavity or gap (3) and a second dielectric coating or layer (7) that is provided below the first cavity or gap (3). Van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may have the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) and the thickness and/or the effective refractive index (n) of the layer may be 0.1l/n to 0.5l/n, which means that it is adjusted based on the first center wavelength (l) of the first unit filter, (please see column 3, lines 58-65). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wijk to include a pair of dielectric layers provided above and below the cavity or gap of the second Fabry Perot filter units for the benefit of providing anti-reflection function to the filter units.
With regard to claim 8, van Wijk teaches that each of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, third dielectric layer and fourth dielectric layer comprise a single layer or multiple layers, (please see column 3).
With regard to claim 9, van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may have the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) and the thickness and/or the effective refractive index (n) of the layer may be 0.1l/n to 0.5l/n. For the wavelengths in the range of 100 nm to 700 nm, (i.e. from UV to visible light), the thickness could be about 5 nm to 170 nm for refractive index of about 2.0, which is in the claimed range.
With regard to claim 10, van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may have the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) and the thickness and/or the effective refractive index (n) may be 0.1l/n to 0.5l/n, which is adjusted based on the second center wavelength of the second unit filter.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Najiminaini et al (US 2018/0170093 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Tsang (US 2013/0163005 A1), patent issued to van Wijk (PN. 5,381,232) and US patent application publication by Hayes et al (US 2009/0087669 A1).
Claim 22 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Najiminaini et al teaches, with regard to claim 22, an optical sensing device that is comprised of an optical filter structure (100, Figure 3), serves as the spectral filter, and a sensor (302, Figure 3) serves as the pixel array configured to receive light transmitted through the spectral filter, (please see Figure 3).
Najiminaini et al teaches a pixelated Fabry-Perot filter that serve as the spectral filter that is comprised of a first unit filter (such as IF1, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)), having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range, that is included in a first filter array (such as IF1 to IF4), comprising a plurality of first unit filters, (with regard to claim 22). Najiminaini et al teaches that the pixelated Fabry-Perot filter comprises a second unit filter (such as IF5) that has a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range. The first unit filter comprises two first metal layers (204 and 208) provide spaced apart from each other and may comprise a first metal, (please see paragraph [0030]), and a first cavity (206) provided between the two first metal reflective layers. The second unit filter comprises two second metal reflective layers (204 and 208) provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a second metal and a second cavity (206) provided between two second metal reflective layers.
Najiminaini et al teaches, with regard to claim 22, at least one first unit filter is included in the first filter array comprising a plurality of first unit filters (IF1 to IF4) having different center wavelengths included in the first wavelength range based on the different thickness of the first cavities, (please see Figures 2(A) and 2(B)).
The thickness of the cavities for the first filter units (IF1 to IF4, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)) and the thickness of the cavities for the second filter units (IF5 to IF8) are different which means the first wavelength range and the second wavelength range are different.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first metal is different from the second metal.
Tsang in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical sensing device having an optical filter structure, serves as the spectral filter, that is comprised of a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the first unit filter (Figure 5, for photodiode 55) having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range such as UV wavelength range and a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the second unit filter (Figure 5, for the photodiodes 51, 52 or 53) having a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range, such as ambient visible wavelength, (please see paragraphs [0026] to [0030]). The first unit filter is comprised of two first metal reflective layers (551 and 553, Figure 5) provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a first metal such as aluminum (Al, please see paragraph [0030]) and a first cavity (552) provided between the two first metal reflective layers. The second unit filter that is comprised of two second metal reflective layers (522 and 532, 513 and 522, or 511 and 513), provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a second metal such as silver (Ag, please see paragraph [0026]) and a second cavity (531, 521 or 512) between the two second metal reflective layers. (please see paragraphs [0026], [0027] and [0030]). The first metal (Al) is different from the second metal (Ag) in order for the Fabry Perot filter units to filter different wavelength ranges respectively.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the pixelated Fabry-Perot filter of Najiminaini et al to make the first metal different second metal for the benefit of allowing the first unit filter array and the second unit filter array to effectively filter different wavelength ranges respectively.
Claim 22 further includes the phrase “wherein the first unit filter further comprises a first dielectric layer that is provided above the first cavity and a second dielectric layer provided below the first cavity. Claim 22 has been amended the include the phrase “wherein at least one of the thickness or an effective refractive index of each of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is adjusted based on the first center wavelength of the first unit filter”.
These references do not teach such features explicitly. Van Wijk in the same field of endeavor teaches a Fabry Perot filter that is comprised of a pair of metal mirrors or reflectors (6) separated by a gap or cavity, (3, please see Figure 5). Van Wijk teaches that each of the metal mirror has a dielectric coating (7) that covers a surface of the metal mirror (6) that is facing away from the gap or the cavity. As shown in Figure 5, a first dielectric coating or layer (7) is provided above the first cavity or gap (3) and a second dielectric coating or layer (7) that is provided below the first cavity or gap (3). Van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may has the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) that leads to the advantage of peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon, (please see the abstract). The peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon corresponds to the center wavelength of the etalon or the filter unit. The dielectric coating should be transparent to the wavelength used, particularly transparent to the center wavelength of the filter unit in order to achieve high transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon or unit filter.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of van Wijk to provide a dielectric coating or layer deposited on a surface of the metal mirrors or reflectors of the Fabry Perot unit filter for the benefit of providing anti-reflection function to the unit filter and therefore enhance the peak transmittance of the Fabry Perot etalon or the unit filter.
Claim 22 further includes the phrase “wherein the first metal reflective layers below the first cavities are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction”.
It is known in the art that for a Fabry-Perot filter, the critical factor for determining the critical wavelength that may be filtered is dependent on the refractive index value and the thickness of the cavity defined by the two reflective layers above and below the cavity. The relative position of the Fabry Perot filters does not change the filtering function of the filter. Tsang et al specifically teaches to include a plurality of Fabry Perot filters each having a pair of reflective layers and a cavity disposed between the reflective layers, (please see Figure 5) wherein the reflective layers (522, 513, 511, 551, Figure 5) each below a cavity (531, 521, 512 and 552, respectively) are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the filter device to have the specific design with reflective layers below the cavities to have different levels for the benefit of providing different design since this only involves obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim 22 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the two first reflective layers comprises one of gold (Au) or titanium nitride (TiN) and wherein the two second metal reflective layers comprise one of copper (Cu), Au or TiN that is different from the two first metal reflective layers”.
Tsang teaches that the first and second reflective layers may comprise different metal materials, (please see Figure 6), that may include aluminum (Al) and silver (Ag). This reference does not teach explicitly that the first and second reflective layers may also comprise the cited metal materials. Hayes et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the reflective metal layers for a Fabry Perot type filter may be selected from a group comprises silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu) and titanium nitride (TiN), (please see paragraph [0062]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hayes et al to modify the Fabry Perot type filter of Tsang et al to make the first and second reflective layers to select different metal layers from the cited group as obvious matters of design for one skilled in the art. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 23, Najiminaini et al teaches that the first unit filter and the second unit filter each comprises Fabry Perot filter structure with two metal layers spaced apart by a cavity (206, Figures 2(A) and 2(B)) may comprise dielectric layer ( please see paragraph [0030]).
Van Wijk teaches that each of the metal mirror has a dielectric coating (7) that covers a surface of the metal mirror (6) that is facing away from the gap or the cavity. As shown in Figure 5, a first dielectric coating or layer (7) is provided above the first cavity or gap (3) and a second dielectric coating or layer (7) that is provided below the first cavity or gap (3). Van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may have the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) and the thickness and/or the effective refractive index (n) of the layer may be 0.1l/n to 0.5l/n, which means that it is adjusted based on the first center wavelength (l) of the first unit filter, (please see column 3, lines 58-65). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wijk to include a pair of dielectric layers provided above and below the cavity or gap of the second Fabry Perot filter units for the benefit of providing anti-reflection function to the filter units.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najiminaini et al, Tsang, van Wijk and Hayes et al as applied to claim 22 and further in view of the patent issued to Sohn (PN. 6,365,950).
The image sensor including the spectral filter taught by Najiminaini et al in combination with the teachings of Tsang, van Wijk and Hayes et al as described in claim 22 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 27, Najiminaini et al teaches that the optical sensing device is made by CMOS technology which means it comprises CMOS active pixel sensor or sensing element, (please see paragraph [0032]). It however does not teach explicitly that the sensing device is comprised of timing controller, row decoder and output circuit. Sohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a CMOS active pixel sensor typical comprises timing controller (54, Figure 3), a row decoder (50) and output circuit (52). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Sohn to make the optical sensing device with CMOS active pixel sensor be equipped with timing controller, row decoder and output circuit to properly operate the sensor.
With regard to claims 28 and 29, Najiminaini in light of Sohn teaches that the optical sensing device may be a charge couple camera (CCD, please see paragraph [0032] ).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Najiminaini et al (US 2018/0170093 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Tsang (US 2013/0163005 A1), US patent issued to van Wijk (PN. 5,381,232) and US patent application publication by Hayes et al (US 2009/0087669 A1).
Claim 37 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Najiminaini et al teaches, with regard to claim 37, a pixelated Fabry-Perot filter, serves as the spectral filter, that is comprised of a first unit filter (IF1 or IF2, Figure 2(A) and 2(B)) having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range and a second unit filter (such as IF3 or IF4) having a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range. The second unit filter being provided adjacent to the first unit filter in a horizontal direction. The first unit filter is included in a first filter array (IF1 and IF2) comprising a plurality of first unit filters.
The first unit filter is comprised of two first metal reflective layers (204 and 206, Figure 2(B)) provided spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction and a first cavity (206) provided between the two first metal reflective layers.
The second unit filter (IF3 or IF4) that is comprised of two second metal reflective layers (204 and 208), provided spaced apart from each other in vertical direction and a second cavity (206) provided between the two second metal reflective layers.
The thickness of the cavities for the first filter units (IF1 or IF2, Figure 2(B)) and the thickness of the cavities for the second filter units (IF3 or IF4) are different which means the first wavelength range and the second wavelength range are different.
The first unit filter is included in a first filter array comprising a plurality of first unit filters (IF1 to IF4) having different center wavelengths included in the first wavelength range based on the different thickness of the cavities.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first metal is different from the second metal.
Tsang in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical sensing device having an optical filter structure, serves as the spectral filter, that is comprised of a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the first unit filter (Figure 5, for photodiode 55) having a first center wavelength in a first wavelength range such as UV wavelength range and a Fabry Perot filter unit serves as the second unit filter (Figure 5, for the photodiodes 51, 52 or 53) having a second center wavelength in a second wavelength range such as ambient visible wavelength range. The first unit filter is comprised of two first metal reflective layers (551 and 553, Figure 5) provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a first metal such as aluminum (Al, please see paragraph [0030]) and a first cavity (552) provided between the two first metal reflective layers. The second unit filter that is comprised of two second metal reflective layers (522 and 532, 513 and 522, or 511 and 513), provided spaced apart from each other and comprising a second metal such as silver (Ag, please see paragraph [0026]) and a second cavity (531, 521 or 512) between the two second metal reflective layers. (please see paragraphs [0026], [0027] and [0030]). The first metal (Al) is different from the second metal (Ag) to allow the first Fabry Perot unit filter and the second Fabry Perot unit filter to filter different wavelength ranges.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the pixelated Fabry-Perot filter of Najiminaini et al to make the first metal different second metal for the benefit of allowing the first and second Fabry Perot unit filter to filter different wavelength ranges.
Claim 37 further includes the phrase “wherein the first unit filter further comprises a first dielectric layer that is provided above the first cavity and a second dielectric layer provided below the first cavity”. Claim 37 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein at least one of the thickness or an effective refractive index of each of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is adjusted based on the first center wavelength of the first unit filter”.
These references do not teach such features explicitly. Van Wijk in the same field of endeavor teaches a Fabry Perot filter that is comprised of a pair of metal mirrors or reflectors (6) separated by a gap or cavity, (3, please see Figure 5). Van Wijk teaches that each of the metal mirror has a dielectric coating (7) that covers a surface of the metal mirror (6) that is facing away from the gap or the cavity. As shown in Figure 5, a first dielectric coating or layer (7) is provided above the first cavity or gap (3) and a second dielectric coating or layer (7) that is provided below the first cavity or gap (3). Van Wijk teaches that the dielectric coating or layer may has the function of an anti-reflection, (please see column 3, lines 42-50) that leads to the advantage of peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon, (please see the abstract). The peak transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon corresponds to the center wavelength of the etalon or the filter unit. The dielectric coating should be transparent to the wavelength used, particularly transparent to the center wavelength of the filter unit in order to achieve high transmittance of the Fabry-Perot etalon or unit filter.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of van Wijk to provide a dielectric coating or layer deposited on a surface of the metal mirrors or reflectors of the Fabry Perot unit filter for the benefit of providing anti-reflection function to the unit filter and therefore enhance the peak transmittance of the Fabry Perot etalon or the unit filter.
Claim 37 further includes the phrase “wherein the first metal reflective layers below the first cavities are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction”.
It is known in the art that for a Fabry-Perot filter, the critical factor for determining the critical wavelength that may be filtered is dependent on the refractive index value and the thickness of the cavity defined by the two reflective layers above and below the cavity. The relative position of the Fabry Perot filters does not change the filtering function of the filter. Tsang et al specifically teaches to include a plurality of Fabry Perot filters each having a pair of reflective layers and a cavity disposed between the reflective layers, (please see Figure 5) wherein the reflective layers (522, 513, 511, 551, Figure 5) each below a cavity (531, 521, 512 and 552, respectively) are at different levels with respect to each other in the vertical direction. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the filter device to have the specific design with reflective layers below the cavities to have different levels for the benefit of providing different design since this only involves obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim 37 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the two first reflective layers comprises one of gold (Au) or titanium nitride (TiN) and wherein the two second metal reflective layers comprise one of copper (Cu), Au or TiN that is different from the two first metal reflective layers”.
Tsang teaches that the first and second reflective layers may comprise different metal materials, (please see Figure 6), that may include aluminum (Al) and silver (Ag). This reference does not teach explicitly that the first and second reflective layers may also comprise the cited metal materials. Hayes et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the reflective metal layers for a Fabry Perot type filter may be selected from a group comprises silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu) and titanium nitride (TiN), (please see paragraph [0062]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hayes et al to modify the Fabry Perot type filter of Tsang et al to make the first and second reflective layers to select different metal layers from the cited group as obvious matters of design for one skilled in the art. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights