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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 6/16/25 have been considered as follows.
Objections of the claims:
The objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-14,21-26,28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENICHLMAIR (US 20180372546, of record) in view of BAHABAD (US 20190056544).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, ENICHLMAIR teaches (Fig. 1A, [101-]) An optical filter, comprising:
a plurality of optical channels, wherein:
a first optical channel (e.g., P3), of the plurality of optical channels, includes:
a first mirror and a second mirror (UM, LM for P3) that are configured to reflect one or more ranges of an electromagnetic spectrum, and
a first portion of a monolithic spacer (S2) that is positioned between the first mirror and the second mirror; and
a second optical channel (e.g., P4), of the plurality of optical channels, includes:
a third mirror and a fourth mirror (UM. LM for P4) that are configured to reflect one or more ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum, and
a second portion of the monolithic spacer that is positioned between the third mirror and the fourth mirror (Fig. 1A).
ENICHLMAIR does not explicitly teach the first optical channel and the second optical channel configured to be disposed over a single sensor element of a plurality of sensor elements.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, BAHABAD teaches a first optical channel and a second optical channel (Fig. 1B, 12a and 12b) configured to be disposed over a single sensor element of a plurality of sensor elements (10 in Fig. 1B as a plurality of 10 in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first optical channel and the second optical channel configured to be disposed over a single sensor element of a plurality of sensor elements as taught by BAHABAD in the teaching of ENICHLMAIR for the purposes of measuring light interference.
Regarding claim 3, ENICHLMAIR further teaches The optical filter of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first portion of the monolithic spacer is different than a thickness of the second portion of the monolithic spacer (Fig. 1A, the total thickness of the spacers are different for different channels, since all the spacers use the same material, they can be considered as a single layer as well).
Regarding claim 4, ENICHLMAIR further teaches The optical filter of claim 1, wherein the first mirror and the third mirror are disposed over a same side of the monolithic spacer,
wherein the first mirror and the third mirror are each configured to reflect a same range of the electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 1A, as FP there are some common wavelengths being reflected by both).
Regarding claim 5, ENICHLMAIR further teaches The optical filter of claim 1, wherein the first mirror and the third mirror are disposed over a same side of the monolithic spacer,
wherein the first mirror and the third mirror are configured to reflect different ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum (as they have different FP structure for each channel).
Regarding claim 6, ENICHLMAIR further teaches (Fig. 2) The optical filter of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic spectrum comprises at least one of:
one or more portions of ultraviolet light;
one or more portions of visible light;
one or more portions of near-infrared light;
one or more portions of short-wave infrared light;
one or more portions of mid-wave infrared light; or
one or more portions of long-wave infrared light.
Regarding claim 7, ENICHLMAIR further teaches The optical filter of claim 1, wherein:
the first mirror is configured to reflect a first range of the electromagnetic spectrum;
the second mirror is configured to reflect a second range of the electromagnetic spectrum;
the third mirror is configured to reflect a third range of the electromagnetic spectrum;
the fourth mirror is configured to reflect a fourth range of the electromagnetic spectrum; and
the monolithic spacer is configured to transmit greater than a threshold percentage of light that has a wavelength that is within each of the first range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the second range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the third range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the fourth range of the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g., Fig. 2G, there are some overlapping wavelengths between different channels).
Regarding claim 8, ENICHLMAIR further teaches The optical filter of claim 1, wherein the monolithic spacer is formed using an etching procedure (product-by-process claim which does not differentiate the structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art).
Regarding claims 9-10,12-13,21-26, mutatis mutandis, ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 1,3-8 rejection above (Fig. 1A has multi-channels).
Regarding claim 11, ENICHLMAIR in view of Williams teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach a difference between a thickness of the particular portion of the monolithic spacer and a thickness of another portion, of the one or more other portions, of the monolithic spacer is less than or equal to 10 nanometers (nm).
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the difference is less than or equal to 10 nm would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having multiple channels for a specific wavelength for different locations and/or improving sensitivity by reducing the noise through averaging (so the difference is zero).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD by having the difference is less than or equal to 10 nm for the purposes of having multiple channels for a specific wavelength for different locations and/or improving sensitivity by reducing the noise through averaging.
Regarding claim 14, ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach the maximum dimension width of the particular sensor element is less than or equal to 6 microns.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the maximum dimension width of the particular sensor element is less than or equal to 6 microns would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of compact design.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD by having the maximum dimension width of the particular sensor element is less than or equal to 6 microns for the purposes of compact design.
Regarding claims 28, ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the first optical channel and the second optical channel each have a maximum width that is less than or equal to 6 microns.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the first optical channel and the second optical channel each have a maximum width that is less than or equal to 6 microns would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of compact design.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of ENICHLMAIR in view of BAHABAD by having the first optical channel and the second optical channel each have a maximum width that is less than or equal to 6 microns for the purposes of compact design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234