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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 28, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on May 13, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 2019/0079339) in view of Le Masson et al. (US 6,503,636 - herein LeMasson).
As to claim 1, Fujii teaches an optical interference filter (Fujii Fig. 2 - 10) comprising a substrate (Fujii Fig. 2 - 20);
a set of layers that are disposed on the substrate (Fujii Fig. 2 - 40) wherein the set of layers includes:
a first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a, 41b) wherein the first subset of layers comprises an AlN material (Fujii para. [0052] - high index layers (41a, 41b) include nitrides of Al);
a second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42a, 42b);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a, 42a, 41b, 42b);
and wherein the alternating layer order comprises the AlN material layer of the first subset of layers arranged to be in contact with the material of a first layer of the second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42b, 41b; para. [0052] - as discussed, layer (41b) is a high index > 1.6, which qualifies as an AlN layer (n ≈ 2 @ 633nm); layer (42b) is a low index and can be chosen from the various oxides);
the material of a second layer of the second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42a) arranged to be in contact with the AlN material (Fujii Fig. 2 - layer (42a) on AlN layer (41b));
and the AlN material of a second layer of the first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a) arranged to be in contact with the material of the second layer of the second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a, 42a).
Fujii doesn’t clarify if the AlN is tensile and the second subset layers are compressive.
In the same field of endeavor LeMasson teaches providing interference filters with AlN and oxide layers with tensile AlN layers and compressive other oxide layers (LeMasson col. 4:5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tensile/compressive alternation since, as taught by LeMasson, such layering allows for compensating/canceling stresses in the filter layering (LeMasson col. 4:5-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii further teaches a thickness of the substrate is greater than or equal to 50 microns (Fujii para. [0046]).
As to claim 3, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii further teaches the substrate comprises glass, polymer (Fujii para. [0044]).
As to claim 4, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii further teaches the compressive material includes at least one of Si, SiN, Ta2O5, Nb2O5, TiO2, Al2O3, ZrO2 (Fujii para. [0052]).
As to claim 5, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches an additional layer is disposed on the set of layers (LeMasson col. 4:50-56), the additional layer comprises a silicon dioxide SiO2 material (LeMasson col. 4:50-56).
As to claim 6, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (Fujii Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii further teaches the structure of claim 1, thus claim 8 directed to the product-by-process (PxP) of magnetron sputtering does not structurally differentiate the device (MPEP 2113). However, Fujii teaches using a magnetron sputtering process (Fujii para. [0089]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii and LeMasson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (US 2019/0330054 - Ackermann; of record).
As to claim 7, Fujii in view of LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujii teaches providing a first portion of the set of layers on a first surface of the substrate (Fujii Fig. 2), but doesn’t specify a second portion of the set of layers is disposed on a second surface of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor Ackermann teaches providing interference filters with alternating layers on first and second sides of a substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - 9; para. [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the layers on both surfaces of a substrate since, as taught by Ackermann, such structure allows for the creating of various interference filters (Ackermann Fig. 2; para. [0061]-[0063]).
Claims 10-13, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (cited above), LeMasson (cited above) and Ockenfuss et al. (US 2006/0087739 - Ockenfuss; of record).
As to claim 10, Fujii teaches an optical interference filter (Fujii Fig. 2 - 10) comprising
a first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a, 41b) wherein the first subset of layers comprises an AlN material (Fujii para. [0052] - high index layers (41a, 41b) include nitrides of Al);
a second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42a, 42b);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a, 42a, 41b, 42b);
and wherein the alternating layer order comprises
a first layer of the first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41b) to be in contact with the material of a first layer of the second subset of layer (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42b),
a material of a second layer of the second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42a) to be in contact with the first layer of the first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41b),
a second layer of the first subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 41a) arranged to be in contact with the material of the second layer of the second subset of layers (Fujii Fig. 2 - 42a).
Fujii doesn’t clarify if the AlN is tensile with between 0 and 800 MPa and the second subset layers are compressive.
In the same field of endeavor LeMasson teaches providing interference filters with AlN and oxide layers with tensile AlN layers and compressive other oxide layers (LeMasson col. 4:5-11) and Ockenfuss teaches interference filters having compensating tensile stress between 0 and 800 MPa (Ockenfuss para. [0045], claims 14, 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tensile/compressive alternation since, as taught by LeMasson, such layering allows for compensating/canceling stresses in the filter layering (LeMasson col. 4:5-11) and to provide 0-800 MPa since, as taught by Ockenfuss, such pressures allow for low net stress films (Ockenfuss para. [0045]).
As to claim 11, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Fujii teaches the interference filter is one of a bandpass, short-wave pass, AR filter (Fujii Fig. 3; para. [0008]).
As to claim 12, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson further teaches the net stress of the set of layers is approximately zero MPa (LeMasson col. 4:7-12).
As to claim 13, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Fujii further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (Fujii Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Fujii further teaches the structure of claim 1, thus claim 8 directed to the product-by-process (PxP) of magnetron sputtering does not structurally differentiate the device (MPEP 2113). However, Fujii teaches using a magnetron sputtering process (Fujii para. [0089]).
As to claim 21, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson/Ockenfuss further teaches the stress of the first subset of layers is a net stress of the first subset of layers (LeMasson col. 4:7-12; Ockenfuss para. [0045], claims 14, 15).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, LeMasson, Ockenfuss as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of (US 2019/0330054 - Ackermann; of record).
As to claim 14, Fujii in view of LeMasson, Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Fujii teaches providing a first portion of the set of layers on a first surface of the substrate (Fujii Fig. 2), but doesn’t specify a second portion of the set of layers is disposed on a second surface of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor Ackermann teaches providing interference filters with alternating layers on first and second sides of a substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - 9; para. [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the layers on both surfaces of a substrate since, as taught by Ackermann, such structure allows for the creating of various interference filters (Ackermann Fig. 2; para. [0061]-[0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ockenfuss (US 10,168,459; 2018/0149781); Fujii (US 11,137,521) are cited as additional examples of interference filters.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights