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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025; February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
While Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the art of Ackermann and Giauque appear to be a piecemeal analysis as discussed in the action mailed February 26, 2026,he current Office Action provides new rejections in view of new art and a remapped interpretation Ackermann and Giauque.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks (March 27, 2025; November 25, 2024) as they pertain to the previous drawing objections. Applicant appears to misunderstand MPEP 608.02, 35 USC 113; CFR 1.81, and CFR 1.83.
MPEP 608.02, along with 35 USC 113 and CFR 1.81 state that Applicant furnish drawings where necessary for understanding of the invention. This is a statement as to why Applicant is required to file drawings. MPEP 608.02, 35 USC 113 and CFR 1.81 are not directed to the content or standard(s) of those drawings.
CFR 1.83 (MPEP 608.02(d)) is directed to the content of those drawings; CFR 1.84 (MPEP 608.02.V) is directed to the standards of those drawings.
In the instant application, Applicant has furnished drawings (September 28, 2021), therefore Applicant acknowledges that drawings are in fact required for an understanding of the invention and has complied with 35 US 113 and CFR 1.81.
What Applicant has not done is comply with CFR 1.83(a) as to the content of those drawings. In the instant case, Applicant has not complied with CFR 1.83(a) because not all the claimed subject matter is shown in the drawings. Specifically, the claimed subject matter of claim 7.
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 “a first portion of the set of layers is disposed on a first surface of the substrate and a second portion of the set of layers is disposed on a second surface of the substrate” (claim 7) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Le Masson et al. (US 6,504,636 - LeMasson).
As to claim 1, LeMasson teaches an optical interference filter (LeMasson col. 1:5-10) comprising a substrate (LeMasson col. 2:62-67; col. 3:1-10);
a set of layers that are disposed on the substrate (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN/ZnO/Ag/AlN/ZnO/Ag/AlN) wherein the set of layers includes
a first subset of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN), the first subset of layers comprises aluminum nitride (AlN) material (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN), wherein a stress of the first subset of layers is configured to be tensile (LeMasson col. 4:7-12);
a second subset of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - ZnO or ZnO/Ag)
wherein the second subset of layers comprises at least one other material (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - ZnO or ZnO/Ag);
wherein a stress of the second subset of layers is configured to be compressive (LeMasson col. 4:7-12);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - where AlN alternates with ZnO or [ZnO/Ag]);
wherein the alternating layer order comprises a first tensile layer (T1) of the first subset of layers arranged on a first compressive layer (C1) of the second subset of layers, a second compressive layer (C2) of the second subset of layers arranged on the first tensile layer (T1), and a second tensile layer (T2) of the first subset of layers arranged on the second compressive (C2) layer (LeMasson col. 3:1-10; col. 4:7-12; see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches a thickness of the substrate is greater than or equal to 50um (LeMasson col. 2:5-12; col. 5:15-20; col. 5:64-67).
As to claim 3, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches the substrate comprises glass, polymer (LeMasson col. 2:5-20; col. 4:56-64).
As to claim 4, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches the at least one other material includes at least silicon dioxide SiO2 (LeMasson col. 4:50-56).
As to claim 5, 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, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (LeMasson col. 3:1-10).
As to claim 8, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson 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, LeMasson does teach the magnetron sputtering process (LeMasson col. 3:30-34).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeMasson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (US 2019/0330054 - Ackermann; of record).
As to claim 7, LeMasson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and LeMasson further teaches a first portion or the set of layers is disposed on a first surface of the substrate (LeMasson col. 3:1-7) 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 10-15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeMasson (cited above) in view of Ockenfuss et al. (US 2006/0087739 - Ockenfuss).
As to claim 10, LeMasson teaches an optical interference filter (LeMasson col. 1:5-10) comprising
a set of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN/ZnO/Ag/AlN/ZnO/Ag/AlN) that includes:
a first subset of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN), the first subset of layers comprises aluminum nitride (AlN) material (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - AlN), wherein a stress of the first subset of layers is configured to be tensile (LeMasson col. 4:7-12);
a second subset of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - ZnO or ZnO/Ag)
wherein a stress of the second subset of layers is configured to be compressive (LeMasson col. 4:7-12);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (LeMasson col. 3:1-10 - where AlN alternates with ZnO or [ZnO/Ag]);
wherein the alternating layer order comprises a first layer (T1) of the first subset of layers arranged on a first layer (C1) of the second subset of layers, a second layer (C2) of the second subset of layers arranged on the first layer (T1) of the first subset of layers, and a second layer (T2) of the first subset of layers arranged on the second layer (C2) of the second subset of layers (LeMasson col. 3:1-10; col. 4:7-12; see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While LeMasson teaches the stress of the first subset of layers is tensile, and thus as per Applicant’s convention of tensile being +MPa, LeMasson therefore teaches an overlapping range (LeMasson col. 3:1-7 - stress being tensile which is > 0MPa; and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). LeMasson does not specify the specific stress being between 0 and 800 MPa. In the same field of endeavor 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 before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the stress between 0 and 800 MPa since, as taught by Ockenfuss, such pressures allow for low net stress films (Ockenfuss para. [0045]).
As to claim 11, LeMasson in view of Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson further teaches the optical filter is one of bandpass, long-wave, and anti-reflection (LeMasson col. 1:5-10).
As to claim 12, LeMasson in view of 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, LeMasson in view of Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of a substrate (LeMasson col. 3:1-10).
As to claim 14, LeMasson in view of Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson/Ockenfuss further teaches a first portion of the set of layers are disposed on a first surface of a substrate (LeMasson col. 3:1-10; Ockenfuss Fig. 4 - 10, 12a, 12b; para. [0054]) and Ockenfuss further teaches a second portion of the set of layers are disposed on a second surface of the substrate (Ockenfuss Fig. 4 - 10, 12a, 12b; para. [0054]).
As to claim 15, LeMasson in view of Ockenfuss teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and LeMasson/Ocke 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, LeMasson does teach the magnetron sputtering process (LeMasson col. 3:30-34).
As to claim 21, LeMasson in view of 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).
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackermann et al. (US 2019/0330054 - Ackermann; of record) in view of Giauque et al. (US 2009/0090617 - Giauque; of record).
As to claim 1, Ackermann teaches an optical interference filter (Ackermann Figs. 1, 4; para. [0001]) comprising a substrate (Ackermann Fig. 1 - 3; Fig. 4 - 3) and a set of layers that are disposed on the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 1 - 92, 93; Fig. 4 - 96, 97; para. [0071]);
the set of layers includes a first subset of layers (Ackermann Fig. 1 - first subset either layers (92) or layers (93); Fig. 4 - first subset either layers (96) or layers (97)), wherein the first subset of layers comprises aluminum nitride (AlN) (Ackermann para. [0065]);
wherein the second subset of layers comprises at least one other material (Ackermann Fig. 1 - other of subset (92) or (93); Fig. 4 - other of subset (96) or (97); para. [0065]);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (Ackermann Fig. 1 - first (e.g. 92) and second (e.g. 93) being alternating; Fig. 4 - first (e.g. 96) and second (e.g. 97) subsets of layers being alternating).
Ackermann does not specify the layers being tensile or compressive such that the layers alternate a first tensile on a first compressive, a second compressive on the first tensile, a second tensile on the second compressive.
In the same field of endeavor Giauque teaches alternating layers of compression and tensile stress (Giauque para. [0012], [0022], [0106]). 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 alternating tensile/compression stress since, as taught by Giauque, such stresses allow for high mechanical integrity and controllable internal stress (Giauque para. [0022]).
As to claim 2, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the thickness of the substrate being > 50um. Such size represents a scaling up/down of the glass substrate of Ackermann (Ackermann para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to satisfy the substrate thickness > 50um, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
As to claim 3, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further teaches the substrate comprises a glass substrate (Ackermann para. [0054]).
As to claim 4, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further teaches the at least one other material comprises silicon nitride or silicon carbide (Ackermann para. [0065]).
As to claim 5, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further taches an additional layer is disposed on the set of layers and wherein the additional layer comprises a silicon dioxide (Ackermann Fig. 4 - 95; para. [0018]-[0019]).
As to claim 6, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 4).
As to claim 7, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further teaches a first portion of the set of layers is disposed on a first surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - top (9) on (3)) and a second portion of the set of layers is disposed on a second surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - bottom (9) on (3)).
As to claim 8, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ackermann further the set of layers are formed on the substrate using a magnetron sputtering process (Ackermann para. [0075]).
As to claim 10, Ackermann teaches an optical interference filter (Ackermann Figs. 1, 4; para. [0001]) comprising
a set of layers (Ackermann Fig. 1 - 92, 93; Fig. 4 - 96, 97; para. [0071]);
that includes a first subset of layers (Ackermann Fig. 1 - first subset either layers (92) or layers (93); Fig. 4 - first subset either layers (96) or layers (97)), wherein the first subset of layers comprises aluminum nitride (AlN) (Ackermann para. [0065]);
a second subset of layers Ackermann Fig. 1 - other of subset (92) or (93); Fig. 4 - other of subset (96) or (97); para. [0065]);
wherein the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (Ackermann Fig. 1 - first (e.g. 92) and second (e.g. 93) being alternating; Fig. 4 - first (e.g. 96) and second (e.g. 97) subsets of layers being alternating).
Ackermann does not specify the first subset having stress 0-800 MPa, the second subset being compressive such that the layers alternate a first tensile on a first compressive, a second compressive on the first tensile, a second tensile on the second compressive.
In the same field of endeavor Giauque teaches alternating layers of compression stress and (Giauque para. [0012], [0022], [0106]) and neutral or tensile stress (e.g. stress ≥ 0 MPa) (Giauque para. [0012], [0022], [0106]). 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 alternating tensile (e.g. 0-800 MPa) and compression stress since, as taught by Giauque, such stresses allow for high mechanical integrity and controllable internal stress (Giauque para. [0022]).
As to claim 11, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further teaches the interference filter comprises a bandpass filter or a beam splitter (Ackermann para. [0064]).
As to claim 12, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further teaches the net stress of the set of layers is approximately zero MPa (Ackermann para. [0106] - neutral stress).
As to claim 13, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further teaches the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further teaches a first portion of the set of layers is disposed on a first surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - top (9) on (3)) and a second portion of the set of layers is disposed on a second surface of the substrate (Ackermann Fig. 2 - bottom (9) on (3)).
As to claim 15, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further the set of layers are formed on the substrate using a magnetron sputtering process (Ackermann para. [0075]).
As to claim 21, Ackernann in view of Giauque teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Ackermann further teaches the stress of the first subset of layers is a net stress of the first subset of layers (Ackermann para. [0106] - neutral/tensile stress).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang (US 2006/0274420); Yano et al. (US 2005/0018302); Bernitzki et al. (EP 1749222); Fujimura (JP H08-254612) are cited as additional examples of interference filters with alternating tensile and compression stressed layers.
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 March 11, 2026