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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed September 15, 2025. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities.
In line 2, the limitation “of any of claim 1” appears to be a typographical error and should be replaced with “of claim 1” or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN104570184) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0025120 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sun et al. discloses a wavelength selective filter comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a multi-layered structure alternately having a low refractive index layer 13 and a high refractive index layer 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation),
a periodic structure layer 14 facing the low refractive index layer 13 of the multi-layered structure (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation),
wherein
the low refractive index layer 13 having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] of the English translation for n=1.5),
the high refractive index layer having a refractive index between 1.70 and 2.20 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] of the English translation for n=2),
in a plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the periodic structure layer 14, the periodic structure layer having a periodic structure made of metal or semiconductor (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation for metal).
Sun et al. fails to explicitly disclose
the low refractive index layer having a thickness between 100 nm and 800 nm, and
the high refractive index layer having a thickness between 30 nm and 100 nm;
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the low refractive index layer having a thickness between 100 nm and 800 nm, and the high refractive index layer having a thickness between 30 nm and 100 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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 device of Sun et al. with the low refractive index layer having a thickness between 100 nm and 800 nm, and the high refractive index layer having a thickness between 30 nm and 100 nm.
Selecting a thickness of the layers would provide a desired film characteristics where it is known that refractive indices and thickness directly affect the bandwidth/wavelength selective characteristic of the filter. Selection and optimization of such parameters is known to one possessing ordinary skill in the art and would have predictable results.
Sun et al. fails to disclose
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8):
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure 120 is surrounded by first material 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0084]), and
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material 150 between two neighbouring first materials 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0086]).
Although Lee et al. fails to disclose wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Sun et al. with wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60, and wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.
Providing the additional layer allows the layer to be appropriately insulated. Further, by selecting the film characteristics such as thickness and refractive index, the optical characteristics may be controlled to allow for a desired reflection and refraction characteristic which would have been within the knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art and have predictable results.
In regard to claim 4, Sun et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the periodic structure is embedded in a layer made of the first material.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8):
wherein the periodic structure 120 is embedded in a layer made of the first material 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0084]).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Sun et al. with wherein the periodic structure is embedded in a layer made of the first material.
Embedding the periodic structure in the additional layer allows the layer to be appropriately insulated. Further, by selecting the film characteristics such as thickness and refractive index, the optical characteristics may be controlled to allow for a desired reflection and refraction characteristic which would have been within the knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art and have predictable results.
In regard to claim 6, Sun et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the periodic structure is composed of a plurality of square island structures that are arranged spaced apart in a grid pattern, and wherein width of one side of the square island structure is between 65% and 85% of an arrangement pitch of the square island structure.
However Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
wherein the periodic structure is composed of a plurality of square island structures that are arranged spaced apart in a grid pattern (see e.g. paragraph [0074]). Lee et al. further discloses a duty cycle (width/arrangement pitch) of 30 to 80% (see e.g. paragraph [0075]), which overlap applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Sun et al. with wherein the periodic structure is composed of a plurality of square island structures that are arranged spaced apart in a grid pattern, and wherein width of one side of the square island structure is between 65% and 85% of an arrangement pitch of the square island structure.
Using a square shaped periodic structure would be considered a matter of design choice where it is noted that a mere change in the shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04). Further, by selecting an appropriate duty cycle, the transmission characteristics may be controlled (see e.g. paragraph [0075] of Lee et al.).
In regard to claim 7, Sun et al. discloses a method for fabricating the wavelength selective filter of any one of claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the reflective selective filter comprises:
a multi-layered structure alternately having a low refractive index layer 13 and a high refractive index layer 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation),
a periodic structure layer 14 facing the low refractive index layer 13 of the multi-layered structure (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation),
wherein
the low refractive index layer 13 having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] of the English translation for n=1.5),
the high refractive index layer having a refractive index between 1.70 and 2.20 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] of the English translation for n=2),
in a plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the periodic structure layer 14, the periodic structure layer having a periodic structure made of metal or semiconductor (see e.g. paragraph [0024] of English translation for metal);
the method comprising steps of alternately depositing the low refractive index layer and the high refractive index layer to form the multi-layered structure (see e.g. Figures 1-2 for deposited layers);
depositing a layer of the metal or the semiconductor and patterning the layer of the metal or the semiconductor to form the periodic structure (see e.g. Figures 1-2 for deposited layers).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the low refractive index layer having a thickness between 100 nm and 800 nm, and the high refractive index layer having a thickness between 30 nm and 100 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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 device of Sun et al. with the low refractive index layer having a thickness between 100 nm and 800 nm, and the high refractive index layer having a thickness between 30 nm and 100 nm.
Selecting a thickness of the layers would provide a desired film characteristics where it is known that refractive indices and thickness directly affect the bandwidth/wavelength selective characteristic of the filter. Selection and optimization of such parameters is known to one possessing ordinary skill in the art and would have predictable results.
Sun et al. fails to disclose
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8):
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure 120 is surrounded by first material 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0084]), and
wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material 150 between two neighbouring first materials 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0086]).
Although Lee et al. fails to disclose wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Sun et al. with wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60, and wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.
Providing the additional layer allows the layer to be appropriately insulated. Further, by selecting the film characteristics such as thickness and refractive index, the optical characteristics may be controlled to allow for a desired reflection and refraction characteristic which would have been within the knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art and have predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN104570184) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0025120 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 101887140).
In regard to claim 5, Sun et al., in view of Lee et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the multi- layered structure is a three-layered structure consisting of two low refractive index layers and one high refractive index layer positioned between the two low refractive index layers.
However, Wang et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the multi- layered structure is a three-layered structure consisting of two low refractive index layers and one high refractive index layer 4 positioned between the two low refractive index layers 5 (see e.g. paragraph [0082] and note that high refractive index film 4 and low refractive index film 5 may be provided in plurality, thus satisfying the claim limitations).
Given the teachings of Wang et al., 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 device of Sun et al., in view of Lee et al., with wherein the multi- layered structure is a three-layered structure consisting of two low refractive index layers and one high refractive index layer positioned between the two low refractive index layers.
Providing additional layers allows the filter to achieve higher reflection, transmission, and/or absorption properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-6 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fail to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant amended claim 1 to include the subject matter previously presented in dependent claims 2 and 3. Applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose “wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure is surrounded by first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material between two neighbouring first materials, and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20.” However, as cited above, Lee et al. discloses applicant’s claimed structure (see e.g. Figure 8): wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the periodic structure 120 is surrounded by first material 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0084]), and wherein in the plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the periodic structure layer, the wavelength selective filter has second material 150 between two neighbouring first materials 140 (see e.g. paragraph [0086]). Although Lee et al. fails to disclose wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first material having a refractive index between 1.30 and 1.60; and wherein the second material has a refractive index between 1.00 and 1.20, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Applicant further argues that the Lee et al. references discloses the cited passivation layer 140 has a thickness of 10 nm or less (see e.g. page 5, third paragraph, of Remarks) to minimize the optical characteristics of the nano-disk array filter and that this is a teaching away from the optimization argument in the above rejection. First, the examiner notes that there are no claim limitations drawn to a thickness of the claimed “first material”. Further, minimizing the “optical effect of the layer” is part of routine optimization. Namely, selecting the refractive index of a layer with respect to adjacent layers will determine things like path of light, potential refraction angles if layers have different refraction indices, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the physical characteristics of the layers to achieve a desired light distribution/direction.
Applicant further argues that element 150 is not between elements 140 of Lee et al. However, it is noted that at least a portion of element 150 is between portions of element 140.
Finally, applicant argues that the refractive index layer of the “second layer” 150 of Lee et al. does not fall between 1 and 1.2 based on a list of potential materials used for the layer in the Lee et al. reference. However, it is noted that in Lee et al. that the materials “are not particularly limited”. Further, applicant does not claim a particular material for said layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the physical characteristics of the layers to achieve a desired light distribution/direction.
Therefore, the rejections as cited above are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights