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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-14 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-20, received 4/11/2023, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 3/22/2023, 10/23/2024, 4/16/2025 were considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the functional film including one or more visible light absorbing layers, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The disclosure, and all of the working examples provided in the disclosure, sets forth that the functional film includes at least one or more visible light absorbing layers (see at least paragraphs [0038]-[0039], [0112]-[0138], Tables 1-3, Examples 2, 3, 6-12 and 15). Therefore, the functional film including at least one or more visible light absorbing layers is considered a critical/essential feature of the invention wherein the claimed values for the visible light reflectance, the dispersion, and the far-infrared ray average transmittance are satisfied.
Claims 2 and 15-18 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for missing the same critical features of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “dispersion of reflectances with respect to pieces of light at a wavelength of 360 nm to 830 nm in increments of 1 nm is equal to or smaller than 30”, but there is nothing in claims 1 or 19 which defines a “dispersion of reflectances” or indicates how it is measured or what unit is meant by “smaller than 30”. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 are indefinite as their intended scopes cannot be determined. Paragraphs [0068]-[0070] of the description include a “dispersion D of reflectances”, defined by an equation, but which is not set forth in claims 1 or 19.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “a reflectance with respect to visible light defined by JIS R3106”, but it is not clear what version of JIS R3106 is being used to define the reflectance, and no version of JIS R3106 has been set forth on the record. For example, does JIS R3106 refer to the 1998 version, the 2019 version, etc.? Therefore, the metes-and-bounds of claims 1 and 19 cannot be determined and they are indefinite.
Claims 2-11 and 15-18 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of claim 1 from which they depend.
In claims 4 and 5, the “x” in NiOx, CuOx and MnOx is not defined, and therefore claims 4 and 5 are indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of claim 4 from which it depends.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shim et al., “Nickel oxide film as an AR coating of Si window for IR sensor packaging”, Proc. Of SPIE, Vol. 8704, 2013, pp. 870420-1 to 870420-6 (of record, hereafter Shim).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Shim discloses a far-infrared ray transmission member (see at least the abstract) comprising:
a base material configured to transmit far-infrared rays (see at least the abstract and section 2. Experiment, the Si wafer substrate; It is noted that claim 1 does not define or constrain the base material with any structural features, such as material, thickness, refractive index, etc., and therefore the Si wafer is considered as being “configured to transmit far-infrared rays” in as much as the instant disclosure recites in paragraph [0036] that Si is a preferred base material.); and
a functional film formed on the base material (see at least the abstract and sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate; It is noted that claim 1 does not define or constrain the functional film with any structural features, such as materials, thicknesses, refractive indices, number of layers, etc., and therefore the 1.2 µm thick NiO films coated on both sides of the Si substrate are considered as being functionally the same as applicant’s in as much as the instant disclosure recites in paragraphs [0045], [0051]-[0052] and Table 1, Example 3 that the functional film may be one or more visible light absorbing layer(s) which may have a thickness of 0.1 µm to 2.0 µm, and may be made up of NiOx), wherein
an average transmittance with respect to light at a wavelength of 8 µm to 12 µm is equal to or higher than 50% (see at least the sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate, wherein figure 2 and Table 1 shows an average transmittance of %57.2 for NiO coated on one side of the Si substrate, and wherein figure 3 and Table 2 shows an average transmittance of %73.6 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate).
Shim does not explicitly state that a dispersion of reflectances with respect to pieces of light at a wavelength of 360 nm to 830 nm in increments of 1 nm is equal to or smaller than 30, and a reflectance with respect to visible light defined by JIS R3106 is equal to or lower than 25%.
However, it is noted that when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Shim is the same as that recited in claim 1, and are substantially identical to the applicant’s Example 3, which is recited as having satisfactory visible light reflectance, dispersion, and far-infrared ray average transmittance (see at least Shim sections 3.3-3.4, figure 3 and Table 2 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate; and see at least Table 1, Example 3, paragraphs [0118]-[0119], [0138] of the instant disclosure), then it is expected that the dispersion of reflectances and reflectance with respect to visible light provided by the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim would have the same results as claimed. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical, or substantially identical, in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, such as any structure associated with the base material and/or functional film, including the materials used, thicknesses, refractive indices, number of layers, etc., which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a desired material and thickness for the base material (see at least the abstract and section 2 of Shim), and desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film (see at least the abstract and sections 3.1-3.4 and 4 of Shim), so that the far-infrared ray transmission member achieves desired transmission in the visible and far-infrared (see at least section 3.1 of Shim), dispersion of reflectances of visible light and a desired reflectance of visible light, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose a desired material and thickness for the base material, and desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film to achieve a dispersion of reflectances with respect to pieces of light at a wavelength of 360 nm to 830 nm in increments of 1 nm is equal to or smaller than 30, and a reflectance with respect to visible light defined by JIS R3106 is equal to or lower than 25%, for the purpose of controlling the transmission and reflection characteristics of the far-infrared ray transmission member with respect to visible and far-infrared light for a particular use application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the average transmittance with respect to light at a wavelength of 8 µm to 12 µm is equal to or higher than 65% (see at least the sections 3.3-3.4, wherein figure 3 and Table 2 shows an average transmittance of %73.6 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the functional film includes one or more visible light absorbing layer containing metal oxide as a principal component (see at least the sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate, and/or NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 3, wherein the visible light absorbing layer contains NiOx as a principal component (see at least the sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate, and/or NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Shim does not explicitly disclose an extinction coefficient of the visible light absorbing layer with respect to light at a wavelength of 550 nm is equal to or larger than 0.04.
However, it is noted that when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Shim is the same as that recited in claims 1, 3, 4 and 6, and are substantially identical to the applicant’s Example 3, which is recited as having a satisfactory extinction coefficient of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 550 nm is equal to or larger than 0.04 (see at least Shim sections 3.3-3.4, figure 3 and Table 2 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate; and see at least Table 1, Example 3, paragraphs [0118]-[0119], [0134], [0138] of the instant disclosure), then it is expected that the extinction coefficient of the visible light absorbing layer with respect to light at a wavelength of 550 nm of Shim would have the same results as claimed. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical, or substantially identical, in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features for the visible light absorbing layer in addition to the layer containing NiOx as a principal component, such as any additional structure associated with the base material and/or functional film, including other materials used, thicknesses, refractive indices, number of layers, etc., which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film (see at least the abstract and sections 3.1-3.4 and 4 of Shim), so that the far-infrared ray transmission member achieves desired transmission in the visible and far-infrared (see at least section 3.1 of Shim) and a desired extinction coefficient of the visible light absorbing layer with respect to light at a wavelength of 550 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film to achieve an extinction coefficient of the visible light absorbing layer with respect to light at a wavelength of 550 nm is equal to or larger than 0.04, for the purpose of controlling the transmission and reflection characteristics of the far-infrared ray transmission member with respect to visible and far-infrared light for a particular use application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Shim discloses a method for manufacturing a far-infrared ray transmission member (see at least the abstract), the method comprising:
forming a functional film (see at least the abstract and sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate; It is noted that claim 1 does not define or constrain the functional film with any structural features, such as materials, thicknesses, refractive indices, number of layers, etc., and therefore the 1.2 µm thick NiO films coated on both sides of the Si substrate are considered as being functionally the same as applicant’s in as much as the instant disclosure recites in paragraphs [0045], [0051]-[0052] and Table 1, Example 3 that the functional film may be one or more visible light absorbing layer(s) which may have a thickness of 0.1 µm to 2.0 µm, and may be made up of NiOx.) on a base material configured to transmit far-infrared rays (see at least the abstract and section 2. Experiment, the Si wafer substrate; It is noted that claim 1 does not define or constrain the base material with any structural features, such as material, thickness, refractive index, etc., and therefore the Si wafer is considered as being “configured to transmit far-infrared rays” in as much as the instant disclosure recites in paragraph [0036] that Si is a preferred base material.) to manufacture the far-infrared ray transmission member in which an average transmittance with respect to light at a wavelength of 8 µm to 12 µm is equal to or higher than 50% (see at least the sections 3.1-3.4, the 1.2 µm thick NiO film coating on at least one side of the substrate, wherein figure 2 and Table 1 shows an average transmittance of %57.2 for NiO coated on one side of the Si substrate, and wherein figure 3 and Table 2 shows an average transmittance of %73.6 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate).
Shim does not explicitly state that a dispersion of reflectances with respect to pieces of light at a wavelength of 360 nm to 830 nm in increments of 1 nm is equal to or smaller than 30, or a reflectance with respect to visible light defined by JIS R3106 is equal to or lower than 25%.
However, it is noted that when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Shim is the same as that recited in claim 1, and are substantially identical to the applicant’s Example 3, which is recited as having satisfactory visible light reflectance, dispersion, and far-infrared ray average transmittance (see at least Shim sections 3.3-3.4, figure 3 and Table 2 for NiO coated on both sides of the Si substrate; and see at least Table 1, Example 3, paragraphs [0118]-[0119], [0138] of the instant disclosure), then it is expected that the dispersion of reflectances and reflectance with respect to visible light provided by the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim would have the same results as claimed. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical, or substantially identical, in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, such as any structure associated with the base material and/or functional film, including the materials used, thicknesses, refractive indices, number of layers, etc., which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a desired material and thickness for the base material (see at least the abstract and section 2 of Shim), and desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film (see at least the abstract and sections 3.1-3.4 and 4 of Shim), so that the far-infrared ray transmission member achieves desired transmission in the visible and far-infrared (see at least section 3.1 of Shim), dispersion of reflectances of visible light and a desired reflectance of visible light, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose a desired material and thickness for the base material, and desired material(s) and thickness(es) for the functional film to achieve a dispersion of reflectances with respect to pieces of light at a wavelength of 360 nm to 830 nm in increments of 1 nm is equal to or smaller than 30, and a reflectance with respect to visible light defined by JIS R3106 is equal to or lower than 25%, for the purpose of controlling the transmission and reflection characteristics of the far-infrared ray transmission member with respect to visible and far-infrared light for a particular use application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 5, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al., “Nickel oxide film as an AR coating of Si window for IR sensor packaging”, Proc. Of SPIE, Vol. 8704, 2013, pp. 870420-1 to 870420-6 (of record, hereafter Shim) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Someya et al., WO 2019-065643 A1 (of record, hereafter Someya; It is noted that references to the description of Someya is with respect to the pages of the English machine translation of Someya included herewith).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 3, but does not specifically disclose that the visible light absorbing layer contains at least one material selected from the group consisting of CuOX and MnO, as a principal component.
However, Someya teaches a cover glass for an infrared sensor for use on a vehicle which may contain MnO2 as a component for absorbing visible light and transmitting infrared light (see at least the abstract, pages 1-2, 4-5 of Someya).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim to include the teachings of Someya so that the visible light absorbing layer contains MnO, as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component to absorb visible light and transmit infrared while also achieving a desired aesthetic color tone (Someya pages 4-5).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the visible light absorbing layer contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of CuOX and MnO, as a principal component, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the visible light absorbing layer contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of CuOX and MnO, as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component to absorb visible light and transmit infrared while also achieving a desired aesthetic color tone (Someya pages 4-5). Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 15-18, as best understood, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the far-infrared ray transmission member is mounted on a vehicle, placed on a window member of the vehicle, placed on an exterior member for a pillar of the vehicle and/or placed in a light blocking region of an exterior member for the vehicle.
However, Someya teaches a cover glass for an infrared sensor for use on a vehicle (see at least the abstract, pages 1-2 of Someya).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the far-infrared ray transmission member be mounted on a vehicle, placed on a window member of the vehicle, placed on an exterior member for a pillar of the vehicle and/or placed in a light blocking region of an exterior member for the vehicle, for the purpose of placing an infrared transmitter or receiver on or in a desired area of a vehicle while allowing the infrared transmitter/receiver to transmit/receive infrared light while blocking visible light.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al., “Nickel oxide film as an AR coating of Si window for IR sensor packaging”, Proc. Of SPIE, Vol. 8704, 2013, pp. 870420-1 to 870420-6 (of record, hereafter Shim) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Aitken et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0299587 A1 (hereafter Aitken).
Regarding claims 7-9, Shim discloses the limitations of claim 3, but does not specifically disclose that the functional film includes one or more high refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is higher than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer; and/or
that the functional film includes one or more low refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is lower than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer; and/or
that the functional film includes one or more high refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is higher than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer and one or more low refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is lower than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer, and the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are alternately laminated between the base material and the visible light absorbing layer.
However, Aitken teaches an optical element for use with infrared sensors, which has a high transmission and low reflectivity across the far-infrared, and which includes an anti-reflection (AR) coating (see at least the abstract, paras. [0002]-[0007] of Aitken), wherein the AR coating includes one or more high refractive index layers (see at least paras. [0008], [0012], [0041]-[0043], for example Si and/or Ge, of Aitken) and one or more low refractive index layers (see at least paras. [0008], [0012], [0041]-[0043], for example MgO2 of Aitken), the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are alternately laminated (see at least paras. [0042], [0051]-[0062] of Aitken).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim to include the teachings of Aitken so that the functional film includes one or more high refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is higher than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer; and/or
that the functional film includes one or more low refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is lower than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer; and/or
that the functional film includes one or more high refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is higher than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer and one or more low refractive index layers the refractive index of which with respect to light at a wavelength of 10 µm is lower than the refractive index of the visible light absorbing layer, and the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are alternately laminated between the base material and the visible light absorbing layer, for the purpose of using a known multilayer anti-reflection structure to reduce reflections.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Aitken further discloses that the high refractive index layer contains at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si and Ge as a principal component (see at least paras. [0008], [0012], [0041]-[0043], for example Si and/or Ge, of Aitken).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim to include the further teachings of Aitken so that the high refractive index layer contains at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si and Ge as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component with a known refractive index to form a known multilayer anti-reflection structure to reduce reflections.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the high refractive index layer contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si and Ge as a principal component, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the high refractive index layer contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si and Ge as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component with a known refractive index to form a known multilayer anti-reflection structure to reduce reflections. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Aitken further discloses that a relatively low refractive index layer may contain MgO as a principal component (see at least para. [0043], for example MgO2 of Aitken).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the far-infrared ray transmission member of Shim to include the further teachings of Aitken so that the low refractive index layer contains MgO as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component with a known refractive index to form a known multilayer anti-reflection structure to reduce reflections.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the low refractive index layer contain MgO as a principal component, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the low refractive index layer contain MgO as a principal component, for the purpose of using a known material component with a known refractive index to form a known multilayer anti-reflection structure to reduce reflections. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 at 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/13/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872