E 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 02/05/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a part of the second facing surface of the displacement portion ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “a part of the second facing surface of the displacement portion” will be read as “a part of a second facing surface of the displacement portion”. Corrective action is required.
Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
The above antecedent basis rejected claims will be interpreted, as best understood, in light of the specification unless otherwise stated.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sato discloses a variable wavelength interference filter (Figure 4, also see annotated Figure A below for visual mapping of elements, which is an annotate Figure 4 of Sato) comprising: a first substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 107, substrate; therefore considered the first substrate); a second substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 109, substrate; therefore considered the second substrate) facing the first substrate via a predetermined gap (Figure 1 depicts: 107, substrate facing 109, substrate via a predetermined gap); a first reflection film (Figure 1 depicts: 103, film; therefore considered the first reflection film) installed at the first substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 103, film installed at 107, substrate); a second reflection film (Figure 1 depicts: 100, film; therefore considered the second reflection film) installed at the second substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 100, film, installed at 109, substrate), and facing the first reflection film via a predetermined first gap (Figure 1 depicts: 115, cavity gap; Examiner notes that 100, film is considered facing 103, film); a coupling portion (Figure 1 depicts: 101, 102, film) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 101, 102, film disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate), and including a first facing surface (Figure 1 depicts 101, 102, film; Examiner notes that the entire perimeter of 102 is considered the first facing surface) facing the first substrate (Figure 1 depicts: bottom surfaces of 101, 102, film facing 107, substrate) and a second facing surface facing the second substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 101, 102, film with part of perimeter, top surfaces facing 109, substrate; Examiner notes that the entire perimeter of 101, is considered the second facing surface; this is consistent with BRI as the facing surfaces are not limited to one dimension or plane); and a driving unit (Figure 1 depicts: 104a, 104b, 104c and 104d electrodes and 106a, 106b, spring portions and 105a, 105b, electrodes; therefore considered the first driving unit) configured to change the predetermined first gap ([0054] discloses: 115, cavity gap can be controlled by voltage between electrodes), wherein a part of the first facing surface of the coupling portion is coupled to the first substrate (Figure 4 depicts: part of first facing surface of 102, film coupled to 107, substrate via106a, spring portion), when viewed from a thickness direction from the first substrate toward the second substrate (View from Figure 4 and annotated Figure A), a portion of the first facing surface of the coupling portion not coupled to the first substrate (Examiner notes that all the sides of the coupling portions not connected to 106a spring portions are considered not coupled to the first substrate; the top and bottom of the coupling portions) constitutes a displacement portion (Figure 1 depicts: 101, film; therefore considered the displacement portion) facing the first substrate via a predetermined second gap (Figure 4 and annotated Figure A depicts: predetermined gap between 101, film and 107 substrate), a part of a second facing surface is coupled to the second substrate (Figure 4 depicts: part of second facing surface of 101, film coupled to substrate via 106a spring portion), and the driving unit changes the predetermined second gap by bending the displacement portion, thereby changing the predetermined first gap (Examiner notes that the films are flexed via the springs and changes the dimensions of all the gaps in the interferometer), and a column portion protruding from the second facing surface of the second substrate, coupled to the second substrate ([0049] discloses: 108, supporting column).
Sato fails to disclose a device with a plurality of coupling portions and the displacement portion includes the part of the second facing surface, each of the plurality of coupling portions includes a thin plate portion including the first facing surface and the second facing surface, and a column portion protruding from the second facing surface of the thin plate portion toward the second substrate and having a protruding tip portion, and the thin plate portion and the column portion are formed of a conductive material. Sato and Bita are related because both disclose wavelength interference devices.
Bita teaches a device with a plurality of coupling portions (Figures 9A-9C depict: 918, support posts) and the displacement portion includes the part of the second facing surface (Figures 9A-9C depict: lower surface 914, movable reflective layer facing 952, cavity), each of the plurality of coupling portions includes a thin plate portion (Figures 9A-9C depict: 914, movable reflective layer) including the first facing surface (upper surface of 914) and the second facing surface (lower surface of 914), and a column portion protruding from the second facing surface of the thin plate portion toward the second substrate (Figures 9A-9C depict: 918, support post, extending between 914, reflective layer and 920, substrate), and a protruding tip portion (Figures 9A-9C depict: protruding tip portion of 918, support post, extending up to 914, movable reflective layer, therefore considered protruding under BRI; see Lee et al. US 2014/0154960 for definition under BRI)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Bita and provide a device with a plurality of coupling portions and the displacement portion includes the part of the second facing surface, each of the plurality of coupling portions includes a thin plate portion including the first facing surface and the second facing surface, and a column portion protruding from the second facing surface of the thin plate portion toward the second substrate and a protruding tip portion. Doing so would allow for mechanically supporting the movable reflective layer while maintaining a controlled spacing between the substrates, thereby enabling reliable displacement of the movable structure during operation.
Chang teaches a device wherein the thin plate portion and the column portion are formed of a conductive material (Claim 12 teaches: support unit, frame, and elastic components comprise a conductive material; therefore considered to include the thin plate and the columns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Chang and provide a device wherein the thin plate portion and the column portion are formed of a conductive material. Doing so would allow for providing electrically conductive structural components capable of supporting actuation while improving mechanical support of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1, wherein the driving unit includes a first driving electrode (Figure 1 depicts: 104b, electrode) installed at the first substrate and a second driving electrode (Figure 1 depicts: 104c, electrode) installed at the displacement portion, (Figure 1 depicts: 104b, electrode, installed at 101, film, considered the displacement portion) and the second driving electrode faces the first driving electrode via the predetermined second gap (Figure 1 depicts: 104b and 104c electrodes, facing each other via the second gap, see annotated Figure 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Peter et al. (US 8,174,698 of record).
Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of coupling portions also functions as the second driving electrode (Examiner notes that voltage from electrodes 104b and 104d are electrically connected to 101 and 102, the coupling portions, and the cavity gaps can be controlled by changing applied voltage to the electrodes; therefore the coupling portions function at least as part of the second driving electrode via film 101, film and 106, b spring portion).
Sato fails to disclose a device wherein each of the plurality of coupling portions is formed of silicon. Sato and Peter are related because both disclose optical systems.
Peter teaches a device where the coupling portion is formed of silicon (Col. 3, lines 5-10 teach: reflector silicon layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Peter and provide a device where the coupling portion is formed of silicon. Doing so would allow for seamless integration, higher mechanical strength and thermal stability, thereby improving the overall manufacturability, durability, and optical performance of the interference filter.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kato (US 2011/0228372, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Saito discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1, and the first surface of the first substrate is different from the second surface of the first substrate (Examiner notes that these are different sides of the substrate, therefore considered different).
Saito fails to disclose a device wherein the driving unit includes a coil provided at a first surface of the first substrate facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface, and a magnetic body provided at a surface of the first substrate facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface. Saito and Kato are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kato teaches a device wherein the driving unit includes a coil ([0017] teaches: electrodes may be replaced with coil) provided at any one of a surface of the first substrate (Figure 1A depicts: electrodes/coils provided at one surface of 9 substrate) facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface (Examiner notes that the coils are facing 3, movable portion, has the reflective surfaces; that is considered analogous to the displacement portion and its first facing surface), and a magnetic body ([0054] teaches: magnetic body for the first embodiment) provided at the other of the surface of the first substrate facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface (Examiner notes that the coil is provided at one surface of the substrate facing the displacement portion and a magnetic body provided at the other surface…facing the displacement portion; therefore considered to anticipate the limitations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Kato and provide a device wherein the driving unit includes a coil provided at any one of a surface of the first substrate facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface, and a magnetic body provided at the other of the surface of the first substrate facing the displacement portion and the first facing surface. Doing so would allow for precise electromagnetic actuation of the movable portion, thereby improving the overall actuation precision, response speed, and controllability of the variable wavelength interference filter.
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1.
Sato fails to disclose a device wherein a dimension of the column portion in the thickness direction is smaller than an initial dimension of the predetermined first gap in a state where the displacement portion is not deformed by the driving unit.
Kato teaches a device wherein a dimension of the column portion in the thickness direction is smaller than an initial dimension of the predetermined first gap in a state where the displacement portion is not deformed by the driving unit (Kato: Figure 1 depicts: column in middle of displacement portion, smaller than gap it fills and cannot be compressed smaller than the gap in any state; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 6, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged; It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dimension the column such that its height is smaller than the gap when the movable portion is undeformed, since varying the post height relative to the spacing is a routine design consideration in optical and MEMS assemblies used to control the range of displacement or prevent contact, doing so would allow for mechanical clearance and stable operation of the displacement portion, thereby improving the overall device reliability and tuning precision).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Kato and provide disclose a device wherein a dimension of the column portion in the thickness direction is smaller than an initial dimension of the predetermined first gap in a state where the displacement portion is not deformed by the driving unit. Doing so would allow for precise electromagnetic actuation of the movable portion, thereby improving the overall actuation precision, response speed, and controllability of the variable wavelength interference filter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Guo (US 2023/0341629, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1.
Sato fails to disclose a device wherein the driving unit includes a first electrode installed at the first facing surface, a piezoelectric film installed at the first electrode, and a second electrode installed at the piezoelectric film, and the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode are stacked along the thickness direction. Sato and Guo are related because both disclose optical filters.
Gou teaches a device wherein the driving unit includes a first electrode installed at the first facing surface, a piezoelectric film installed at the first electrode, and a second electrode installed at the piezoelectric film, and the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode are stacked along the thickness direction ([0017]-[0019] teaches: first electrode, glass film then second electrode with piezoelectric film disposed on the periphery of the surface of the first glass film; Figures 4 and 5 depict: lays stacked along the thickness direction of the stack, view from Figure 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Gou and provide a device wherein the driving unit includes a first electrode installed at the first facing surface, a piezoelectric film installed at the first electrode, and a second electrode installed at the piezoelectric film, and the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode are stacked along the thickness direction. Doing so would allow for efficient transmission of incident light through the optical path, thereby improving the overall tuning accuracy and actuation responsiveness of the interference filter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kamihara (US 2010/0004511, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1.
Sato fails to disclose a device further comprising a first capacitance detection electrode installed at the first substrate; and a second capacitance detection electrode provided at the first facing surface and facing the first capacitance detection electrode. Sato and Kamihara are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kamihara teaches a device further comprising a first capacitance detection electrode installed at the first substrate, and a second capacitance detection electrode provided at the first facing surface and facing the first capacitance detection electrode ([0043] discloses and Figure 1 depicts: 6, sensor, of the electrostatic capacitance type, disposed on substrates facing each other; It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the electrostatic capacitance sensor on the surface across form the first electrode placement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Kamihara and provide a device further comprising a first capacitance detection electrode installed at the first substrate, and a second capacitance detection electrode provided at the first facing surface and facing the first capacitance detection electrode. Doing so would allow for real time detection of displacement or gap variation between the substrates, thereby improving the overall feedback control accuracy and operational stability of the variable wavelength interference filter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record) in view of Bita et al. (US 7,864,403) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0139200), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yasuda (US 2010/0296164, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1, further comprising a third electrode (Figure 1 depicts: 105a, electrode, bottom set) provided at the first substrate (Figure 1 depicts 105a, electrode provided at the first substrate); and a fourth electrode (Figure 1 depicts: 105a, electrode, top set) provided at the second substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 105a, electrode provided at the second substrate) and facing the third electrode (Figure 1 depict: 105a, electrode facing 105a, electrode, with their respective inside walls), wherein the third electrode is installed in a position surrounding the first reflection film (Figure 1 depicts: 105a, electrodes, bottom set surrounding 103, considered the first refection film) when viewed from the thickness direction (from top view of system), and the fourth electrode is installed in a position surrounding the second reflection film (Figure 1 depicts: 105a, electrodes, top set surrounding, 100, considered the second refection film) when viewed from the thickness direction (from top view of system).
Sato fails to disclose a device where the electrodes are capacitance detection electrodes. Sato and Yasuda are related because both disclose optical systems.
Yasuda teaches a device where the electrodes are capacitance detection electrodes ([0042] teaches: capacitance sensing electrodes to control drive signals; analogous to the electrodes of Sato).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Yasuda and provide a device where the electrodes are capacitance detection electrodes. Doing so would allow for the adjustment of accuracy of the transmission characteristics to be improved (Yasuda: 0042), thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2004/0008438, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1, wherein, provided that a region where the first reflection film overlaps the second reflection film when viewed from the thickness direction is an optical region (Examiner notes that from the top down view the two reflection films of Sato are considered overlapping in the optical axis region to ensure that the light interacts with both reflections films when passing through the interferometer) and a plurality of coupling portions (Figure 1 depicts: 104b and 104d).
Sato fails to disclose a device where coupling portion is formed in an annular shape surrounding the optical region, and the driving unit is formed in an annular shape surrounding the optical region in a position overlapping the coupling portion. However, choosing the shape if the driving unit and the coupling portion is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to the driving unit and coupling portion into annular shapes, rings or any other shape since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Doing so would allow for uniform actuation and mechanical balance about the optical axis. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing driving unit and coupling portion into rings described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of shapes, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a driving unit and a coupling portion formed into an annular shape represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Sato discloses the variable wavelength interference filter according to claim 1, wherein, provided that a region where the first reflection film overlaps the second reflection film when viewed from the thickness direction is an optical region (Examiner notes that from the top down view the two reflection films of Sato are considered overlapping in the optical axis region to ensure that the light interacts with both reflections films when passing through the interferometer).
Sato fails to disclose the plurality of coupling portions are provided in positions that are rotationally symmetrical with respect to a center of the optical region, and a plurality of driving units are provided correspondingly to the plurality of coupling portions. However, choosing a rotationally symmetrical shape is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to choosing a rotationally symmetrical shape since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Doing so would allow for uniform actuation and mechanical balance about the optical axis. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing choosing a rotationally symmetrical shape described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any shape of coupling portions, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of choosing a rotationally symmetrical shape represents a routine variation within the skill of the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of driving units provided correspondingly to the plurality of coupling portions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so would allow for consistent control and uniform actuation across multiple coupling portions. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
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.
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872