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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 15, 2025 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled in the present application. Claim 20 is new in the present application. Claims 1, 3-4, and 15-17 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 25, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section B on page 4 and section F on pages 7-8, filed April 14, 2026, with respect to claims 1,4, 15, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-20 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0033] “… in FIG. 4A, the filter in FIG. 5A… for FIG. 4A versus ±5 nm for FIG. 5A)” should read “… in FIG. 5A, the filter in FIG. 4A… for FIG. 5A versus ±5 nm for FIG. 4A)” based on [0031]-[0032] and Figures 4A and 5A.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 line 19 “… to 300 nm or below 300 nm…” should be changed to “…at least 300 nm…” to improve clarity and be consistent with language used in claims 1, 15, and 17. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 4-5, 17, and 20 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, claims 4 and 17 recite the 500-560 nm contiguous transmission region has “a tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm” while the first contiguous blocking region extending from 500 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm and the second contiguous blocking region extending from 560 nm to at least 725 nm both with “a ± 2 nm tolerance.” The ranges allowed by these tolerances make the claim unclear. Specifically there are values within the ± 5 nm tolerance for the transmission region that are not compatible with the ± 2 nm tolerance set for the blocking regions. For example wavelengths of 495, 496, and 497 nm are within the ± 5 nm tolerance for the transmission region but are outside the ± 2 nm tolerance for the first blocking region which only extends to 498 nm. Likewise, wavelengths between 563 and 565 nm are within the tolerance for the transmission region but outside the ± 2 nm tolerance for the second blocking region which only extends to 562 nm. Thus it is unclear if these wavelengths should be transmitted or blocked based on these limitations. Furthermore, it is unclear if the ± 2 nm tolerance for the blocking regions are supposed to supersede and further limit the tolerance for the transmission region. Therefore claims 4 and 17 are rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation as the 500-560 nm contiguous transmission regions has a tolerance to within at least ± 2 nm which is supported by FIG. 5A and [0032].
Claims 5 and 20 depend from claims 4 and 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-16, and 18-19 are allowed.
Claims 4-5, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the best prior arts of record are Sheehan et al. (International Publication No. WO 2021/096840 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Sheehan”) in view of Barrau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0274221). Sheehan and Barrau fail to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “… a contiguous transmission region that spans a 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm… wherein the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm” in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Specifically Applicant’s arguments in sections B and F, particularly regarding the silence of Sheehan and Barrau on tolerances, were persuasive. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claims 1 and 15, specifically the limitations: “… a contiguous transmission region that spans a 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm… wherein the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm”
Claims 3, 6-14, 16, and 18-19 depend from claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the best prior arts of record are Sheehan et al. (International Publication No. WO 2021/096840 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Sheehan”) in view of Barrau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0274221). Sheehan and Barrau fail to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “… a contiguous transmission region that spans a 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with tolerance to within at least ± 2 nm, a first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm with a ± 2 nm tolerance, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 725 nm with a tolerance to with a ± 2 nm” in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Specifically Applicant’s arguments in sections B and F, particularly regarding the silence of Sheehan and Barrau on tolerances, were persuasive. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claims 4 and 17, specifically the limitations: “… a contiguous transmission region that spans a 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with tolerance to within at least ± 2 nm, a first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm with a ± 2 nm tolerance, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 725 nm with a tolerance to with a ± 2 nm”
Claims 5 and 20 depend from claims 4 and 17.
Conclusion
Ogo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0264341) describes a chromium containing multilayer film with a transmission range from 500 to 550 nm. Schmeder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0233105) describes optical filters with dielectric multi-films comprising 12-200 layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights