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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended; claims 2-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are original; and claim 5 is canceled. The amendment dated April 23, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant previously provided the auxiliary experimental data of the invention, which were used to argue that germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide has a high refractive index, where the high refractive index is in a range from 3.98 to 4.42 at a spectral range of 1200 nm to 2200 nm (the 10/29/2025 Remarks, Pages 8-11). After the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection with the enablement requirement was sent (the 02/25/2026 Office action, Pages 3-10), the applicant has now canceled the claim which claimed the second refractive index and the third refractive index in a range from 3.98 to 4.42 at a spectral range of 1200 nm and 2200 nm, and further deleted at least Paragraphs [0006], [0035] and [0046] in the specification.
The examiner considers the optical data used throughout the specification and claims are still based on wrong experimental data, and it appears any person skilled in the art cannot make and use the invention without undue experimentation. It is not clear how the applicant obtained those optical data, and the multiple films comprising a band pass filter based on those optical data (for example, the transmittances in Figs. 6 and 7 obtained by using those optical materials). See the rejection set forth below including 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Because the claims cannot be interpreted in light of the specification which includes inexact data, terms and numbers, the prior art rejection is omitted.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The specification recites Tables 1 and 2 regarding optical materials in each layer of the optical structure and Figures 6 and 7 regarding transmittance obtained by using those optical materials in Tables 1 and 2, and “multiple films comprising a first set of multiple films comprising a plurality of first material layers and a plurality of second material layers and a second set of multiple films comprising a plurality of third material layers and a plurality of fourth material layers” and “the third refractive-index is greater than the fourth refractive index”. For the plurality of third material layers, the material layers comprise germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide. For the plurality of fourth material layers, refractive index are in a range from 1.47 to 1.60 at a spectral range of 200 nm to 2200 nm and the materials comprise silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), niobium oxide (Nb2O5), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon nitride (SiN).
The examiner notes that “the third refractive-index” is not greater than “the fourth refractive index”. For example, the refractive index of titanium oxide (TiO2) is about 2.47, the refractive index of niobium oxide (Nb2O5) is about 2.25, while the refractive index of germanium oxide (GeO2) is about 1.59 and the refractive index of germanium nitride (Ge3N4) is about 2.10 between 200 nm and 2200 nm. The specification appears to use inexact data, terms and/or numbers.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term "undue experimentation," it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.") (see MPEP 2164.01).
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-15 recite “a plurality of third material layers comprising germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide with a third refractive index” and “a plurality of fourth material layers with a fourth refractive index” where “the third refractive-index is greater than the fourth refractive index”.
The specification does not meet the enablement requirement, because “the third refractive-index” of the third material layers disclosed in the specification is not greater than “the fourth refractive index” of the fourth material layers disclosed in the specification.
Regarding the undue experimentation factors, the examiner considers
(1) the nature of the invention;
(2) the amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(3) the level of one of ordinary skill; and
(4) the state of the prior art.
First, regarding the nature of the invention, the examiner considers the optical structure claiming a plurality of third material layers comprises germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide with a third refractive index, and the third refractive index is greater than the fourth refractive index, wherein the fourth refractive index is in a range from 1.47 to 1.60 as described in the specification and claims.
Regarding the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the examiner considers:
For the plurality of third material layers, the material layers comprise germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide (see at least claim 1).
For the plurality of fourth material layers, refractive index are in a range from 1.47 to 1.60 at a spectral range of 200 nm to 2200 nm and the fourth materials comprise silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), niobium oxide (Nb2O5), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon nitride (SiN) (see at least claim 3-4).
Regarding the level of one of ordinary skill, the examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art knows that germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide has a low refractive index in a range from 1.54 and 2.60 between 200 nm and 2200 nm, and one of ordinary skill in the art knows the refractive index of titanium oxide (TiO2) is about 2.47, the refractive index of niobium oxide (Nb2O5) is about 2.25 between 200 nm and 2200 nm. The refractive index of germanium oxide (GeO2) is about 1.59 and the refractive index of germanium nitride (Ge3N4) is about 2.10 between 200 nm and 2200 nm. Germanium oxide, germanium nitride or germanium hydroxide is known to have low refractive indices between 1.3 and 2.2.
For example, see the graph below, plotting the optical constants of titanium oxide.
<https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=TiO2&page=Devore-o>
PNG
media_image1.png
690
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, see the graph below, plotting the optical constants of germanium oxide.
< https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=GeO2&page=Fleming>
PNG
media_image2.png
694
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The fourth material layers comprising titanium oxide have the refractive index of 2.4683 at 1200 nm and the third material layers comprising germanium oxide have the refractive index of 1.5909 at 1200 nm. Thereby, the third refractive index cannot be greater than fourth the refractive index.
Furthermore, the experimental data shown by the applicant (the 10/29/2025 Remarks, Pages 8-11) prove that the optical data used by the applicant do not align with the generally known optical data. For example, see the optical data of Germanium Hydroxide.
<The experimental data claimed by the applicant for Germanium Hydroxide >
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The chemical formula for Germanium Hydroxide is Ge(OH)4, NOT GeO2H10.)][AltContent: textbox (The data shown by the applicant align with the known dispersion of bulk Germanium (see Amotchikina et al., 2020), but NOT Germanium Hydroxide.)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
228
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The specification does not meet the enablement requirement because one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t be able to modify the inherent optical properties of the materials including silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), niobium oxide (Nb2O5), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon nitride (SiN), Germanium oxide (GeO2), germanium nitride (Ge3N4) and germanium hydroxide (Ge(OH)4).
Regarding the state of the prior art, the examiner considers Hart et al. (US 2025/0020842, hereinafter “Hart”). Hart teaches an optical structure (Figures 3-4; Paragraphs [0016]-[0018]) comprising: a high refractive index layer (40) comprises titanium oxide (TiO2) (i.e., the fourth material layers of the present application) and a low refractive index layer (42) comprises germanium oxide (GeO2) (i.e., the third material layers of the present application), where the refractive index of the high refractive index layer is greater than that of the low refractive index layer (Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Since the applicant is completely silent on the method of modifying the optical properties of materials in the specification, where the claim(s) contains the subject matter of the low-refractive and high-refractive material layers, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-15 fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Dependent claims 6-7, 11-12 and 16-20 are rejected because they depend upon claims 1-2; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claims 1-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights