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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 09/18/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-15 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.
Applicant’s arguments, and amendments, with respect to claims 16, 21 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543, of record) in view of Engel et al. (S 2017/0309757 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fiore discloses a multispectral transmission filter array, comprising: a carrier ([0084] discloses: 106, silicon wafer); a first reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 104, bottom mirror), disposing on the carrier (Figure 1b depicts: 104, bottom mirror disposed on 106, silicon wafer via 105, bonding layer); an optical layer ([0084] discloses: 102, phase tuning element; in at least abstract discloses: phase tuning element of each pixel element is configured for a different wavelength response of the pixel element), disposing on the first reflection layer (Figure 1 B depicts: 102, phase tuning element, disposed on 104, bottom mirror, via 103, photo active element), and a second reflection layer (104, top mirror), disposing on the plurality of color pixels (Figure 1b depicts: 104, top mirror, disposed on 102, phase tuning element, that are considered the color pixels).
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier, the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with different thickness and interpixel boundary formed between thereof, the second reflection layer is continuously disposed over and in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and the interpixel boundary; wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels, and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels. Fiore and Williams are related because both disclose optical filters.
Williams teaches a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier ([0021] teaches: disposing first mirror layer onto a substrate), the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer (Claim 34 teaches: depositing an insulating layer on the first mirror layer), a second reflection layer (in at least abstract and [0021] teaches: second mirror) and wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels ([0018] teaches: a two-dimensional profile of optical wavelengths, wherein the two-dimensional profile may be the an in-plane spatially varying colour profile transmitted through the optical filter, see Figure 1), and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels ([0018] teaches: the profile of remaining thicknesses of the plurality of portions of the insulating layer may produce, when incident light hits the optical filter, a corresponding profile of colours over a 2D area; Examiner notes that this is done using the layer thicknesses and not using optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels). Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical filters.
Song teaches a device wherein the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with difference thickness (Figure 7 depicts: plurality of color pixels: R,G and B, with different thicknesses, L1, L2 and L2; [0073] teaches: thicknesses that satisfy path lengths respectively) and interpixel boundary formed between thereof ([0081] teaches: 50, barrier rib, between 11, first pattern 12, second pattern and 13 third patterns, see Figure 7). Fiore and Engle are related because both disclose optical systems.
Engle teaches a device wherein the second reflection layer, continuously disposed over and in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and the interpixel boundary (Figures 11A and 11B and [0049-0050] teach: 45, second mirror, is deposited using atomic layer deposition over the stepped layers; thus considered the second reflection layer, continuously disposed over and in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and the interpixel boundary).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and Williams and Engle and provide a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier, the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with different thickness and interpixel boundary formed between thereof, the second reflection layer is continuously disposed over and in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and the interpixel boundary; wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels, and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved the adjacent filter/color pixel regions to be more clearly defined and spatially separated during fabrication, thereby improving pattern definition and registration of the multispectral filter array and different cavity separations to be provided beneath a common upper reflection layer, thereby enabling adjacent pixels to selectively respond to different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels. Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels (Figure 10 depicts: height of 50, barrier rib, higher than the height of R, G and B the plurality of color pixels).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels, and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels. Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels (Figure 14 depicts: 50, barrier rib, as frame around R, G and B, color pixels), and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels (Figure 10 depicts: height of 50, barrier rib, higher than the height of R, G and B the plurality of color pixels).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide disclose a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels, and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543, of record) in view of Engel et al. (S 2017/0309757 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0342130, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm. Fiore and Kim are related because both disclose optical devices.
Kim teaches a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm (Claim 5 teaches: first and second reflection layers have a thickness of 10 nm to 80 nm, which includes the claimed range).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm. Doing so would allow for optimization of mirror reflectivity and cavity resonance characteristics, thereby improving spectral selectivity and transmission efficiency of the optical device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543, of record) in view of Engel et al. (S 2017/0309757 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Jun (US 2010/0065897, of record).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength. Fiore and Jun are related because both disclose optical systems.
Jun teaches a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength ([0034] teaches: height of color filters inversely proportional to the wavelength).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Jun and provide a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength. Doing so would allow for predictable tuning of spectral response and color separation across different wavelength bands, thereby improving the overall efficiency and performance of the optical system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543, of record) in view of Engel et al. (S 2017/0309757 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Wang (US 2010/0181556, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9, and a color filter range of the multispectral transmission filter array is between 450 to 850 nm (Song: [0053] teaches: red light, wavelengths 600-670 nm, green light, wavelengths 500-570 nm; [0058] teaches: blue light, wavelengths 420-480 nm; therefore the filter covers ranges between 420-670; Which overlaps with the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, 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).
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm. Fiore and Wang are related because both disclose optical systems.
Wang teaches a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm ([0101] teaches: ETL thickness, considered the color pixel, of 160 nm, which falls within the claimed range).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Wang and provide teaches a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm. Doing so would allow for a reasonably high efficiency for colors to be obtained (Wang: 0101), thereby improving the overall efficiency and performance of the optical system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543, of record) in view of Engel et al. (S 2017/0309757 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of You et al. (US 2017/0098752) in view of Kress et al. (US 2021/0405255, of record).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2 and the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4. Fiore and You are related because both disclose optical systems.
You teaches a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2 ([0017] teaches: cavity structure is silicone dioxide).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of You and provide a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Kress teaches a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4 ([0072] teaches: silicon dioxide substrate).
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 Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kress and provide a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first depth and the second depth are different, and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier, such that the spectral responses of the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter are differentiated at the respective sensing regions without discrete structures configured to optically isolate the sensing regions, and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are continuously disposed over the wall” along with the other structural limitations positively recited in claim 16, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “and interpixel boundary formed between thereof, wherein the interpixel boundary is raised higher than the adjacent different thickness color pixels; and a second reflection layer, continuously disposed in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and the raised interpixel boundary; wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels and the interpixel boundary, and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels” along with other the structural limitations positively recited in claim 21, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the wall is raised higher than the adjacent first optical structure and the adjacent second optical structure; wherein the first depth and the second depth are different, and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier, such that the spectral responses of the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter are differentiated at the respective sensing regions without discrete structures configured to optically isolate the sensing regions, and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are continuously disposed over the wall” along with the other structural limitations positively recited in claim 22, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion 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 - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
