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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1-6, filed 12/29/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-10, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to Claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 of Claims 2-5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-10, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claims 1, 2, and 6 under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/29/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/02/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprague (US 2016/0216419 A1), of record, in view of Ouderkirk et al., (hereafter Ouderkirk) (US 2022/0350148 A1), of record, and Bower et al., (Bower hereafter) (US 2017/0243988 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Sprague teaches an optical filter (100, Figure 4) comprising: a substrate (102, Figure 4); a dielectric multilayer film (106 and 108, Figure 4) laid on or above (see 106 and 108, Figure 4) at least one major surface of the substrate (102, Figure 4); wherein the dielectric multilayer film (104, 106 and 108, Figure 4) comprises a layer made of amorphous silicon (¶[0004]) and a layer differing in refractive index (¶[0006]) from the layer made of amorphous silicon (¶[0006]).
Sprague fails to teach a protective layer and the protective layer comprises a mixed film, and the mixed film comprises silica, and an oxide of at least one metal selected from among tantalum, niobium, zirconium, titanium, hafnium, tungsten, tin, cerium, chromium, nickel, and vanadium, wherein the optical filter is configured to transmit near infrared light.
Sprague teaches an interference filter and Ouderkirk teaches a lens that the interference filter could be used with.
Ouderkirk teaches a protective layer (one of the dielectric layers, ¶[0078]) and the protective layer (one of the dielectric layers, ¶[0078]) comprises a mixed film, and the mixed film comprises silica (silica, ¶[0078]), and an oxide of at least one metal selected from among tantalum, niobium, zirconium, titanium (oxide with titanium, ¶[0078]), hafnium (oxide with hafnium, ¶[0078]), tungsten, tin, cerium, chromium, nickel, and vanadium; wherein the optical filter (optical filter, ¶[0099]) is configured to transmit near infrared light filter (transmission bands in the visible or near-IR wavelength, ¶[0099]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague having the optical filter with the teachings of Ouderkirk having a protective layer and the protective layer comprises a mixed film, and the mixed film comprises silica, and an oxide of at least one metal selected from among tantalum, niobium, zirconium, titanium, hafnium, tungsten, tin, cerium, chromium, nickel, and vanadium, wherein the optical filter is configured to transmit near infrared light for the purpose of reflecting a first portion of incident light and transmit a second portion of incident light, ¶[0078]).
Sprague in view Ouderkirk fail to teach wherein the optical filter is configured to transmit near infrared light.
Bower teaches an optical filter (20, Figure 3) wherein the optical filter is configured to transmit near infrared light (an infrared optical filter 20 that substantially transmits infrared light 60, ¶[0079]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague having the optical filter with the teachings of Sprague in view Ouderkirk having the optical filter with the teachings of Bower having the optical filter transmit near infrared light for the purpose of reducing thermal stress.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprague (US 2016/0216419 A1) in view of Ouderkirk (US 2022/0350148 A1), of record, and Bower (US 2017/0243988 A1), as applied to Claim 1, above, in further view of Ballou et al., (hereafter Ballou) (US 2018/0364402 A1) and Saito (US 2015/0043058 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower teach the optical filter according to claim 1.
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower fail to wherein the oxide of the mixed film is niobium pentoxide.
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower teach the optical filter and Ballou teaches a reflective mirror that the optical filter that can be used with.
Ballou teaches the protective layer is composed of the oxide, and the oxide is of the mixed film is niobium pentoxide (niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower having the optical filter with the teachings of Ballou having a layer comprising the oxide of the mixed film is niobium pentoxide for the purpose of providing scratch resistance surface, ¶[0061].
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk, Bower and Ballou fail to teach the protective layer has a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm of 1.49 to 2.20.
Saito teaches an infrared shielding film includes a laminated body including a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer (abstract) wherein the protective layer comprises the mixed film (¶[0093]-[0094]), and the protective layer has a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm (¶[0111]) of 1.49 to 2.20 (it is well-known in the art 1.4 to 1.55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague in view of Ouderkirk, Bower and Ballou having the optical filter with the teachings of Saito having the protective layer comprises silica, and the protective layer has a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm of 1.49 to 2.20 for the purpose of high mechanical strength, excellent chemical stability, and good optical transparency.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprague (US 2016/0216419 A1), of record, in view of Ouderkirk et al., (hereafter Ouderkirk) (US 2022/0350148 A1), of record, and Bower et al., (Bower hereafter) (US 2017/0243988 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Watanabe et al., (Watanabe hereafter) (JP2017068118A) and Shiono et al., (Shiono hereafter) (US 2017/0343710 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower teach the optical filter according to of claim 1.
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower fail to teach, satisfying all of the following spectral characteristics (i-4):
(i-4) a surface of the protective layer has a color satisfying -10≤a*≤+10 and -10≤b*≤+10 in an incident angle of 0 degrees to 60 degrees under D65 light source, wherein a* is a first color index coordinate and b* is a second color index coordinate for color index L*a*b* based on JIS Z 8781-4: 2013.
Watanabe teaches an infrared film (title and abstract) satisfying the following spectral characteristics (i-1) to (i-4):
(i-1) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(5)MIN is 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 5 degrees within a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm;
(i-2) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(60)MIN is 3.5% or less at an incident angle of 60 degrees within the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm;
(i-3) an average transmittance T400-680(0)AVE is 5.0% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees within a wavelength range of 400 nm to 680 nm; and
(i-4) a surface of the protective layer (infrared reflective film, ¶[0052]) has a color satisfying -10≤a*≤+10 and -10≤b*≤+10 in an incident angle of 0 degrees to 60 degrees (incident angle of 5 °, ¶[0052]) under D65 light source (D65 light source, ¶[0052]), wherein a* is a first color index coordinate (¶[0052]) and b* is a second color index coordinate (¶[0052]) for color index L*a*b* (¶[0052]) based on JIS Z 8781-4: 2013 (JIS Z 8781-4: 2013, ¶[0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Ballou having the optical filter with the teachings of Watanabe having the color coordinates and color indices for the purpose of desired hues, ¶[0052]).
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk, Bower and Watanabe fail to teach, satisfying all of the following spectral characteristics (i-1) to (i-3):
(i-1) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(5)MIN is 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 5 degrees within a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm;
(i-2) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(60)MIN is 3.5% or less at an incident angle of 60 degrees within the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm;
(i-3) an average transmittance T400-680(0)AVE is 5.0% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees within a wavelength range of 400 nm to 680 nm.
Shiono teaches an optical filter (Figure 1A) and the optical filter (Figure 1A) satisfying all of the following spectral characteristics (i-1) to (i-3):
(i-1) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(5)MIN is 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 5 degrees within a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm (Table 9);
(i-2) a minimum reflectance R800-1600(60)MIN is 3.5% or less at an incident angle of 60 degrees within the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,600 nm (Table 9);
(i-3) an average transmittance T400-680(0)AVE is 5.0% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees within a wavelength range of 400 nm to 680 nm (Table 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague in view of Ouderkirk, Ballou and Watanabe having the optical filter with the teachings of having Shiono having the minimum reflectance and average transmittance spectral characteristics for the purpose of weight reduction and downsizing, and compensate the incident angle dependence, ¶[0151].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprague (US 2016/0216419 A1), of record, in view of Ouderkirk (US 2022/0350148 A1), of record, and Bower (US 2017/0243988 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in further view of Campbell et al., (hereafter Campbell) (US 2018/0284279 A1)
With respect to Claim 6, Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower teach the optical filter of claim 1.
Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower fail to teach a cover for a LiDAR sensor.
Campbell teaches a LiDAR system (title and abstract) comprising a cover (housing 155, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Sprague in view of Ouderkirk and Bower having the optical filter with the teachings of Campbell having the housing for the purposes of the prevention of water vapor, liquid water, dirt, dust, or other contaminants from getting inside the housing and damaging the optical filter, ¶[0045].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein, in the protective layer, a proportion represented by (MI/(MI+M2))x100% is 2.0% or higher,M1 is a number of metal atoms in the protective layer of the at least one metal selected from among tantalum, niobium, zirconium, titanium, hafnium, tungsten, tin, cerium, chromium, nickel, and vanadium, andM2 is [[the]] a number of atoms of silicon in the protective layer.”
With respect to Claim 4, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein, in the protective layer, the oxide is niobium pentoxide and a proportion represented by (M1Nb/(M1Nb +M2))x100% is 4.0% to 45.0%, M1Nb is a number of atoms of niobium in the protective layer, and M2 is a number of atoms of silicon in the protective layer.”
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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872