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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated December 11th, 2023, June 6th, 2025, and September 4th, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on March 9th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Examiner respectfully disagrees, this argument is not found persuasive because there is indeed a serious search and/or examination burden. Specifically, the three inventions all require non-obvious different structures that include various optical elements in different configurations with different amounts and materials of the various elements/layers. On its face it is clear that searching the three independent claims would require distinctly different searches, the ones concerned about materials requiring a totally different classification area to search. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 9th, 2026.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-10, the limitations “an unpaired layer”, “the unpaired layer”, “a first unpaired layer”, “a second unpaired layer”, “the second unpaired layer” are unclear and render the various claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what makes a layer paired or unpaired here and what the claims are implying the layers are not paired with. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, limitations with the word unpaired will be interpreted to exclude that word, for instance “the unpaired layer” is interpreted to mean “the layer”.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims depend on a rejected claim and are rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ockenfuss (US 2017/0186794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ockenfuss teaches an optical filter,
comprising: a mirror including: a first quarterwave stack that includes a hydrogenated silicon layer and a silicon dioxide layer (See, e.g., the combination of mirrors 110-1 and 110-2 and spacer 120 in Fig. 1. Here the first quarterwave stack corresponds to mirror 110-1. Further, paragraph [0018] explains that the mirrors can be quarterwave stacks with hydrogenated silicon layers and/or silicon-dioxide layers, so this limitation is met when a user decides to use both materials),
wherein a first refractive index of the hydrogenated silicon layer is higher than a second refractive index of the silicon dioxide layer (Note this is necessarily true given the refractive indices of these two materials),
a second quarterwave stack (See, e.g., mirror 110-2 in Fig. 1), and
one or more of: a third quarterwave stack, or an unpaired layer (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because spacer 120 corresponds to a layer); and
one or more of: a substrate adjacent to the mirror, or a hydrogenated silicon spacer adjacent to the mirror (See, e.g., paragraph [0021] which explains that the device may be applied to a substrate).
Regarding claim 5, Ockenfuss teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the mirror includes the unpaired layer (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above and Fig. 1 of Ockenfuss).
Regarding claim 10, Ockenfuss teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical filter includes the substrate (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the unpaired layer is between the substrate and the silicon dioxide layer (Note as the cited substrate is on the outer side of the mirror, and the cited unpaired layer is between the two quarterwave stacks, whichever side the substrate is on the cited unpaired layer would be between the substrate and the silicon dioxide layer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the mirror includes the third quarterwave stack.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the optical filter further includes a second mirror, and wherein the second mirror includes three quarterwave stacks.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the unpaired layer includes another silicon dioxide layer.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the optical filter further includes a second mirror, and wherein the second mirror includes a second unpaired layer.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the optical filter further includes a second unpaired layer, wherein each of three or more quarterwave stacks, of the optical filter, is disposed between the first unpaired layer and the second unpaired layer.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights