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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 4, 6-7 and 29-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al (WO 2020/247245 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Hart et al discloses an optical assembly comprising: an infrared transmissive pane (Figs.2-3); and an infrared sensitive receptor and/or an infrared light source (Figs.2-3; paragraphs 2-3, 50-51), the infrared transmissive pane further comprising a first infrared transmissive substrate (a substrate 30; paragraphs 51-53, 66, 85) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and an infrared antireflective coating on the first surface (Figs.3-4), wherein the coating comprises S sequence(s) of thin layers (Fig.4), wherein each sequence of thin layers comprises a layer of high refractive index material (Si3N4) having an index of refraction of equal to or greater than 1.8 at a wavelength of 550 nm underneath a layer of low refractive index material (SiO2) having an index of refraction of equal to or less than 1.7 at a wavelength of 550 nm (note that refractive indices at 550 nm for SiO2 and Si3N4 are approximately 1.45 and 2.04, respectively)
wherein S ≥ 2 (Tables 1-7),
wherein an optical thickness euL at a wavelength, of an uppermost layer of the coating comprising the low refractive index material ranges from (λIR * 0.12) ≤ euL ≤ (λIR * 0.40) (in view of Table 1, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.47 * 154 nm = 226 nm which is comprised between 0.12*905 nm and 0.4*905 nm, 905 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in Table 1),
wherein λIR is an infrared wavelength selected in range of 800 to 2000 nm (905 nm in Table 1), and wherein the pane is configured to transmit infrared light to the sensor and/or from the source (Figs.2-4), and wherein the first infrared transmissive substrate is selected from silica-based glass (paragraphs 53-54, 114) and synthetic polymers (i.e. paragraph 103 – acrylic sheet [PMMA sheet]).
Regarding claim 4, in view of Table 1, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.47 * 154 nm = 226 nm which is comprised between 0.15*905 nm and 0.33*905 nm, 905 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in Table 1.
Regarding claim 6, in view of Table 1, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.47 * 25 nm = 37 nm which is less than or equal to 0.13*905nm, 905 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in Table 1.
Regarding claim 7, in view of Table 1, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.98 * 22.9 nm = 45 nm which is less than or equal to 0.15*905nm, 905 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in Table 1.
Regarding claims 30-32, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.2-4 of Hart et al (paragraphs 50-53 and 78).
Regarding claims 33-38, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1-2 of Hart et al (paragraphs 3, 49-51 and 80).
Regarding claim 39, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 53-54, 85 and 114 of Hart et al.
Regarding claims 40-41, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 78 of Hart et al.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6-9, 29-32, 35, 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cool et al (US 2020/0096686 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Cool et al discloses an optical assembly comprising: an infrared transmissive pane (Figs.3-6); and an infrared sensitive receptor and/or an infrared light source (Figs.1-3), the infrared transmissive pane further comprising a first infrared transmissive substrate (a substrate 32) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and an infrared antireflective coating on the first surface (Figs.3-6), wherein the coating comprises S sequence(s) of thin layers (Figs.4-6), wherein each sequence of thin layers comprises a layer of high refractive index material (Si3N4) having an index of refraction of equal to or greater than 1.8 at a wavelength of 550 nm underneath a layer of low refractive index material (SiO2) having an index of refraction of equal to or less than 1.7 at a wavelength of 550 nm (note that refractive indices at 550 nm for SiO2 and Si3N4 are approximately 1.45 and 2.04, respectively)
wherein S ≥ 2 (Table 7),
wherein an optical thickness euL at a wavelength, of an uppermost layer of the coating comprising the low refractive index material ranges from (λIR * 0.12) ≤ euL ≤ (λIR * 0.40) (in view of Table 7, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.47 * 90 nm = 132 nm which is comprised between 0.12*930 nm and 0.4*930 nm, 930 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in paragraph 59),
wherein λIR is an infrared wavelength selected in range of 800 to 2000 nm (paragraphs 34, 59), and wherein the pane is configured to transmit infrared light to the sensor and/or from the source (Figs.3-6), and wherein the first infrared transmissive substrate is selected from silica-based glass and plastics (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 2, layers of high refractive index for a coating 50A shown in Fig.7 meets the claimed ranges (the sum of optical thickness at a wavelength 930nm of the layers of high refractive index material is approximately 370 nm [i.e. 60-8 {85 nm}, 60-6 {59 nm}, 60-4 {35 nm} and 60-2 {8 nm} layers] which is between 0.1*930 nm and 0.55*930 nm).
Regarding clam 4, in view of Table in Fig.7, layer 60-9 for coating 50A– its optical thickness = 1.47 * 95 nm = 139.65 nm which is comprised between 0.15*930 nm and 0.33*930 nm, 930 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in paragraph 59, for example.
Regarding clam 6, in view of Table in Fig.7, layer 60-1 for coating 50G– its optical thickness = 1.47 * 32 nm = 47.04 nm which is less than or equal to 0.13*930 nm, 930 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in paragraph 59, for example.
Regarding claim 7, in view of Table in Fig.7, layer 60-2 for coating 50G– its optical thickness = 1.98 *12 nm = 23.76 nm which is less than or equal to 0.135*930 nm, 930 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in paragraph 59, for example.
Regarding claim 8, in view of Table in Fig.7, layer 60-6 for coating 50F– its optical thickness = 1.98 *48 nm = 95.04 nm, which is between 15 nm and 110 nm.
Regarding clam 9, in view of Table in Fig.7, layer 60-9 for coating 50B– its optical thickness = 1.47 * 100 nm = 147 nm which is comprised between 0.15*930 nm and 0.37*930 nm, 930 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in paragraph 59, for example.
Regarding claims 30-32, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.3 of Cool et al (paragraphs 5-6, 17 and 59).
Regarding claim 35, the limitation therein is disclosed in paragraph 20 of Cool et al.
Regarding claim 37, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.3 of Cool et al.
Regarding claims 39-41, the limitations therein is disclosed in paragraphs 19, 41 and 59-62 of Cool et al.
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) 2-3, 5, 8-10 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al (WO 2020/247245 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 8 and 10, the specific thickness utilized for layers for optimizing reflectance/transmittance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 9, in view of Table 1, layer 1 – its optical thickness = 1.47 * 154 nm = 226 nm which is comprised between 0.15*905 nm and 0.37*905 nm, 905 nm being the design wavelength for the coating in Table 1.
Regarding claim 42, the specific peak transmittance for a substrate would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular applications.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 33-34, 36, 38 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cool et al (US 2020/0096686 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 10, the specific thickness utilized for layers for optimizing reflectance/transmittance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 33-34, 36 and 38, although Cool et al discloses the use of an electronic device in an automobile, it doesn’t specifically mention the use of a LiDAR device. However, the specific use of a device of Cool et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary in view of meeting different design requirements and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 42, the specific peak transmittance for a substrate would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular applications.
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Apitz reference are deemed to be moot since the new ground of rejections are now made with respect to the amended claim limitations.
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 KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
