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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Wach (PN. 7,901,870) in view of the US patent application publication by Hallock et al (US 2017/0363884 A1).
Wach teaches, with regard to claim 1, an optical thin films, (please see Figure 2), that serves as the thin-film interference filter that is comprised of a first bank of layers (250) serves as the first thin-film interference multi-layer stack composed of individual thin-film layers (220 and 230) arranged in groups to form a plurality of first repeat unit blocks (each block consists layers of 220 and 230) and a second bank of layers (250) serves as a second thin-film interference multi-layer stack composed of individual thin-film layers (220 and 230) arranged in groups to form a plurality of second repeat unit blocks (each block consists layers of 220 and 230) and at least one spacer (240) serves as the at least one interlayer between the first thin-film interference multi-layer stack and the second thin-film interference multi-layer stack, (please see Figure 2, column 15).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the thin-film interference filter is flexible enough to be bendable without permanently damaging, deforming or cracking the thin-film interference filter as whole.
Hallock et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical filter that includes an interference filter (20, Figure 1) that may be made with flexible material so that it is bendable to form optical filter for a curved vision protecting lens (please see Figure 8 and parameter [0071]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hallock et al to modify the thin-film interference filter to be made with flexible materials to be bendable without permanently damaging for the benefit of making the thin-film optical filter to be suitable for a vision protecting lens.
With regard to claim 2, Hallock et al teaches that the interference filter is bendable to a radius of curvature of 4 centimeters or 40 millimeter (please see paragraph [0071]) that is less than 250 millimeter. Wach teaches that the thin-film interference filter (160, Figures 1A and 1B) may have a physical thickness of 10 microns, (please see column 11, lines 1-3) for wavelength of light in the range of 1310 to 1550 nm. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the total thickness is within 0.05 mm to 1mm, nevertheless one skilled in the art knows that each layer thickness of the thin-film interference filter depends on the wavelength of incident light to provide the required constructive and destructive interference of the incident light to create the desired filtering function. This means that the total thickness of the thin-film interference filter may be modified by one skilled in the art to have the claimed total thickness for a specific wavelength of the light for the benefit of making the interference filter to have the desired of optical filtering properties.
With regard to claims 12-14, Wach teaches that the thin-film interference optical filter may have specific transmission spectra, (please see Figures 4A to 8). It is within general level skilled in the art to modify the optical filter have different transmission for a first wavelength and a second wavelength for the benefit of allowing the filter to have the desired properties. With regard to claims 13 and 14, it is either implicitly true or obvious modified by one skilled in the art to include transition edge between low transmission and high transmission and has a width is less than 5% of a third wavelength. It is known in the art that the transmission spectrum of the interference filter may be designed by modify the thickness and/or refractive indices of the layers in the multi-layer stack. It is therefore an obvious modification to one skilled in the art to design the thin-film multi-layer interference filter to have the desired spectrum properties.
Wirth regard to claim 15, Wach does not teach explicitly about the thickness of each layer of the thin-film interference optical filter, however Wach does teach to adjust the refractive index of the layer, which implicitly adjust the optical thickness, to adjust the optical properties of the optical filter, (please see Figure 1a to 1d). It is either implicitly true or obviously modified by one skilled in the art to provide at least one defect layer of a different optical thickness that immediate neighboring individual thin-film layers forming the repeat unit blocks for the benefit of making the optical filter has desired properties.
With regard to claims 16-17, Wach teaches that each of the thin-film interference multi-layer stack has at least two thin film layers within each of the repeat unit blocks has different physical thickness and/or refractive index, (please see column 15, lines 15-39). With regard to claim 17, it is known in the art that optical thickness is determined by the product of the layer thickness and the refractive index of the layer. For the thin-film interference optical filter, the optical thickness for the at least two of the individual thin-film layers may be different from each other, (please see Figure 1c) for the benefit of allowing the optical filter has desired optical properties.
With regard to claims 18-19, Wach teaches that each of the thin-film interference multi-layer stack has alternative layers of low and high refractive index material layers, (220 and 230, Figure 2 and column 15), and the order of the refractive index is identical for at least two repeat unit blocks. With regard to claim 19, it is within general level skilled in the art to make the thickness of the layers to be different by a constant scaling, (please see Figure 1c) to make the optical filter may be adjusted to have desired properties.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wach and Hallock et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Song et al (US 2013/0279006 A1).
The thin-film interference optical filter taught by Wach in light of the teachings of Hallock et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claim 3, Wach does teach explicitly that the interlayer has a thickness that is 10-1000 times thicker than that each individual thin-film layer in the first or second thin-film interference multilayer stack.
Song et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical filter comprises stacks of thin-film inference filters (12, Figures 3 and 4) that comprises a spacer layer (22 or 30) interposed between the stacks of the thin-film interference filters. Song et al teaches that if the optical filter has the arrangement of Fabry-Perot interferometer wherein the interlayer may have a thickness of about 50 microns, (please see paragraph [0026]). Song et al teaches that the individual thin film layer has an optical thickness of a quarter of wavelength, which makes the physical thickness is approximately about 100 nm, (please see paragraph [0023]). The thickness of the interlayer therefore can be about 500 times of the thickness of the individual thin film layer.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Song et al to modify the thin-film interference filter to have the interlayer having a thickness that is about 1 to 1000 times of the thickness of the individual thin film layer for the benefit of making the optical filter has a Fabry Perot interferometric arrangement.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wach and Hallock et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Weber et al (US 2016/0109628 A1).
The thin-film interference optical filter taught by Wach in light of the teachings of Hallock et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claim 4, these references do not teach explicitly that at least one interlayer is an absorptive interlayer blocking a range of wavelengths of infrared, visible or ultraviolet light.
Weber et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical film filter that is comprised of a first and a second multilayer films (826a and 826b, Figure 8) with an interlayer (814c) interposed between the two multilayer films. Weber et al teaches that the interlayer (814c) may be an absorbing layer, (please see paragraph [0100]). The absorbing layer may comprise UV-absorber, infrared-absorber, (please see paragraph [0100]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Weber et al to modify the thin-film interference filter to make the interlayer or spacer layer to be an absorbing layer for the benefit of allowing the optical filter to have the property of absorbing UV and/or infrared light.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wach and Hallock et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Kinoshita et al (US 2014/0186752 A1).
The thin-film interference optical filter taught by Wach in light of the teachings of Hallock et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claim 5, these references do not teach to further include a first jacket layer and a second jacket layer.
Kinoshita et al teaches an optical filter that may comprise an absorber layer (16, Figures 4 and 5) that may serve as a jacket layer for a multilayer interference filter (12). Although this reference does not teach explicitly to have this absorber layer as a second jacket layer to have the multilayer filter between two jacket layers. Kinoshita et al does teach the multilayer may be positioned between the absorber layer (16) and a substrate (11). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kinoshita et al to provide absorber layers as jacket layers for covering the multilayer filter at both sides for the benefit of allowing the specific wavelength of lights being absorbed from both sides of the multilayer filter.
With regard to claims 10-11, Kinoshita et al teaches that the jacket layer comprise absorbing layer for absorbing UV light and/or infrared light, (please see paragraph [0100]). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the jacket layer has a thickness that is 10 to 1000 times of thickness of each individua thin-film layer, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of achieving optimal operation of the optical filter.
With regard to claims 6, 8 and 9, Kinoshita et al further teaches to include a layer of low reflective or anti-reflective thin-film layer (17, Figures 4 and 5) on the outside of the jacket layer (16). With regard to claims 8 and 9, although this reference does not teach explicitly that the anti-reflective is produced by the methods claimed, such features are considered to be product-by-process limitations that do not differentiate the final product from prior art. These features therefore are not given patentable weight, (please MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wach, Hallock et al and Kinoshita et al as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Faris (US 2006/0240232 A1).
The thin-film interference optical filter taught by Wach in light of the teachings of Hallock et al and Kinoshita et al as described in claims 1 and 5 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claim 7, these references do not teach explicitly that the anti-reflective thin-film layers are polymeric.
Faris in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-reflective coating that may comprise more than one polymer layers, (please see the abstract).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Faris to modify the thin-film interference filter of Wach in light of Kinoshita et al to make the anti-reflective thin film layer comprise art well-known polymer for the benefit of using art well-known material for making the anti-reflective thin film layers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Wach (PN. 7,901,870).
Wach teaches, with regard to claim 20, an optical thin films, (please see Figure 2), that serves as the thin-film interference filter that is comprised of a first bank of layers (250) serves as the first thin-film interference multi-layer stack composed of individual thin-film layers (220 and 230) arranged in groups to form a plurality of first repeat unit blocks (each block consists layers of 220 and 230). Wach teaches that the individual thin-film layers (220 and 230) of at least two of the unit blocks are arranged in identical orders of the thickness, (please see Figure 2 and column 15. Wach teaches that the thickness of the thin-film interference filter (160) may be different by a scaling factor, (please see Figures 1a to 1c). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the each of the individual thin-film layers of one unit block has a thickness differing from a respect individual thin-film layer of another unit block, such is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to achieve the change of the thickness of the optical filter with the scaling factor as shown in Figure 1c.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,765 in view of US patent application publication by Song et al (US 2013/0279006 A1) and US patent application publication by Hallock et al (US 2017/0363884 A1). Both the instant application and the cited patent teach a thin film interferent filter that is comprised of a first thin-film interference multi-layer stack composed of individual thin-film layers arranged in groups to form a plurality of first repeat unit blocks and a second thin-film interference multi-layer stack composed of individual thin-film layers arranged in groups to form a plurality of second repeat unit blocks and at least one interlayer between the first thin-film interference multi-layer stack and the second thin-film interference multi-layer stack. The thin film interference filter is flexible.
Claim 1 of instant application does not disclose that the thickness of the interlayer is 10-1000 times thicker than that of each individual thin-film layer, however such is being claimed in claim 3 of instant application. Song et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical filter with spacer or interlayer between stacks of multilayer films where for a Fabry Perot filter arrangement the thickness of the interlayer may be 50 microns that is about 500 times of the thickness of the individual thin film layer having quarter wavelength optical thickness.
Claim 1 of instant application also does not disclose that the thin-film interference filter is bendable to have a radius of curvature of 250 mm or less, however such feature is explicitly clamed in claim 2 of instant application. Hallock et al teaches that the multilayer thin film interference filter may be made of flexible material that is bendable to have a radius of curvature of 40 mm or less.
The feature concerning the total thickness is being claimed in claim 2 of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872