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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/04/2024, 09/26/2024, 05/08/2025 and 11/27/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 11-21, the limitation "wherein two of the second refraction layers adjacent to each other sandwich one of the first refraction layers therebetween, and are sandwiched between two of the third refraction layers, so as to be jointly defined as a bidirectional incremental module” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The claim, in light of the specification, is unclear as to what is meant by " wherein two of the second refraction layers adjacent to each other sandwich one of the first refraction layers therebetween”. By definition, the term adjacent means “may or may not imply contact but always implies absence of anything of the same kind in between” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent). Therefore, (based on the definition of adjacent) the second refraction layers cannot be adjacent to each other and sandwich one of the first refraction layer. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “wherein two of the second refraction layers adjacent to each other sandwich one of the first refraction layers therebetween, and are sandwiched between two of the third refraction layers, so as to be jointly defined as a bidirectional incremental module” is understood by the examiner to mean wherein two of the second refraction layers sandwich one of the first refraction layers therebetween, and the second refraction layers are sandwiched between two of the third refraction layers, so as to be jointly defined as a bidirectional incremental module.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatemura (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0293284 A1) in view of Dodge (“Refractive properties of magnesium fluoride”).
Tatemura teaches, as claimed in independent claim 9, an optical filter, comprising a substrate (11), an adhesion layer (MgF2 ) formed on the substrate (11) having a refractive index1 (¶0125 “refractive index of MgF2 was 1.424” and ¶0126 “the number of film layers 1 (TiO2 : 10 nm) and the number of film layers 2 (MgF2: 170 nm) are layers for improving the adhesion between the infrared reflecting layer and the substrate” ), and a matching composite layer (12) formed on the adhesion layer and including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, (see Table 3 that has a total of 86 film) and the N number of the films include a plurality of first refraction layers (L) each having a first refractive index ( ¶0125 “the refractive index of SiO2 was 1.483”) that is greater than the refractive index of the adhesion layer (¶0125 “the refractive index of SiO2 was 1.483”), a second refraction layer (M) having a second refractive index (¶0125 “the refractive index of Ta2 O5 was 2.194”) that is greater than the first refractive index, and a plurality of third refraction layers (H) each having a third refractive index (¶0125 “The refractive index of TiO2 was 2.467”) that is greater than the second refractive index, wherein the matching composite layer (12) is connected to the adhesion layer through one of the third refraction layers that is defined as a first film (see table 4 layer 3) and one of the first refraction layers (L) is arranged on one end of the matching composite layer (12) away from the adhesion layer and is defined as an Nth film (see table 4, layer 86), and wherein the second refraction layer (M) is sandwiched between one of the first refraction layers (L) and one of the third refraction layers (H), so as to be jointly defined as a unidirectional incremental module (see Fig. 2B top potion elements H, M and L). Tatemura fails to explicitly teach the adhesion layer having a refractive index being less than 1.4. In a related art, Dodge teaches a thin film layer2 (MgF2), having a refractive index being less than 1.4 (Page 1981, Table 2 see at wavelengths .36-2.6 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical filter, as taught by Tatemura, with the adhesion layer having a refractive index being less than 1.4, as taught by Dodge, for the purpose of providing a material with low optical absorption (Page 1980, first paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, which includes wherein two of the second refraction layers sandwich one of the first refraction layers therebetween, and the second refraction layers are sandwiched between two of the third refraction layers, so as to be jointly defined as a bidirectional incremental module.
Remaining claims 2-8 and 12-21 have dependency upon allowable independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim 10 is 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.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of claims 10, which includes wherein and a quantity of the second refraction layer in the matching composite layer is only one.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wernham (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0025783 A1) teaches an optical filter, comprising: a substrate, and a matching composite layer including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, and the N number of the films include: a plurality of first refraction layers each having a first refractive index.
Cushing (US Patent Number 4,960,310 A) teaches an optical filter, comprising: a substrate, and a matching composite layer including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, and the N number of the films include: a plurality of first refraction layers each having a first refractive index.
Wach (US Patent Number 8,116,003 B1) teaches an optical filter, comprising: a substrate, and a matching composite layer including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, and the N number of the films include: a plurality of first refraction layers each having a first refractive index.
Hendrix (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0336544 A1) teaches an optical filter, comprising: a substrate, and a matching composite layer including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, and the N number of the films include: a plurality of first refraction layers each having a first refractive index.
Tatemura (US Patent Number 10,241,245 B2) teaches an optical filter, comprising: a substrate, and a matching composite layer including an N number of films stacked in sequence, wherein N is a positive integer, and the N number of the films include: a plurality of first refraction layers each having a first refractive index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
22 April 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 ¶0045 teaches the low refractive index film preferably is more preferably in the range 1.36 to 1.50, a constituent material may, for example, be SiO2, MgF2 or a composite oxide thereof. The examiner has interpreted that layer MgF2 can have a refractive index from 1.36 to 1.50.
2 MgF2 is a known thin film that inherently provides adhesion properties.
Prosecution Insights