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.
Drawings
The drawings with 2 Sheets of Figs. 1-2 received on 3/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 3,12, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein a thicknesses of a film layer farthest from the first surface is the same as that of” in lines 1-2. This seems to be a grammatical error. It is suggested to be replaced with --wherein a thickness of a film layer farthest from the first surface is the same as that of--.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 3 and hence inherits its deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2,6-8,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2020/0393601 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches (fig 1,2,4) a dual pass band filter element (optical filter, para 42) comprising:
a substrate (glass substrate 1, para 42) with a first surface (first surface with IR film layer 2, fig 1, para 42) and a second surface (second surface with AR film layer 3, fig 2, para 42) opposite the first surface;
a bandpass filtering structure (IR film layer 2, infrared cut-off film layer, para 42) formed on the first surface and including first material layers (first refractive index material layer L, para 43) and second material layers (second refractive-index material layer H, para 43) with refractive indexes higher than refractive indexes of the first material layers, (para 43) (taking Example 1, para 53, IR film layer 2 is M,(LH)*n L, para 53, Table 1)
wherein the first and second material layers (first and second refractive index material layers L, H, para 43) are stacked alternately along a normal of the substrate (glass substrate 1, para 42); and
an anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) formed on the second surface (second surface with AR film layer 3, fig 2, para 42);
wherein the dual pass band filter element (optical filter, para 42) has a first pass band (first pass band centered around 950nm, fig 4) and a second pass band (second pass band centered around 1150nm, fig 4) (first and second pass bands with peak transmissions around 950nm and 1150nm are considered the dual pass bands) that does not overlap with the first pass band, in a band of 400 nm to 1800 nm (950 nm and 1150nm are in between 400nm-1800nm).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein in the bandpass filtering structure (IR film layer 2, infrared cut-off film layer, para 42), a film layer (layer 2, Table 1, SiO2, page 5) closest to the first surface (first surface with IR film layer 2, fig 1, para 42) and a film layer (layer 20, Table 1, SiO2, page 5) farthest from the first surface are both the first material layers (first material, SiO2).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein in the bandpass filtering structure, thicknesses of the first material layers are 0.02-10.28 times thicknesses of the second material layers (thicknesses of first material layers are in the range 20nm-264.2nm and thicknesses of second material layers are in the range 19.96 nm-269.93 nm and hence the ratio of thicknesses is in the claimed range of 0.02-10.28).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein in the bandpass filtering structure, a thickness of each of the first material layers is 0.04-9.43 times a thickness of one of the second material layers adjacent to this first material layer (thickness of layer 2 is 264.2 and thickness of adjacent layer 3 is 240.21 and the ratio of 264.2/240.21=1.099 which is in the claimed range, similarly, ratio of thicknesses of layers 22 and 23 is 72.69/242.21 = 0.3 which is again in the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein in the bandpass filtering structure, a thickness of each of the first material layers is 0.07-4.37 times a thickness of one of the second material layers adjacent to this first material layer (thickness of layer 2 is 264.2 and thickness of adjacent layer 3 is 240.21 and the ratio of 264.2/240.21=1.099 which is in the claimed range, similarly, ratio of thicknesses of layers 22 and 23 is 72.69/242.21 = 0.3 which is again in the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) includes at least one third material layer (low refractive index material layer L, para 46, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) and at least one fourth material layer (high refractive index material layer H, para 46, SiH, Table 2, page 5), the at least one third material layer and the at least one fourth material layer are stacked along the normal (as in fig 2),
a material of the third material layer is the same as that of the first material layer (SiO2), a material of the fourth material layer is the same as that of the second material layer (SiH) (Tables 1,2, page 5), and
in the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42), a film layer closest to the second surface (layer 1, Table 2, SiO2) and a film layer farthest from the second surface (layer 25, Table 2, SiO2) are both the third material layers.
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) 3-5,9,11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2020/0393601 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a thickness of a film layer (layer 24, Table 1, SiO2, page 5, Thickness = 71.01 nm) farthest from the first surface is different than that of a film layer (layer 2, Table 1, SiO2, page 5, Thickness = 264.2 nm) closest to the first surface (first surface with IR film layer 2, fig 1, para 42) in the bandpass filtering structure.
However, Chen does not teach that thickness of layer farthest from first surface is same as thickness of layer closest to first surface.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Chen teaches that the ratio of thicknesses of the layers is in a range of values (para 16). An increase in the ratio will help in better optical properties while making the adhesion harder and a decrease in the ratio of thicknesses would make the adhesion better while optical properties are less pronounced. Therefore, the ratio of thicknesses is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed relative thicknesses, and one would have chosen the thickness of layer farthest from first surface is same as thickness of layer closest to first surface according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adhesivity. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with adhesivity.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein thicknesses of the first material layers (first refractive index material layers L, para 43, SiO2, Table 1, page 5) in the bandpass filtering structure are 5.34 nm-205.21 nm (smallest thickness is of layer 16, 20nm and largest thickness is of layer 2, 264.2nm, hence the range 20nm-264.2nm).
However, Chen does not teach
wherein thicknesses of first material layers in the bandpass filtering structure are 5.34 nm-205.21 nm
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses of first material layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0021] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 20nm-264.2nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen to have the claimed range of thicknesses for the purposes of a desired improved filter behavior (para 25, Chen).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein thicknesses of the second material layers (second refractive index material layers H, para 43, SiH, Table 1, page 5) in the bandpass filtering structure are 19.96 nm-269.93 nm (smallest thickness is of layer 19, 80.36nm and largest thickness is of layer 21, 261.68nm, hence the range 80.36nm-261.68nm).
However, Chen does not teach
wherein thicknesses of second material layers in the bandpass filtering structure are 19.96 nm-269.93 nm.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses of second material layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0022] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 80.36nm-261.68nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen to have the claimed range of thicknesses for the purposes of a desired improved filter behavior (para 25, Chen).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the number of film layers of the bandpass filtering structure (IR film layer 2, infrared cut-off film layer, para 42) is 5.7 times that of the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) (number of layers in IR film layer in Example 1 is 25 (Table 1, page 5) and number of layers in AR film layer is 25 in (Table 2, page 5) and hence the same).
However, Chen does not teach that number of film layers of bandpass filtering structure is 5.7 times that of anti-reflection structure.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Chen teaches that the ratio of number of film layers is in a range of values (para 62). An increase in the number of film layers of bandpass filtering structure will help in clearer pass bands while making the device bulky on the topside and a decrease in the number of film layers of bandpass filtering structure would make the device less bulky on the top side while bands are less pronounced. Therefore, the ratio of number of film layers in IR and AR structures is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed ratio of number of film layers, and one would have chosen number of film layers of bandpass filtering structure is 5.7 times that of anti-reflection structure according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving IR pass band quality with bulk. One would have been motivated to have ratio of number of layers to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with device bulk.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) includes at least one third material layer (low refractive index material layer L, para 46, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) and at least one fourth material layer (high refractive index material layer H, para 46, SiH, Table 2, page 5), the at least one third material layer and the at least one fourth material layer are stacked along the normal (as in fig 2),
a material of the third material layer is the same as that of the first material layer (SiO2), a material of the fourth material layer is the same as that of the second material layer (SiH) (Tables 1,2, page 5), and
in the anti-reflection structure, a thickness of a film layer closest (thickness of layer 1 in table 2 is 118.99nm, page 5) to the second surface is different from that of a film layer farthest from the second surface (thickness of layer 25 in table 2 is 139.6nm, page 5).
However, Chen does not teach that thickness of layer farthest from second surface is same as thickness of layer closest to second surface.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Chen teaches that the ratio of thicknesses of the layers is in a range of values (para 16). An increase in the ratio will help in better optical properties while making the adhesion harder and a decrease in the ratio of thicknesses would make the adhesion better while optical properties are less pronounced. Therefore, the ratio of thicknesses is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed relative thicknesses, and one would have chosen the thickness of layer farthest from second surface is same as thickness of layer closest to second surface according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adhesivity. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with adhesivity.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) includes at least one third material layer (low refractive index material layer L, para 46, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) and at least one fourth material layer (high refractive index material layer H, para 46, SiH, Table 2, page 5), the at least one third material layer and the at least one fourth material layer are stacked along the normal (as in fig 2),
a material of the third material layer is the same as that of the first material layer (SiO2), a material of the fourth material layer is the same as that of the second material layer (SiH) (Tables 1,2, page 5), and
in the anti-reflection structure, a thickness of a film layer closest (thickness of layer 1 in table 2 is 118.99nm, page 5) to the second surface is different than that of a film layer farthest from the second surface (thickness of layer 25 in table 2 is 139.6nm, page 5).
However, Chen does not teach that thickness of layer farthest from second surface is same as thickness of layer closest to second surface.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Chen teaches that the ratio of thicknesses of the layers is in a range of values (para 16). An increase in the ratio will help in better optical properties while making the adhesion harder and a decrease in the ratio of thicknesses would make the adhesion better while optical properties are less pronounced. Therefore, the ratio of thicknesses is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed relative thicknesses, and one would have chosen the thickness of layer farthest from second surface is same as thickness of layer closest to second surface according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adhesivity. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with adhesivity.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1, wherein the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) includes at least one third material layer (low refractive index material layer L, para 46, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) and at least one fourth material layer (high refractive index material layer H, para 46, SiH, Table 2, page 5), the at least one third material layer and the at least one fourth material layer are stacked along the normal (as in fig 2),
a material of the third material layer is the same as that of the first material layer (SiO2), a material of the fourth material layer is the same as that of the second material layer (SiH) (Tables 1,2, page 5), and
in the anti-reflection structure, a thickness of a film layer closest (thickness of layer 1 in table 2 is 118.99nm, page 5) to the second surface is different from that of a film layer farthest from the second surface (thickness of layer 25 in table 2 is 139.6nm, page 5).
wherein a thickness of a film layer (layer 24, Table 1, SiO2, page 5, Thickness = 71.01 nm) farthest from the first surface is different from that of a film layer (layer 2, Table 1, SiO2, page 5, Thickness = 264.2 nm) closest to the first surface (first surface with IR film layer 2, fig 1, para 42) in the bandpass filtering structure,
a thickness of a film layer closest (thickness of layer 1 in table 2 is 118.99nm, page 5) to the second surface is different as that of a film layer farthest from the second surface (thickness of layer 25 in table 2 is 139.6nm, page 5).
However, Chen does not teach that a film layer farthest from the first surface and a film layer closest to the first surface in the bandpass filtering structure, and a film layer closest to the second surface and a film layer farthest from the second surface in the anti-reflection structure have a same thickness.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Chen teaches that the thicknesses of the layers is in a range of values (para 16). An increase in the thickness will help in better optical properties while making the adhesion harder and a decrease in thicknesses would make the adhesion better while optical properties are less pronounced. Therefore, the ratio of thicknesses is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed relative thicknesses, and one would have chosen a film layer farthest from the first surface and a film layer closest to the first surface in the bandpass filtering structure, and a film layer closest to the second surface and a film layer farthest from the second surface in the anti-reflection structure to have a same thickness according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adhesivity. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with adhesivity.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2020/0393601 A1) in view of Cheah et al (US 2019/0242004 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen teaches the dual pass band filter element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the anti-reflection structure (AR film layer 3, para 42) includes at least two third material layers (low refractive index material layer L, para 46, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) (Layers 1,3, SiO2, Table 2, page 5) and at least one fourth material layer (high refractive index material layer H, para 46, SiH, Table 2, page 5) (Layer 2, SiH, Table 2, page 5),
the at least two third material layer and the at least one fourth material layers are stacked along the normal (as in fig 2),
a material of the third material layer is the same as that of the first material layer (SiO2), a material of the fourth material layer is the same as that of the second material layer (SiH) (Tables 1,2, page 5).
However, Chen does not teach
in the anti-reflection structure, a pair of film layers furthest away from the second surface and stacked together are the third material layers.
Chen and Cheah are related as AR layer structures.
Cheah teaches (fig 66)
in the anti-reflection structure (anti reflective layers, para 362), a pair of film layers (Al2O3 layers, fig 49, “A high refractive index AR layer as the 2.sup.nd outermost layer is coated on top of the pairs of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and low refractive index layers. Finally, the top most Al.sub.2O.sub.3 AR layer is fabricated”, para 362) furthest away from the surface and stacked together are the third material layers (Al2O3 layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of film layers furthest away from second surface of Chen to include the third material of Cheah for the purpose of design arrangements for different substrates (para 362).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/20/2026