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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bon Saint Come et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0146990 A1 of record, “Saint”) in view of Kochergin et al (US Publication No.: US 2006/0256428 A1, “Kochergin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Saint discloses an infrared filter film layer (Figure 1), comprising
At least one layer (Figure 1, layer 40; Paragraph 0039),
At least one isolation layer (Figure 1, isolation layer 50; Paragraph 0045, Table 1), and
At least one oxide layer that are stacked with each other (Figure 1, oxide layer 42; Paragraph 0039), wherein the at least one isolation layer is disposed between the at least one silicon-based layer and the at least one oxide layer.
Saint fails to disclose that the at least one layer is a silicon layer.
However, Kochergin discloses a similar infrared filter film where the at least one layer is a silicon layer (Kochergin, Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layer as disclosed by Saint to include silicon as disclosed by Kochergin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Kochergin, Paragraphs 0017-0021).
Regarding Claim 2, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter film layer according to claim 1, wherein the at least one isolation layer is a nitride film (Paragraph 0045 and Table 1 disclose various nitride material).
Regarding Claim 3, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter film layer according to claim 2, wherein a material of the nitride film is selected from the group consisting of silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), niobium nitride (NbN), tantalum nitride (TaN), and zirconium nitride (ZrN) (Paragraph 0045 and Table 1 discloses NbN).
Regarding Claim 4, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter film layer according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the at least one isolation layer is from 6 nm to 150 nm (Paragraph 0033 discloses a thickness of 7 nm).
Regarding Claim 5, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter film layer according to claim 1, wherein the at least one oxide layer is a silicon dioxide layer (SiO2) (Paragraph 0039 discloses a silicon dioxide material).
Regarding Claim 6, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter film layer according to claim 1, wherein a bottom layer of the infrared filter film layer defines a bonding layer, and the bonding layer is the at least one silicon layer, the at least one isolation layer, or the at least one oxide layer (Figure 1, the bonding layer is the layer 40).
Regarding Claim 7, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses an infrared filter structure (Figure 1 or Figure 3), comprising:
A light-transmitting substrate (Figure 1, light-transmitting substrate 32; Paragraph 0021; Figure 3, light-transmitting substrate 42); and
An infrared filter film layer according to claim 1, wherein
The infrared filter film layer is coated on a first surface of the light-transmitting substrate (Figure 1 discloses the infrared filter film layer 90 is coated on a first surface of the light-transmitting substrate 32).
Regarding Claim 8, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter structure according to claim 7, further comprising another infrared filter film layer coated on a second surface of the light-transmitting substrate, wherein the second surface is opposite to the first surface (Figure 3, infrared filter film layer 52 is coated on an opposite side of light-transmitting substrate 42 than first infrared filter film layer 50).
Regarding Claim 9, Saint in view of Kochergin discloses the infrared filter structure according to claim 7, wherein the light-transmitting substrate is made of a glass substrate, a sapphire substrate, or a resin substrate (Paragraph 0021).
Conclusion
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights