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 Amendment
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 6 and 9 are currently amended; and claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-17 are original. The amendment dated June 9, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claims 6-11 were previously rejected under 35 USC §112(b). The rejections are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claims.
Response to Arguments
(1) Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the prior art of Yang fails to disclose or suggest “a number of the first low-refractive index films is greater than two, and a number of the semiconductor films is greater than two” and “a number of the second low-refractive-index films is greater than two, and a number of the high-refractive-index films is greater than two" as recited in amended independent claim 1” (Remarks, Pages 7-8).
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons: the examiner considers a stack is defined as a pile of something, usually neatly arranged; or a group of things, esp. such a pile or heap with its constituents arranged in an orderly fashion (Oxford English Dictionary). See Figure 2C of Yang below, annotated by the examiner, regarding the second stack disposed on the first stack.
(2) Regarding claims 6-11, the applicant further argues Yang fails to disclose a narrower mathematical relationship or selection obvious, and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have arrived at the claimed coefficient relationship in claims 6-11 (Remarks, Pages 8-9).
The examiner respectively disagrees because claims 6-11 not recite a narrower mathematical relationship. For example, claim 6 merely describes variables already identified by Yang and rename those variables. The examiner considers “a narrower mathematical relationship” should teach a relationship, for example, between a thickness of the j-th second low-refractive-index film and a transmittance of the optical structure. In this case, the claims merely identify variables to be adjusted (for example, coefficients of Aj, cj, ck, dj in claim 11 are essentially 1, and do not further affect the thickness that should be still adjusted, where claims 6-11 lack a further mathematical relationship to decide the thickness).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20240085605), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses an optical structure (200 in Fig. 2C), comprising:
a substrate (205);
a first stack (235, 225) disposed on the substrate, wherein the first stack comprises alternately stacked first low-refractive-index films (235; Para. [0033] “SiO2 material”) and semiconductor films (225; Para. [0026] “an amorphous silicon (a Si) material“); wherein a number of the first low-refractive-index films is greater than two, and a number of the semiconductor film is greater than two (see Fig. 2C below, annotated by the examiner); and
a second stack (220, 215) disposed on the first stack; wherein the second stack comprises alternately stacked second low-refractive-index films (220; Para. [0027] “a silicon dioxide (SiO2) material”) and high-refractive-index films (215; Para. [0026] “(Ta2O5) material”), wherein a number of the second low-refractive-index films is greater than two, and a number of the high-refractive-index films film is greater than two (see Fig. 2C below, annotated by the examiner),
wherein a refractive index of each of the first low-refractive-index films and the second low-refractive-index films is less than a refractive index of each of the high-refractive-index films (a refractive index of SiO2 is 1.4504 at 1000 nm, and a refractive index of Ta2O5 is 2.0796 at 1000 nm).
<Fig. 2A of Yang, annotated by the examiner>
235 (a first stack) – a low-refractive-index film
225 (a first stack) – a semiconductor film
220
215
235 (a first stack) – a low-refractive-index film
225 (a first stack) – a semiconductor film
220
215
235 (a first stack) – a low-refractive-index film
225 (a first stack) – a semiconductor film
______________________________________
220 (a second stack) – a low-refractive-index film
215 (a second stack) – a high-refractive-index film
235
225
220 (a second stack) – a low-refractive-index film
215 (a second stack) – a high-refractive-index film
235
225
220 (a second stack) – a low-refractive-index film
215 (a second stack) – a high-refractive-index film
235
225
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the semiconductor films comprise amorphous silicon (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first low-refractive-index films and the second low-refractive-index films comprise silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, or a combination thereof (Paras. [0027], [0033])
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the high-refractive-index films comprise titanium dioxide, niobium(V) oxide, tantalum(V) oxide, silane, or a combination thereof (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the substrate comprises glass (Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a cut-on wavelength of the optical structure is from 850 nm to 1550 nm (see Fig. 9 wherein the cut-on wavelength is between 900 and 950 nm; Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein an average transmittance of the optical structure is less than or equal to 10−5 in the range of visible light wavelengths (see Fig. 5, the examiner considers the average transmittance is substantially zero below 900 nm; Paras. [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a refractive index of the first low-refractive-index films and the second low-refractive-index films is less than or equal to 1.5 (see Paras. [0027] and [0033] teaching SiO2).
Regarding claim 17, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a refractive index of the high-refractive-index films is greater than 1.5 (see Para. [0026]; a refractive index of Ta2O5 is 2.0796 at 1000 nm).
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the i-th first low-refractive-index film among the first low-refractive-index films in the first stack is Ai×ci×L, a thickness of the i-th semiconductor films among the semiconductor films in the first stack is Ai×di×M, where L, M are λ/4 optical thickness, λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance, Ai×ci×L and Ai×di×M are set to cut off light with a wavelength of 300 nm to 600 nm, Ai means a bracket coefficient and stands for a scale factor of a design wavelength, and cj, dj are coefficients of λ/4 optical thickness.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of the i-th first low-refractive-index film among the first low-refractive-index films in the first stack is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]), and a thickness of the i-th semiconductor films among the semiconductor films in the first stack is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]) (the examiner considers TABLE 1 of the specification, in which the applicant discloses the thickness of each layer), λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance (Para. [0030]), and each thickness is set to cut off light with a wavelength of 300 nm to 600 nm (Fig. 5), wherein a layer thickness of each layer may be selected based on an intended set of optical characteristics of the optical filter, such as an intended passband, an intended transmissivity (Para. [0035]).
Because Yang teaches the range of the thickness of films and the motivation to select each thickness based on an intended set of optical characteristics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein a thickness of the i-th first low-refractive-index film among the first low-refractive-index films in the first stack is Ai×ci×L, a thickness of the i-th semiconductor films among the semiconductor films in the first stack is Ai×di×M, where L, M are λ/4 optical thickness, λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance, Ai×ci×L and Ai×di×M are set to cut off light with a wavelength of 300 nm to 600 nm, Ai means a bracket coefficient and stands for a scale factor of a design wavelength, and cj, dj are coefficients of λ/4 optical thickness, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose Ai is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of each layer is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure (Fig. 5 and Paras. [0033], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein Ai is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose Ai is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.5, ci is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2.5, and di is substantially equal to 1.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of each layer is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure (Fig. 5 and Paras. [0033], [0035]), and wherein the thickness of the i-th first low-refractive-index film is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein Ai is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.5, ci is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2.5, and di is substantially equal to 1, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the j-th second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films in the second stack is Aj×cj×L, a thickness of the j-th high-refractive-index film among the high-refractive-index films in the second stack is Aj×dj×H, a thickness of a second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films closest to the substrate is ck×L, where L, H are λ/4 optical thickness, λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance, Aj×cj×L, Aj×dj×H, and ck×L are set to cut off light with a wavelength of about 600 nm to about 800 nm, Aj means the bracket coefficient and stands for the scale factor of the design wavelength, and cj, dj, ck are coefficients of the λ/4 optical thickness.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of the j-th second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films in the second stack is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]), a thickness of the j-th high-refractive-index film among the high-refractive-index films in the second stack is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]), a thickness of a second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films closest to the substrate is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]) (the examiner considers TABLE 1 of the specification, in which the applicant discloses the thickness of each layer), λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance (Para. [0030]), and each thickness is set to cut off light with a wavelength of about 600 nm to about 800 nm (Fig. 5), wherein a layer thickness of each layer may be selected based on an intended set of optical characteristics of the optical filter, such as an intended passband, an intended transmissivity (Para. [0035]).
Because Yang teaches the range of the thickness of films and the motivation to select each thickness based on an intended set of optical characteristics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein a thickness of the j-th second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films in the second stack is Aj×cj×L, a thickness of the j-th high-refractive-index film among the high-refractive-index films in the second stack is Aj×dj×H, a thickness of a second low-refractive-index film among the second low-refractive-index films closest to the substrate is ck×L, where L, H are λ/4 optical thickness, λ is a design wavelength or a wavelength being optimized for peak performance, Aj×cj×L, Aj×dj×H, and ck×L are set to cut off light with a wavelength of about 600 nm to about 800 nm, Aj means the bracket coefficient and stands for the scale factor of the design wavelength, and cj, dj, ck are coefficients of the λ/4 optical thickness, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose Aj is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of each layer is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure (Fig. 5 and Paras. [0033], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein Ai is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
Yang does not explicitly disclose Aj is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.5, cj, ck are greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2.5, and dj is substantially equal to 1.
However, Yang teaches a thickness of each layer is adjustable to make different cut-on wavelengths of the optical structure (Fig. 5 and Paras. [0033], [0035]), and wherein the thickness of the i-th first low-refractive-index film is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang, wherein Aj is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.5, cj, ck are greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2.5, and dj is substantially equal to 1, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband and an/or intended transmissivity (Yang: Para. [0035]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Rowlands (US 20200209448), of record.
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yang does not disclose a total number of the first low-refractive-index films, the semiconductor films, the second low-refractive-index films, and the high-refractive-index films is thirty to seventy-five.
However, Rowlands teaches selecting a quantity of layers based on an intended set of optical characteristics (Paras. [0032]-[0033]), wherein an optical filter coating may include 10 to 100 layers (Para. [0032]).
Since Yang already suggests the quantity of the one or more sets of layers be selected to permit optical filter to be utilized for a spectral range (Para. [0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang with the teachings of Rowlands, wherein a total number of the first low-refractive-index films, the semiconductor films, the second low-refractive-index films, and the high-refractive-index films is thirty to seventy-five, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband (Rowlands: Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yang does not disclose a total thickness of the first stack and the second stack is from 5 μm to 6 μm.
However, Rowlands teaches selecting a quantity of layers based on an intended set of optical characteristics, such as an intended passband (Paras. [0032]-[0033]), wherein a total thickness of an optical filter coating may be between 0.25 μm and 20 μm (Para. [0033]).
Since Yang already suggests the quantity of the one or more sets of layers be selected to permit optical filter to be utilized for a spectral range (Para. [0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical structure as disclosed by Yang with the teachings of Rowlands, wherein a total thickness of the first stack and the second stack is from 5 μm to 6 μm, for the purpose of obtaining an intended passband (Rowlands: Para. [0033]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights