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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, and 28–32 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 and 29 (as well as the remaining claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, 28, and 30–32 which all depend from one of these independent claims), these claims each recite that the first layered film includes alternating layers of “one or more higher refractive index materials” and “one or more lower refractive index materials”, and that “refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the first layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the first layered film”; however, each of these claims further recites these same features with respect to the second layered film.
It is unclear whether the “one or more higher refractive index materials” of the first layered film is the same as that of the second layered film; similar with the “one or more lower refractive index materials”.
For purposes of examination, the “one or more higher refractive index materials” referenced with respect to the second layered film will be considered the same as the materials of the first layered film, as though the limitation read “the one or more higher refractive index materials”; similarly the “one or more lower refractive index materials” will be interpreted as “the one or more lower refractive index materials” with respect to the second layered film.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, and 28–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/247292 to Hart et al. (cited in Applicant’s May 17, 2024, IDS; published December 10, 2020, prior to the pending application’s earliest priority date of October 20, 2021, and having a different inventive entity, such that the § 102(b)(1) exception does not initially appear to apply).
Regarding Claim 1, Hart discloses and would have rendered obvious (e.g., at least Example 3, Figs. 3–5 and 8A–E, and their description including paragraphs [0074]–[0076]) a window 24 for a sensing system comprising: a substrate 30 comprising a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 3, first surface upper; second surface lower, as illustrated), the first surface and the second surface being primary surfaces of the substrate; a first layered film 36 disposed on the first surface of the substrate, the first layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials 40 and one or more lower refractive index materials 42, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the first layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the first layered film (paragraph [0046]); a second layered film 38 disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials 40 and one or more lower refractive index materials 42, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film (paragraph [0046]); and a maximum hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, of at least 8 GPa (paragraph [0056]), wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has: an average percentage transmittance, calculated over a 50 nm wavelength range of interest between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of greater than 90% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 15° (e.g., paragraphs [0059]–[0060] teach this range for wavelengths between 1500 nm and 1600 nm at angles of 0°, 8°, and 25°, reasonably suggesting a similar range for wavelengths between 1400 nm and 1600 nm at less than or equal to 15°, see also Fig. 8C); an average reflectance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of less than 1% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of less than or equal to 15° (e.g., paragraphs [0059]–[0060] teach minimizing reflectance at wavelengths between 1500 nm and 1600 nm, such as to less than 0.3%, reasonably suggesting a similar reduction in reflectance for wavelengths between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, see also Fig. 8E); and an average percentage transmission, calculated from 400 nm to 700 nm, of less than 5% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 15° (paragraph [0061], “the quantity, thicknesses, and materials of the layers of the layered film 36 (and the second layered film 38, if utilized) are additionally configured so that the window 24 has an average percentage transmittance of . . . less than 5%, . . . or even less than 0.15% of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength within the ranges of . . . 300 nm to 700 nm”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average P polarization transmittance and an average S polarization transmittance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of greater than 85% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 60° (e.g., paragraphs [0059]–[0061] and Figs. 8A–E, where specific values for different polarization are not described, but it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to ensure both S and P polarization achieve the desired transmittance values, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed features).
Regarding Claim 4, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has a CIELAB L* value of less than or equal to 45 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 60° on the first layered film (where Hart does not explicitly disclose CIELAB values, but Hart uses the window as part of a LIDAR system, and selecting a known CIELAB value range to facilitate LIDAR image processing would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account limitations of the processing system, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to −6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film (where Hart does not explicitly disclose CIELAB values, but Hart uses the window as part of a LIDAR system, and selecting a known CIELAB value range to facilitate LIDAR image processing would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account limitations of the processing system, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 7, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average reflectance, calculated throughout the visible spectrum, for light normally incident on the first layered film, of less than or equal to 10% (paragraphs [0059]–[0061] and Figs. 8A–E).
Regarding Claim 13, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the refractive index of the one or more higher refractive index materials is from about 1.7 to about 4.0, and wherein the refractive index of the one or more lower refractive index materials is from about 1.3 to about 1.6, wherein a difference in the refractive index of any of the one or more higher refractive index materials and any of the one or more lower refractive index materials is about 0.5 or greater (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein one of the alternating layers of the first layered film that is farthest from the substrate forms a terminal surface material of the window, the terminal surface material of the window comprising the lower refractive index material (Figs. 3–5).
Regarding Claim 16, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein first layered firm comprises a scratch resistant layer formed of one of the one or more higher refractive index materials and having a thickness of greater than or equal to 500 nm (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the thickness of the scratch resistant layer is greater than or equal to 1500 nm and less than or equal to 5000 nm (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 18, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by a plurality of the alternating layers of the one or more lower index materials and the one or more higher index materials of the first layered film (paragraphs [0053]–[0057]).
Regarding Claim 19, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by at least 1000 nm (paragraphs [0053]–[0058]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film comprise silicon, wherein the second layered film comprises two or more silicon layers (paragraph [0048] and Figs. 3–5).
Regarding Claim 22, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein a silicon layer of the second layered film most proximate to the substrate comprises the smallest thickness of the two or more silicon layers (e.g., paragraph [0057]; also where Hart teaches that the thicknesses may be adjusted as needed to achieve desired optical effects, such that adjusting the thicknesses as claimed would have been obvious and yielded predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 23, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein a combined thickness of the silicon layers contained in the second layered film is greater than or equal to 250 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0046]–[0058]).
Regarding Claim 25, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein a layer of the one or more higher refractive index materials in the second layered film is not silicon (paragraphs [0047]–[0049]).
Regarding Claim 28, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein a hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, is at least 9 GPa over a depth range of 750 nm to 2000 nm (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 29, Hart discloses and would have rendered obvious (e.g., at least Example 3, Figs. 3–5 and 8A–E, and their description including paragraphs [0074]–[0076]) a window 24 for a sensing system comprising: a substrate 30 comprising a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 3, first surface upper; second surface lower, as illustrated), the first surface and the second surface being primary surfaces of the substrate; a first layered film 36 disposed on the first surface of the substrate, the first layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials 40 and one or more lower refractive index materials 42, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the first layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the first layered film (paragraph [0046]); a second layered film 38 disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials 40 and one or more lower refractive index materials 42, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film (paragraph [0046]); and a maximum hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, of at least 8 GPa, (paragraph [0056]) wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has: an average reflectance, calculated over a 50 nm wavelength range of interest between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of less than 0.5% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of less than or equal to 15° (e.g., paragraphs [0059]–[0060] teach minimizing reflectance at wavelengths between 1500 nm and 1600 nm, such as to less than 0.3%, reasonably suggesting a similar reduction in reflectance for wavelengths between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, see also Fig. 8E); a CIELAB L* value of less than or equal to 45 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 600 on the first layered film (where Hart does not explicitly disclose CIELAB values, but Hart uses the window as part of a LIDAR system, and selecting a known CIELAB value range to facilitate LIDAR image processing would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account limitations of the processing system, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features); and CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to −6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film (where Hart does not explicitly disclose CIELAB values, but Hart uses the window as part of a LIDAR system, and selecting a known CIELAB value range to facilitate LIDAR image processing would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account limitations of the processing system, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 30, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the CIELAB L* value is less than or equal to 30 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 600 on the first layered film (where Hart does not explicitly disclose CIELAB values, but Hart uses the window as part of a LIDAR system, and selecting a known CIELAB value range to facilitate LIDAR image processing would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account limitations of the processing system, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 31, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average percentage transmittance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of greater than 95% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 15° (e.g., paragraphs [0059]–[0060] teach this range for wavelengths between 1500 nm and 1600 nm at angles of 0°, 8°, and 25°, reasonably suggesting a similar range for wavelengths between 1400 nm and 1600 nm at less than or equal to 15°, see also Fig. 8C).
Regarding Claim 32, Hart would have rendered obvious wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average percentage transmission, calculated from 400 nm to 700 nm, of less an 5% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 15° (paragraph [0061], “the quantity, thicknesses, and materials of the layers of the layered film 36 (and the second layered film 38, if utilized) are additionally configured so that the window 24 has an average percentage transmittance of . . . less than 5%, . . . or even less than 0.15% of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength within the ranges of . . . 300 nm to 700 nm”), wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, number, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average reflectance, calculated throughout the visible spectrum, for light normally incident on the first layered film, of less than or equal to 10% (paragraphs [0059]–[0061] and Figs. 8A–E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871