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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) that DeHaene, Kubo, and Feinbloom fail to disclose or teach the specific claimed copper complex. (2) Applicant argues that DeHaene is silent regarding use of a copper complex as a near-infrared absorber and that a person of ordinary skill would have had no motivation to substitute DeHaene’s disclosed NIR absorber and that a person of ordinary skill would have had no motivation to substitute DeHaene’s disclosed NIR absorbers with Kubo’s copper containing chemistry. (3) Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose Formula 2 and Formula 3 of the present application. (4) Applicant argues that Kubo merely generically discloses a phosphoric acid ester and does not disclose the particular Formula 4, compound recited in the claims. (5) Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose the claimed substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl substituent scope. (6) Applicant argues that Feinbloom is unrelated to the claimed copper complex chemistry and therefore does not cure the alleged deficiencies of DeHaene and Kubo. (7) Applicant argues that DeHaene, Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose or teach an OD value greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. (8) Applicant argues that Kubo’s disclosed transmittance values do not correspond to the claimed OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. (9) Applicant argues that, although Feinbloom discusses high optical density, Feinbloom does not disclose the particular filter material or absorber chemistry required to achieve the claimed OD at 930-950 nm. (10) Applicant Argues that the claimed filter provides superior near infrared cutoff performance compared with the city references.
Regarding applicants argument that DeHaene, Kubo, and Feinbloom fail to disclose or teach the specific claimed copper complex. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. The rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references, with Kubo supplying the copper/phosphorous containing absorber chemistry. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Regarding applicants argument that DeHaene is silent regarding use of a copper complex as a near-infrared absorber and that a person of ordinary skill would have had no motivation to substitute DeHaene’s disclosed NIR absorber and that a person of ordinary skill would have had no motivation to substitute DeHaene’s disclosed NIR absorbers with Kubo’s copper containing chemistry. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. DeHaene already uses NIR absorbers, and Kubo teaches another known NIR absorbing chemistry for the same purpose of attenuating infrared light.
Regarding applicants argument that Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose Formula 2 and Formula 3 of the present application. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 requires only at least one compound represent by Formulas 2-4, not one of each, as suggested by the arguments from applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants argument that Applicant argues that Kubo merely generically discloses a phosphoric acid ester and does not disclose the particular Formula 4, compound recited in the claims. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. For the purposes of a 103 rejection, Kubo need only suggest the claimed selection, not expressly disclose the exact Formula 4 species.
Regarding applicants argument that Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose the claimed substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl substituent scope. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Kubo teaches related alkyl/aryl phosphorous containing absorber chemistry, and selection of a of known substituents suggested by Kubo would have been an obvious selection absent criticality or unexpected results. [T]he test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Regarding applicants argument that Feinbloom is unrelated to the claimed copper complex chemistry and therefore does not cure the alleged deficiencies of DeHaene and Kubo. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Feinbloom is not relied upon for the copper complex chemistry; Kubo is relied upon for that teaching.
Regarding applicants argument that Applicant argues that DeHaene, Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose or teach an OD value greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Feinbloom teaches absorptive filters having optical densities of 5 or greater and teaches controlling OD through the amount of concentration of filtering material.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo’s disclosed transmittance values do not correspond to the claimed OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Kubo is not relied upon alone for the claimed OD;Feinbloom supplies the known high OD teaching.
Regarding applicants argument that although Feinbloom discusses high optical density, Feinbloom does not disclose the particular filter material or absorber chemistry required to achieve the claimed OD at 930-950 nm. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Feinbloom is relied upon for the known relationship between filtering material amount concentration and optical density, not for the particular copper absorber chemistry, which is supplied by Kubo.
Regarding applicants argument that the claimed filter provides superior near infrared cutoff performance compared with the city references. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Attorney argument is not persuasive because attorney argument alone does not establish unexpected results or criticality, and no persuasive evidence has been provided showing and unexpected improvement over the combined prior art.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claims 23 is dependent on itself. This is improper claim dependency. For examination purposes claims 23 will be written to be dependent on claim 22.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification unless otherwise stated.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner recommends an amendment to the independent claims, if supported by the specification, to require all three Formulas 2-4 simultaneously, to differentiate the application from the prior art of record.
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 1-4, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record).
Regarding claim 1, DeHaene discloses a filter (Figures 1-4), comprising: a substrate layer ([0089] discloses: clear glass; [0079] discloses: substrate, such as glass); and a near-infrared absorption layer formed on the substrate layer ([0079] discloses: PVB, NIR absorption is achieved by the PVB layer; [0070] discloses: such as a copper grid).
DeHaene fails to disclose wherein the near-infrared absorption layer comprises: a copper complex which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions, a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1, and at least one phosphor-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4,
PNG
media_image1.png
216
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R, R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.1-C.sub.12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.6-C.sub.12 aryl, wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4. DeHaene and Kubo are related because both concern materials for attenuating near infrared radiation in optical filters.
Kubo teaches a filter wherein the near-infrared absorption layer ([0092] teaches: 10, light absorber, can block infrared light as well) comprises: a copper complex ([0128] teaches: 10, light absorber layer, includes a copper complex) which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions ([0128] teaches: 10, light absorber layer, includes a copper complex, formed by a copper compound including copper ions), a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1 ([0118] teaches: compound including a phosphoric acid, see ligand structure (a) described in para [0022] ), and at least one phosphor-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4 ([0018], [0133]-[0134], teaches a copper containing light absorber including phosphonic acid and a phosphoric acid ester; and further teaches alkyl and aryl groups in related phosphorous containing absorber compounds see [0022]-[0024]; thereby at least suggesting the claimed phosphorus containing ester selection; claim 1 requires only at least one compound represented by claims 2-4 not one of each group),
PNG
media_image1.png
216
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R, R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.1-C.sub.12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.6-C.sub.12 aryl (see para [0134] for list of phosphoric acid ester compounds; these compounds include polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphoric acid esters; the listed esters include alkyl groups attached to the phosphate or phosphate structure and are examples of C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl; [0023] describes the akyl and aryl group attachments). Hu and Feinbloom are related because both disclose infrared absorption layers.
Feinbloom teaches a filter wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4 (Col. 7, lines 31-35 teach: filters of optical density 5 or greater are known in the art and that optical density may be adjusted by varying the amount/concentration and thickness of the filtering material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Kubo and Feinbloom and provide a filter wherein the near-infrared absorption layer comprises: a copper complex which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions, a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1, and at least one phosphor-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4 and wherein R, R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.1-C.sub.12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.6-C.sub.12 aryl, wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4. Doing so would allow for improved attenuation of near infrared light in the desired wavelength range, thereby improving the filtering performance of the optical filter by reducing unwanted near infrared transmission.
Regarding claim 2, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.1-C.sub.12 alkyl is selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, iso-propyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, iso-butyl, tert-butyl; and the substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.6-C.sub.12 aryl is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, naphthyl and chlorophenyl (Kubo: [0027]-[0032] teaches: phosphorus containing absorber compounds may include alkyl or aryl substituents groups and [0134] teaches: phosphoric acid esters containing alkyl groups and states that the phosphoric acid ester is not limited to a particular ester; selection of the recited known alkyl or aryl species, as suggested by Kubo, from the disclosed classes would have been an obvious selection absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results).
Regarding claim 3, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the near infrared absorption layer has a haze of 0.4% or less (Kubo: in at least abstract discloses: 10, light absorber layer, has a laze less than 0.20%, which falls within the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectrum of the near infrared absorption layer has at least one principal peak at binding energy of 930-940 eV (Examiner notes that the binding energy of approx. 930-940 eV corresponds to the Cu 2p3/2 XPS peak characteristics of copper compounds and therefore necessarily occurs in binding of the specific copper complex orbitals of Kubo, See Antao et al. (US 2023/0084320) Figure 1a for example of binding energy of XPS copper peaks).
Regarding claim 6, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1, having an OD value for the incident light wavelength of greater than 4.5 (Feinbloom; Col. 7, lines 31-35 teach: filters of optical density 5 or greater are known in the art; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 14, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1, further comprising at least one anti-reflective layer on the outermost side of the filter ([0074] discloses: 28, fifth layer, with antireflective coating; Figure 3 depicts: 28, fifth layer on outermost side of filter).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Rogers et al. (US 2023/0253361, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 4.
Hu fails to disclose a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. DeHaene and Rogers are related because both disclose semiconductor devices.
Rogers teaches a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more (Figure 14 depicts: counts per second of wavelength in the specified range of at least 40,000 CPS, which includes the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Rogers and provide a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. Doing so would allow for a defined characterization of the absorption layer using know X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurement techniques, thereby improving the performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hiwatashi et al. (US 2010/0210772, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
Hu fails to disclose a device wherein the near-infrared absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 μm. DeHaene and Hiwatashi are related because both disclose NIR absorbing structures.
Hiwatashi teaches a device wherein the near-infrared absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 μm ([0250] teaches: near-infrared absorbing layer of 25 mu.m in thickness).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Hiwatashi and provide a device wherein the near-infrared absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 μm. Doing so would allow for better haze and infrared absorption, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Koito et al. (US 12,461,296, of record).
Regarding claim 8, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a device wherein the substrate layer is made of glass and has a thickness of 200-500 μm. DeHaeme and Koito are related because both disclose optical devices.
Koito teaches device wherein the substrate layer is made of glass and has a thickness of 200-500 μm (Col. 55, lines 52-53 teach: thickness of the glass substrate is preferably 100-1000 μm, which includes the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Koito and provide a device wherein the substrate layer is made of glass and has a thickness of 200-500 μm. Doing so would allow for a balance between mechanical strength and optical transparency, thereby improving the durability and performance of the optical filter.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shiono et al. (US 2022/0179141, of record).
Regarding claim 9, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter further comprising a filtering layer on the substrate layer on the side opposite to the near-infrared absorption layer. DeHaene and Shiono are related because both disclose optical filters.
Shiono teaches a filter further comprising a filtering layer on the substrate layer on the side opposite to the near-infrared absorption layer (Figure 2B depicts: 12, transparent substrate, with 11, absorptive layer above and 12, reflection layer below; [0179] teaches: filter characteristics of filter layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shiono to incorporate the teachings of DeHaene and provide a filter further comprising a filtering layer on the substrate layer on the side opposite to the near-infrared absorption layer. Doing so would allow for improved wavelength selectivity and enhanced shielding of undesired radiation thereby improving the overall efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 10, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 9, wherein the filtering layer further comprises a first absorption dye layer and/or a second absorption dye layer, wherein the first absorption dye layer comprises a near-infrared absorption dye, and the second absorption dye layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption dye (Shiono: in at least abstract teaches: absorption layer, containing a near-infrared absorbing dye; Examiner notes that he phrase “and/or”, includes the option of only one layer with only one dye; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 11, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 10, wherein the near-infrared absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azo compounds, di-iminium compounds, benzene dithiol metal complexes, squaraine compounds, cyanine compounds and phthalocyanine compounds (Shiono: in at least abstract teaches: NIR dye contains a squarylium dye; Examiner notes that a squarylium dye is a squaraine compounds; the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record) in view of Shiono et al. (US 2022/0179141, of record), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Heo (US 2023/0204835, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 10.
The modified DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the ultraviolet absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azomethylene compounds, indole compounds, ketone compounds, benzimidazole compounds and triazine compounds. DeHaene and Heo are related because both disclose optical filters.
Heo teaches a filter wherein the ultraviolet absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azomethylene compounds, indole compounds, ketone compounds, benzimidazole compounds and triazine compounds ([0138] teaches: ultraviolet absorption layer prepared using triazine based dye).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Heo and provide a filter wherein the ultraviolet absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azomethylene compounds, indole compounds, ketone compounds, benzimidazole compounds and triazine compounds. Doing so would allow for the desired absorption characteristics, thereby improving ultraviolet shielding and performance of the optical filter.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record) in view of Shiono et al. (US 2022/0179141, of record), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Orita et al. (US 2022/0276420, of record).
Regarding claim 13, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 10.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein each of the first and the second absorption dye layers has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm, and the filtering layer has an overall thickness of 0.5-10 μm. DeHaene and Orita are related because both disclose optical filters.
Orita teaches a filter wherein each of the first and the second absorption dye layers has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm ([0164] teaches: thickness of absorption layer 0.8 to 10 μm, which falls within the claimed range), and the filtering layer has an overall thickness of 0.5-10 μm ([0180] teaches: reflectance adjustment films is preferably 2.6 μm or smaller, which falls within the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Hart et al. (US 2017/0336538, of record).
Regarding claim 15, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the at least one anti-reflective layer is made of at least one material selected from TiO.sub.2, SiO.sub.2, Y.sub.2O.sub.3, MgF.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, Nb.sub.2O.sub.5, AlF.sub.3, Bi.sub.2O.sub.3, Gd.sub.2O.sub.3, LaF.sub.3, PbTe, Sb.sub.2O.sub.3, SiO, SiN, Ta.sub.2Os, ZnS, ZnSe, ZrO.sub.2, and Na.sub.3AlF.sub.6 (Kubo; [0203] teaches: antireflection film made of silica).
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the anti-reflective layer has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm. DeHaene and Hart are related because both disclose anti-reflective coatings.
Hart teaches a filter wherein the anti-reflective layer has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm (Claim 10 teaches: anti-reflective coating with a thickness of 0.1-5 μm, which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Hart and provide a filter wherein the anti-reflective layer has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm. Doing so would allow for controlling reflectance and transmission characteristics of the optical filter while maintaining desired optical performance.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0240017, of record).
Regarding claim 16, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 14, further comprising a protective layer ([0080] teaches: protective layer).
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the protective layer is made of an optical resin ([0025] teaches: protective resin layer). DeHaene and Kim are related because both disclose optical filters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide a filter wherein the protective layer is made of an optical resin. Doing so would allow for better durability and environmental resistance while maintaining optical transparency, thereby improving the overall durability and quality of the optical system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0240017, of record), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0333518, of record).
Regarding claim 17, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 16, wherein the protective layer has a thickness of 10-30 μm (Kim: [0025] teaches: protective layer with thickenss of 10 μm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 16, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the protective layer is disposed between the infrared absorption layer and the anti-reflective layer. DeHaene and Takagi are related because both disclose optical filters.
Takagi teaches a filter wherein the protective layer ([0201] teaches: protective layer) is disposed between the infrared absorption layer ([0201] teaches: protective layer formed on the infrared absorbing layer) and the anti-reflective layer (Figure 1C depicts: 10, light absorbing layer, beneath 30, anti-reflection film, therefore the protective layer is between the infrared absorption layer and the anti-reflective layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Takagi and provide a filter wherein the protective layer is disposed between the infrared absorption layer and the anti-reflective layer. Doing so would allow for protecting the infrared absorption layer from damage and environmental exposure while maintaining the optical performance of the anti-reflective layer, thereby improving the overall performance of the optical system.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kubo et al. (US 2025/0164679, of record) hereinafter Kubo679.
Regarding claim 18, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter having an overall thickness of 225-800 μm. DeHaene and Kubo679 are related because both disclose optical filters.
Kubo679 teaches a filter having an overall thickness of 225-800 μm ([0103] teaches: optical filter with thickness of 65-600 μm, which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Kubo679 and provide a filter having an overall thickness of 225-800 μm. Doing so would allow for controlling the mechanical strength and optical characteristics of the filter, thereby improving overall durability and performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 19, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter having a haze of 0.5% or less. DeHaene and Kubo679 are related because both disclose optical filters.
Kubo679 teaches a filter having a haze of 0.5% or less ([0104] teaches: optical filter with haze of 0.5% or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Kubo679 and provide a filter having a haze of 0.5% or less. Doing so would allow for improved attenuation of near-infrared light in the desired wavelength range, thereby enhancing the performance and efficiency of the optical system by reducing undesired radiation reaching the photosensitive element.
Claims 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view Heo (US 2023/0204835, of record).
Regarding claim 20, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter having maximum transmittance of 0.01% or less for the incident light wavelength range of 930-950 nm. DeHaene and Heo are related because both disclose optical filters.
Heo teaches a filter having maximum transmittance of 0.01% or less for the incident light wavelength range of 930-950 nm ([0122] teaches: maximum transmittance can be adjusted within the range of 0% for wavelengths of 800 to 1000 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Heo and provide a filter having maximum transmittance of 0.01% or less for the incident light wavelength range of 930-950 nm. Doing so would allow for improved attenuation of near-infrared light in the desired wavelength range, thereby enhancing the performance and efficiency of the optical system by reducing undesired radiation reaching the filter.
Regarding claim 21, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 20, having maximum transmittance of 0.005% or less for the incident light wavelength range of 930-950 nm (Heo: [0122] teaches: maximum transmittance can be adjusted within the range of 0% for wavelengths of 800 to 1000 nm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 20, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 22- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sato et al. (US 2007/0247567, of record).
Regarding claim 22, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter having minimum transmittance of 80% or more for the incident light wavelength range of 460-560 nm. DeHaene and Sato are related because both disclose optical filters.
Sato teaches a filter having minimum transmittance of 80% or more for the incident light wavelength range of 460-560 nm ([0076] teaches: optical filter, minimum transmittance of 90% or more in wavelength between 400 and 600 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of DeHaene to incorporate the teachings of Sato and provide a filter having minimum transmittance of 80% or more for the incident light wavelength range of 460-560 nm. Doing so would allow for improving light transmission in the visible wavelength range while maintaining the desired filtering characteristics.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 22, having minimum transmittance of 85% or more for the incident light wavelength range of 460-560 nm (Soto: [0076] teaches: optical filter, minimum transmittance of 90% or more in wavelength between 400 and 600 nm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 22, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DeHaene et al. (US 2004/0241458, of record) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tsou et al. (US 2023/0070703, of record).
Regarding claim 24, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 1.
DeHaene fails to disclose wherein the filter has a passband overlaid with the wavelength range of 350-850 nm, and the central wavelength of the passband is in the wavelength range of 350-850 nm. However, optimizing the passband and central wavelength with respect to the wavelength range is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tsou teaches in claim 2, that layer thickness determines passband, and passband determines central wavelength and transmission levels vary based on design establishing passband and central wavelength as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the passband and central wavelength with respect to the wavelength range and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the passband and central wavelength with respect to the wavelength range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 25, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 24.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the filter is irradiated with incident light at incident angles of 0° vs. 30°, with the shift being 1.4 nm or less. However, optimizing the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tsou teaches in claim 2 that the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the incident angle changes, and the magnitude of the shift varies based on filter design establishing passband and central wavelength as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift and disclose a filter wherein the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the filter is irradiated with incident light at incident angles of 0° vs. 30°, with the shift being 1.4 nm or less since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 26, the modified DeHaene discloses the filter of claim 25.
DeHaene fails to disclose a filter wherein the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the filter is irradiated with incident light at incident angles of 0° vs. 35°, with the shift being 1.9 nm or less. However, optimizing the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tsou teaches in claim 2 that the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the incident angle changes, and the magnitude of the shift varies based on filter design establishing passband and central wavelength as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the passband and central wavelength with respect to the incident angles and shift and disclose a filter wherein the central wavelength of the passband shifts when the filter is irradiated with incident light at incident angles of 0° vs. 35°, with the shift being 1.9 nm or less since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights