DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric film" in Lines 14 and 17. While the claims use parenthetical nomenclature, e.g. (I) and (II), such notation does not limit the claim and does not serve to clearly establish antecedence. It is recommended that the claims be amended to distinguish between dielectric multilayer films, e.g. “a first dielectric multilayer film” and “a second dielectric multilayer film”, or to recite distinguishing language regarding respective configuration, e.g. “the dielectric multilayer film on or above the one main surface of the substrate” and “the dielectric on or above the one main surface of the substrate There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “when a side of the dielectric multilayer film (I) is set as an incident direction, an average reflectance RI440-600(5deg)AVE at a wavelength of 440 nm to 600 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 5 degrees is 4% or less” and “when a side of the dielectric multilayer film (II) is set as the incident direction, an average reflectance RII700-800(40deg)AVE at a wavelength of 700 nm to 800 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 40 degrees is 5.5% or less”. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined as it is unclear whether the apparatus is limited by characteristics of an intermediate product or the final product alone. The claim is drawn to an optical filter, i.e. presumably a final product, having dielectric multilayer films disclosed on opposite surfaces of the claimed substrate. In light of the Specifications, there is no manner of illuminating one of the two sides of a dielectric multilayer film upon integration into the optical filter combination. In other words, there is no disclosure of an average reflectance of film 20I through the substrate and there is no disclosure of an average reflectance of film 20II through the substrate. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the average reflectance values determined from light incident on substrate-side sides of the respective dielectric multilayer films would be distinct from average reflectance values determine from light incident on respective opposite sides of the final product. The language does not clarify if the claim captures characteristics of the intermediate products (i.e. dielectric multilayer films) then integrated into the final product or only the final product characteristics. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “when a side of the optical film having the first dielectric multilayer film (I) is set as an incident direction, an average reflectance RI440-600(5deg)AVE at a wavelength of 440 nm to 600 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 5 degrees is 4% or less” and “when a side of the optical film having the second dielectric multilayer film (II) is set as the incident direction, an average reflectance RII700-800(40deg)AVE at a wavelength of 700 nm to 800 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 40 degrees is 5.5% or less”. Further corrections are necessary in Claims 4, 5, 8, 14 as these claims use analogously indefinite language.
Claim 1 recites “an average transmittance T440-600(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 440 nm to 600 nm”, “an average transmittance T800-1200(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 800 nm to 1200 nm”, “an average reflectance RI440-600(5deg)AVE at a wavelength of 440 nm to 600 nm”, and “an average reflectance RII700-800(40deg)AVE at a wavelength of 700 nm to 800 nm”. The phrasing is unconventional and does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to the recited average reflectance and transmittance values. While it would be understood to limit a transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength” or even to limit a time-averaged or otherwise-averaged transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength”, there is no clear interpretation of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. Applicant provides disclosure of transmittance and reflectance curves that support averaging transmittance across a wavelength range within the recited value (e.g. “86% or more”, “3% or less”, etc.). The possible interpretation are mutually exclusive and require clarification. In light of the Specifications, Examiner recommends the following amendments “an average transmittance T440-600(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 440 nm to 600 nm”, “an average transmittance T800-1200(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 800 nm to 1200 nm”, “an average reflectance RI440-600(5deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 440 nm to 600 nm”, and “an average reflectance RII700-800(40deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 700 nm to 800 nm”.
Claim 3 recites “an average transmittance T700-800(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 700 nm to 800 nm”. The phrasing is unconventional and does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to the recited average reflectance and transmittance values. While it would be understood to limit a transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength” or even to limit a time-averaged or otherwise-averaged transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength”, there is no clear interpretation of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. Applicant provides disclosure of transmittance and reflectance curves that support averaging transmittance across a wavelength range within the recited value (e.g. “1% or less”). The possible interpretation are mutually exclusive and require clarification. In light of the Specifications, Examiner recommends the following amendments “an average transmittance T7008600(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 700 nm to 800 nm”.
Claim 4 recites “an average reflectance RI800-1200(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 800 nm to 1200 nm”. The phrasing is unconventional and does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to the recited average reflectance and transmittance values. While it would be understood to limit a transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength” or even to limit a time-averaged or otherwise-averaged transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength”, there is no clear interpretation of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. Applicant provides disclosure of transmittance and reflectance curves that support averaging transmittance across a wavelength range within the recited value (e.g. “95% or more”). The possible interpretation are mutually exclusive and require clarification. In light of the Specifications, Examiner recommends the following amendments “an average reflectance RI800-1200(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 800 nm to 1200 nm”.
Claim 5 recites “an average reflectance RI800-1200(40deg)AVE at a wavelength of 800 nm to 1200 nm”. The phrasing is unconventional and does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to the recited average reflectance and transmittance values. While it would be understood to limit a transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength” or even to limit a time-averaged or otherwise-averaged transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength”, there is no clear interpretation of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. Applicant provides disclosure of transmittance and reflectance curves that support averaging transmittance across a wavelength range within the recited value (e.g. “10% or more”). The possible interpretation are mutually exclusive and require clarification. In light of the Specifications, Examiner recommends the following amendments “an average reflectance RI800-1200(40deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 800 nm to 1200 nm”.
Claim 5 recites “an average transmittance T440-600(40deg)AVE at a wavelength of 440 nm to 600 nm”. The phrasing is unconventional and does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to the recited average reflectance and transmittance values. While it would be understood to limit a transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength” or even to limit a time-averaged or otherwise-averaged transmittance/reflectance value “at a wavelength”, there is no clear interpretation of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. Applicant provides disclosure of transmittance and reflectance curves that support averaging transmittance across a wavelength range within the recited value (e.g. “10% or more”). The possible interpretation are mutually exclusive and require clarification. In light of the Specifications, Examiner recommends the following amendments “an average transmittance T440-600(40deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 440 nm to 600 nm”.
Claims 6-15 recite analogous language and are indefinite for the above-identified grounds.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Recommended Examiner’s Amendment
To summarize the recommended amendments in view of rejections above, Examiner proposes the following Claim 1 amendment:
An optical filter comprising:
a substrate;
a first dielectric multilayer film (I) laid on or above one main surface of the substrate; and
a second dielectric multilayer film (II) laid on or above the other main surface of the substrate, wherein
the substrate comprises a near-infrared ray absorbing glass and a resin film,
the resin film comprises a resin and a dye (NIR1), and
the optical filter satisfies all of the following spectral characteristics (i-1), (i-4), (i-5) and (i-7):
(i-1) an average transmittance T440-600(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 440 nm to 600 nm in a spectral transmittance curve at an incident angle of 0 degrees is 86% or more,
(i-4) an average transmittance T800-1200(0deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 800 nm to 1200 nm in the spectral transmittance curve at the incident angle of 0 degrees is 3% or less,
(i-5) when a side of the optical film having the first dielectric multilayer film (I) is set as an incident direction, an average reflectance RI440-600(5deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 440 nm to 600 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 5 degrees is 4% or less, and
(i-7) when a side of the optical film having the second dielectric multilayer film (II) is set as the incident direction, an average reflectance RII700-800(40deg)AVE [[at]] in a wavelength range between [[of]] 700 nm to 800 nm in a spectral reflectance curve at an incident angle of 40 degrees is 5.5% or less.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2019-66746, US Pat. 10,310,150, WO 2019/138976, JP 2019-144578, WO 2020/054786, WO 2020/204025, JP 2022-77314 all disclose two dielectric multilayer films on substrates with similar spectral characteristics as claimed. No prior art reference evidences an optical filter satisfying all claimed conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights