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.
Drawings
The drawings with 48 Sheets of Figs. 1-48 received on 9/11/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4-6,8-12 recite “claims” in line 1. It is suggested to be replaced with –claim--.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and hence inherits its deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-18, as best understood, 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 13, 16 recite “spectral number m” which is not defined. A spectral number is defined by an equation to be used for discrete Fourier transform spectrum calculations. The current specification appears to teach the definition in equations (3)-(6) on page 14. For the purposes of examination, the spectral number m is taken to be defined by the equations.
Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 13 and clams 17-18 are dependent on claim 16 and hence inherit their deficiencies.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiya et al (US 2008/0239496, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Akiya teaches (fig 1-7B) a notch filter (optical filter, para 52) having a free filter region which is a wavelength range in which light is transmitted (“optical filter PEI-1.about.PEI-6 of the first embodiment has a spectral transmittance of approximately 0 (zero) in a wavelength band upwards of about 670 nm and has a reflection band having a half-bandwidth of less than 50 nm near 580 nm”, para 75), and one or more stopbands which are located between lower and upper limits of the free filter region and in which transmission of light in a predetermined wavelength range is suppressed (“only the practical optical filters PEI-1 to PEI-6 have secondary reflection bands near 490 nm”, para 75), the notch filter comprising:
a base material (“transparent substrate 100”, para 52); and
an optical multilayer film (“multilayer thin film 10”, para 52) formed directly or indirectly on a base material surface (top surface of substrate 100) which is a surface of the base material (100),
wherein the optical multilayer film (“multilayer thin film 10”, para 52) is formed on the basis of a basic filter repeat structure (“plurality of layer-stacks formed on top of another”, para 53) in which a basic filter structure in which low refractive index layers made of a low refractive index material and high refractive index layers made of a high refractive index material are alternately arranged is repeated a plurality of times (“each layer-stack comprising alternate layers of high refractive index and low refractive index. In this embodiment, the odd-numbered layers, namely the bottom or first layer T1, the third layer T3,.., the (2m-1)-th layer T(2m-1),.. where in is a natural number), have the same high refractive index. The even-numbered layers, namely the second layer T2, the fourth layer T4, ..the 2m-th layer T(2m),.. have the same low refractive index”, para 53), and
a film thickness of each layer in the optical multilayer film (“multilayer thin film 10”, para 52) corresponds to a modulation film thickness number sequence obtained by addition of modulation to a basic film thickness number sequence in which the film thickness of each layer in the basic filter repeat structure is arranged in order from the base material side (“The first to j-th layers T1-Tj are formed so as to cyclically change in optical thickness throughout the multilayer thin film 10 in a stacking direction thereof”, para 55, fig 2B to 7B),
wherein the modulation has a period (modulation period is 9 as in fig 2B to 7B) different from a basic period based on the number of layers of the basic filter structure (“plurality of layer-stacks formed on top of another”, para 53).
Regarding Claim 2, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claim 1,
wherein there are a plurality of periods of the modulation (multiple modulation periods as in fig 2B to 7B).
Regarding Claim 3, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claim 1, wherein a value d of an nth term in the modulation film thickness number sequence corresponding to a film thickness of an nth layer counting from the base material side in the optical multilayer film is expressed by the following Expression (A) when an nth term in the basic film thickness number sequence corresponding to a film thickness of an nth layer counting from the base material side in the basic filter repeat structure is denoted by Dn, n satisfies n = 1, 2, ..., Lo with a total number of terms denoted by Lo, an amplitude, period, and phase of the modulation for a kth stopband are denoted by ak, Ak, and (Pk, respectively, and k satisfies k = 1, 2, ..., u with a number of stopbands to be formed denoted by u,
PNG
media_image1.png
105
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(“every odd-numbered layer has an optical thickness (nd) meeting the following conditional expressions (3) to (5), concurrently, and every even-numbered layer has an optical thickness (nd) meeting the following conditional expressions (5) and (6), concurrently:
PNG
media_image2.png
119
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(para 63-69)
For 1 stop band as in fig. 7B, u=1 and Eq 3 teaches Eq A above.
Regarding Claim 4, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claims 1,
wherein the film thickness of each layer in the optical multilayer film (“multilayer thin film 10”, para 52) is in accordance with an adjusted modulation film thickness number sequence obtained by adjusting values of one or more terms in the modulation film thickness number sequence (“The first to j-th layers T1-Tj are formed so as to cyclically change in optical thickness throughout the multilayer thin film 10 in a stacking direction thereof. For example, each of the k-th from-the-bottom alternate layers is designed to have an optical thickness (n.times.d) meeting the following conditional expressions (1) and (2) concurrently:”
PNG
media_image3.png
45
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
(paras 55-60)
Regarding Claim 5, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claims 1,
wherein the period of the modulation corresponds to a center wavelength of the stopband. (fig 7B shows nd times λc which is the center wavelength of the stop band, and adding the thicknesses of one period of modulation gives (0.15 +0.2 +0.25 +0.3 +0.32 +0.32 +0.3 +0.25 +0.2 = 2.29 nd times λc and hence the period corresponds to the center wavelength of the stop band)
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.
Claim(s) 6-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiya et al (US 2008/0239496, of record) in view of Arends et al (US 5,360,659 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claim 1,
wherein the free filter region includes a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 1200 nm or less (transmittance in fig 7B shows high or free filter region of 400nm or more and 1200nm or less), and
the basic filter repeat structure is any of a first basic filter repeat structure (cyclic structure in fig 7A repeats every 7 layers), a second basic filter repeat structure, and a third basic filter repeat structure,
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the first basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6.
Akiya and Arends are related as periodic modulated thicknesses.
Arends teaches (fig 1)
wherein the first basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6 (“The film comprises alternating layers of first (A) and second (B) diverse polymeric materials in which the six layer alternating repeat unit has relative optical thicknesses of about .778A.111B.111A.778B.111A.111B.”, col 6, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basic repeat unit of Akiya to include the basic repeat unit with basic period of 6 of Arends for the purpose of a versatile design with broadband IR reflectivity (col 5, lines 35-37).
However, Akiya does not teach
the second basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 14, and the third basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 7, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claim 6.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6 has optical film thicknesses that are the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer, in order from the base material side, 1.17 0.32 0.32 2.31 0.32 0.32 1.17.
Akiya and Arends are related as periodic modulated thicknesses.
Arends teaches (fig 1)
wherein the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6 has optical film thicknesses that are the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer, in order from the base material side .778A.111B.111A.778B.111A.111B. (“The film comprises alternating layers of first (A) and second (B) diverse polymeric materials in which the six layer alternating repeat unit has relative optical thicknesses of about .778A.111B.111A.778B.111A.111B.”, col 6, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basic repeat unit of Akiya to include the basic repeat unit with basic period of 6 with thicknesses of Arends for the purpose of a versatile design with broadband IR reflectivity (col 5, lines 35-37).
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer, in order from the base material side, 1.17 0.32 0.32 2.31 0.32 0.32 1.17.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer, in order from the base material side, 1.17 0.32 0.32 2.31 0.32 0.32 1.17.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that thicknesses are in a range of values. An increase in thickness will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the thickness would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the thickness of the layers in the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses and one would have chosen the thicknesses according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 8, Akiya-Arends teaches the notch filter according to claim 6.
However, Akiya does not teach
the second basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 14.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer in order from the base material side, 1.10 0.14 0.48 0.30 0.28 0.50 0.12 2.16 0.12 0.50 0.28 0.30 0.48 0.14 1.10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that thicknesses are in a range of values. An increase in thickness will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the thickness would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the thickness of the layers in the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses and one would have chosen the thicknesses according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 9, Akiya-Arends teaches the notch filter according to claim 6,
However, Akiya does not teach
the third basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer in order from the base material side, 1.26 0.22 0.51 0.52 0.21 2.53 0.21 0.52 0.51 0.22 1.26.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that thicknesses are in a range of values. An increase in thickness will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the thickness would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the thickness of the layers in the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses and one would have chosen the thicknesses according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 10, Akiya teaches the notch filter according to claim 1.
wherein the free filter region includes a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 1800 nm or less (transmittance in fig 7B shows high or free filter region of 400nm or more and 1800nm or less), and
the basic filter repeat structure is any of a first basic filter repeat structure (cyclic structure in fig 7A repeats every 7 layers), a second basic filter repeat structure, and a third basic filter repeat structure,
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the first basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6.
Akiya and Arends are related as periodic modulated thicknesses.
Arends teaches (fig 1)
wherein the first basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 6 (“The film comprises alternating layers of first (A) and second (B) diverse polymeric materials in which the six layer alternating repeat unit has relative optical thicknesses of about .778A.111B.111A.778B.111A.111B.”, col 6, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basic repeat unit of Akiya to include the basic repeat unit with basic period of 6 of Arends for the purpose of a versatile design with broadband IR reflectivity (col 5, lines 35-37).
However, Akiya does not teach
the second basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 14, and the third basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 11, Akiya-Arends teaches the notch filter according to claims 10.
However, Akiya does not teach
the second basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 14.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer in order from the base material side, 1.10 0.14 0.48 0.30 0.28 0.50 0.12 2.16 0.12 0.50 0.28 0.30 0.48 0.14 1.10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that thicknesses are in a range of values. An increase in thickness will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the thickness would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the thickness of the layers in the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses and one would have chosen the thicknesses according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Regarding Claim 12, Akiya-Arends teaches the notch filter according to claim 10.
However, Akiya does not teach
the third basic filter repeat structure repeats the basic filter structure in which the basic period is 10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that period of modulation is in a range of values. An increase in period will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the period would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the modulation period of the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed basic period for the first to third basic filter repeat structures and one would have chosen the basic period according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have basic period to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
However, Akiya does not teach
wherein the basic filter structure has optical film thicknesses that are 0.25 times the following, with a first layer as the low refractive index layer in order from the base material side, 1.26 0.22 0.51 0.52 0.21 2.53 0.21 0.52 0.51 0.22 1.26.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Akiya teaches that thicknesses are in a range of values. An increase in thickness will help in design of more stop bands while making the multilayer unwieldy and a decrease in the thickness would make the transparency wider while reducing the stop bands. Therefore, the thickness of the layers in the basic filter repeat structure is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses and one would have chosen the thicknesses according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with size of the multilayer. One would have been motivated to have thicknesses to be within the claimed ranges balancing a desired image quality with multilayer size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 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.
Claim 13 is allowable for at least the reason:
“(1-4) in a discrete Fourier transform spectrum of a film thickness number sequence in which a film thickness of each layer in the optical multilayer film is arranged in order from the base material side, a peak exists at least at any of a spectral number corresponding best to a period of 6, spectral numbers mn1, met+1, and met+2 which are two before, one before, one after, and two after the number a spectral number mn corresponding best to a period of 14, spectral numbers mn,mn-1, m-+1, and mn+2 which are two before, one before, one after, and two after the number a spectral number met corresponding best to a period of 10, and spectral numbers mf-2, m3-1, m3+1, and mf3+2 which are two before, one before, one after, and two after the number and (1-5) in the discrete Fourier transform spectrum, a peak exists at a spectral number between a minimum number mmin and a maximum number mmax among spectral numbers mmi,mm2, and mm3 corresponding best to periods of the modulation determined according to the three types of periods of 6, 14, and 10 and a center wavelength of the stopband, and spectral numbers mmi-1,Mmt+1,mm2-1, mm2+1,mma-1, and mnm3+1 which are one before and one after the respective numbers mm1, mm2, and mm3. “
Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 13 and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Claim 16 is allowable for at least the reason:
“(2-4) in a discrete Fourier transform spectrum of a film thickness number sequence in which a film thickness of each layer in the optical multilayer film is arranged in order from the base material side, a peak exists at least at any of a spectral number ma corresponding best to a period of 14, spectral numbers ma-2, ma-1, maF+1, and ma+2 which are two before, one before, one after, and two after the number ma, a spectral number ma corresponding best to a period of 10, and spectral numbers ma-2, ma-1, m+1, and mI+2 which are two before, one before, one after, and two after the number and (2-5) in the discrete Fourier transform spectrum, a peak exists at a spectral number between a minimum number mmin and a maximum number max among spectral numbers mm2 and mn3 corresponding best to periods of the modulation determined according to the two types of periods of 14 and 10 and a center wavelength of the stopband, and spectral numbers mm2-1,mm2+1, mmaj-1, and ml3+1 which are one before and one after the respective numbers mm2 and mm1.”
Claims 17-18 are dependent on claim 16 and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al (US 2011/0279901) teaches (fig 11A, B) a multilayer having a cyclic thickness structure (23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights