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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 11-13 are non-elected.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-10 and 14-16, drawn to an optical filter comprising a light absorbing compound and a resin wherein the first transmission spectrum satisfies requirements (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).
Group II, claims 11-13, drawn to a light absorbing composition comprising: a light absorbing compound; a curable resin; at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkoxysilane and a hydrolysate of an alkoxysilane; and water.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a light absorbing compound and a resin, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 2020/0266312 to Vercruysse et al.. Vercruysse discloses a resin with a light absorbing compound (see paragraph [0242], where a polyester resin includes UV light absorbing compounds).
During a telephone conversation with Masako Yoshida (reg. no. 70,057) on 13 April 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group 1, claims 1-10 and 14-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 August 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2018/0275326) (hereafter Kubo).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses an optical filter comprising: a light-absorbing compound (see at least the abstract and paragraphs [0064]-[0067], where the filter includes an infrared absorber comprising a phosphonic acid and a copper ion); and a resin (see at least paragraph [0070], where a silicone resin can be used), wherein the optical filter has a first transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° (see at least paragraph [0086] and Fig. 34), the first transmission spectrum having a wavelength which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm at which a transmittance is 50% (see at least Fig. 34 and Table 1, where the ultraviolet cut-off wavelength for example 22 is 380 nm), the first transmission spectrum satisfying the following requirements (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), wherein the: (i) an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 300 nm to 380 nm is 1% or less (see at least Fig. 34); (ii) an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm is 80% or more (see at least Fig. 34); (iii) an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 700 nm to 725 nm is 10% or less (see at least Fig. 34); and (iv) an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 950 nm to 1150 nm is 5% or less (see at least Fig. 34).
Kubo also discloses that the filter has increased heat resistance (see at least paragraphs [0012] and [0070]).
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the first transmission spectrum is at 25°C before a heating test in which the optical filter is heated at 125°C for 200 hours and that the optical filter has a second transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 25°C after the heating test, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which a transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum is 8 nm or less.
However, 25°C is close to a typical room temperature and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the transmission spectrum measurement at or about room temperature for the purpose of operating in a typical room environment.
The examiner notes that the claimed heating test and the subsequent result of the heating test is a measure of the heat resistance of the filter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
Additionally, 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). Among the benefits of the first transmission spectrum being at 25°C before a heating test in which the optical filter is heated at 125°C for 200 hours and the optical filter having a second transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 25°C after the heating test, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which a transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum being 8 nm or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the first transmission spectrum is at 25°C before a heating test in which the optical filter is heated at 125°C for 200 hours and that the optical filter has a second transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 25°C after the heating test, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which a transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum is 8 nm or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 2, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the optical filter has a reflection spectrum at an incident angle of 5° at a temperature of 25°C, and the reflection spectrum satisfies the following requirements (I) and (II):(I) a maximum of a reflectance in a wavelength range of 300 nm to 400 nm is 8% or less; and (II) an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1150 nm is 10% or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as reflection spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of the optical filter has a reflection spectrum at an incident angle of 5° at a temperature of 25°C, and the reflection spectrum satisfies the following requirements (I) and (II):(I) a maximum of a reflectance in a wavelength range of 300 nm to 400 nm is 8% or less; and (II) an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1150 nm is 10% or less include ensuring filter performance at angles varying from normal.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the optical filter has a reflection spectrum at an incident angle of 5° at a temperature of 25°C, and the reflection spectrum satisfies the following requirements (I) and (II):(I) a maximum of a reflectance in a wavelength range of 300 nm to 400 nm is 8% or less; and (II) an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1150 nm is 10% or less for the purpose of ensuring filter performance at angles varying from normal.
Regarding claim 3, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between the wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-UV70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of the optical filter having a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between the wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-UV70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between the wavelength λ-1-UV25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-UV70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 450 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 4, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses that the optical filter has a transmission spectrum wherein a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and has a transmittance of 50% (see at least Fig. 34 and Table 1, where the IR cut-off wavelength is 649 nm).
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-IR70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of the optical filter having a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-IR70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-IR70°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the third transmission spectrum is 10 nm or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 5, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a transmittance T-40025°C at a wavelength of 400 nm in the first transmission spectrum and a transmittance T-40070°C at the wavelength of 400 nm in the third transmission spectrum is 20% or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of the optical filter having a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a transmittance T-40025°C at a wavelength of 400 nm in the first transmission spectrum and a transmittance T-40070°C at the wavelength of 400 nm in the third transmission spectrum is 20% or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the optical filter has a third transmission spectrum at an incident angle of 0° at 70°C, and wherein an absolute value of a difference between a transmittance T-40025°C at a wavelength of 400 nm in the first transmission spectrum and a transmittance T-40070°C at the wavelength of 400 nm in the third transmission spectrum is 20% or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 6, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses that the optical filter has a transmission spectrum wherein a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and has a transmittance of 50% (see at least Fig. 34 and Table 1, where the IR cut-off wavelength is 649 nm).
Kubo does not specifically disclose that an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-IR25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum is 5 nm or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-IR25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum being 5 nm or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-IR25°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ-2-IR25°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 50% in the second transmission spectrum is 5 nm or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 7, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses that the optical filter has a transmission spectrum wherein a wavelength λ-1-2025°C lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and has a transmittance of 20% (see at least Fig. 34).
Kubo does not specifically disclose that an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-2025°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ2-2025°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the second transmission spectrum is 5 nm or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-2025°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ2-2025°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the second transmission spectrum being 5 nm or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that an absolute value of a difference between a wavelength λ-1-2025°C which lies in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the first transmission spectrum and a wavelength λ2-2025°C which lies in the wavelength range of 600 nm to 700 nm and at which the transmittance is 20% in the second transmission spectrum is 5 nm or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 8, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-45025°C in a wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-45025°C in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the second transmission spectrum is 8% or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-45025°C in a wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-45025°C in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the second transmission spectrum being 8% or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-45025°C in a wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-45025°C in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 450 nm in the second transmission spectrum is 8% or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 9, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-VIS25°C in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-VIS25°C in the wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the second transmission spectrum is 3% or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as transmission spectra. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-VIS25°C in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-VIS25°C in the wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the second transmission spectrum is 3% or less include optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
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 optical filter of Kubo so that an absolute value of a difference between an average transmittance T-1-VIS25°C in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the first transmission spectrum and an average transmittance T-2-VIS25°C in the wavelength range of 450 nm to 600 nm in the second transmission spectrum is 3% or less for the purpose of optimizing the heat resistance of the filter.
Regarding claim 10, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo does not specifically disclose that the optical filter has a haze of 0.5% or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a filter comprising the same or similar materials to have the same or similar optical characteristics such as haze. The present specification discloses that the filter comprises a light-absorbing compound comprising a phosphonic acid and copper (see at least paragraph [0060]) and a resin comprising silicone (see at least paragraph [0069]).
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). Among the benefits of the optical filter having a haze of 0.5% or less include preventing deterioration of an image captured by an imaging apparatus (see at least paragraph [0063] of Kubo).
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 optical filter of Kubo so that the optical filter has a haze of 0.5% or less for the purpose of preventing deterioration of an image captured by an imaging apparatus (see at least paragraph [0063] of Kubo).
Regarding claim 14, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses an imaging apparatus comprising the optical filter of claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0001], imaging optical system).
Regarding claim 15, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses a sensing apparatus comprising: an imaging apparatus; and a computer connected to the imaging apparatus, wherein the imaging apparatus includes the optical filter of claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0002], where a digital camera is an imaging apparatus and inherently includes a computer).
Regarding claim 16, Kubo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo also discloses a sensing method comprising executing, by a computer, given processing on image data obtained by an imaging apparatus, wherein the imaging apparatus includes the optical filter of claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0002], where a digital camera is an imaging apparatus that inherently includes a computer that performs processing on image data such as saving, compressing, editing, etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0003872 to Kubo et al. discloses an infrared cut filter and an imaging device (see at least the title and the abstract), the infrared cut filter having high heat resistance (see at least paragraph [0050]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights