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 are objected to because the legends in Figs 4a and 4b are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, lines 5-15 are presumed to be intended as:
“wherein for a specific light beam having a specific chromaticity defined by CIE x and y, which is incident on the beam splitter along a second direction with an incident angle in the range from 15° to 75° enclosed between a vector pointing in said first direction and a vector pointing in said second direction, and which is partly transmitted through the beam splitter and partly reflected by the beam splitter:
a difference between the CIE x coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE x coordinates of the light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter is less than 0.05, and/or
a difference between the CIE y coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE y coordinates of the light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter is less than 0.05.”
b. Claim 13, lines 11-13 are presumed to be intended as:
“(v) two or more layers of the coating each constitute a matching layer,
(vi) the total thickness of all matching layers of the coating is greater than the thickness of each of the other layers of the coating, and/or”
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 1-27 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 “a coating” in lines 1-2 and subsequently “all coatings” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether a single coating or a plurality of coatings are intended to be claimed. For examination purposes, the former limitation is considered to be “at least one coating” and the latter limitation is considered to be “the at least one coating”. See also claims 2, 8-13, 16, 17 and 23.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 14, line 1 – “the matching layer”, as claim 14 presently depends on claim 1
Claim 15, lines 2, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13, respectively – “the oxide”, “the fluoride”, “the nitride”, “the sulfide”, “the selenide”, and “the metal”, as claim 15 presently depends on claim 13
Regarding claims 13, 22-24 and 26, the phrase “optionally”, “in particular”, or “can be” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-7, 18-21, 25 and 27 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tohara et al. (US 2023/0152577).
Regarding claim 1, Tohara discloses a partial beam splitter (110, 112, 114, 210, 212, 215, 310, 312, 405, 407, 410, 411, 601 and/or 602, Figs. 1-34, particularly 601, Fig. 23) comprising a substrate made of a substrate material and a coating arranged on a main surface of the substrate (paras. [0122-0123]), wherein along a first direction which is parallel to the normal vector of the main surface, the substrate and all coatings have a total thickness (Fig. 23; Table 1), and
wherein for a specific light beam having a specific chromaticity defined by CIE x and y, which is incident on the beam splitter along a second direction with an incident angle in the range from 15° to 75° enclosed between a vector pointing in said first direction and a vector pointing in said second direction (Figs. 26-28; paras. [0124-0125]), and which is partly transmitted through the beam splitter and partly reflected by the beam splitter (paras. [0045-0046, 0123]), said light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter has a difference between the CIE x coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE x coordinates of the light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter is less than 0.05 (paras. [0124-0125, 0127]) and/or
a difference between the CIE y coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE y coordinates of the light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter is less than 0.05 (paras. [0124-0125, 0127]).
Regarding claim 2, Tohara discloses wherein the coating has a refractive index nc corresponding to the refractive index of the substrate ns (para. [0129]), or the ratio of the refractive index of the coating (nc) and the refractive index of the substrate (ns) at a specific wavelength is between 0.95 and 1.05 (Table 1; para. [0123]) and/or
wherein an absolute value of the difference of the refractive index of the substrate (ns) and the refractive index of the coating (nc) is 1.00 or less and/or is 0.0001 (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 3, Tohara discloses wherein the beam splitter has a wavelength dependent transmittance and a wavelength dependent reflectance (Figs. 7, 26-28),
wherein for a specific incident angle, and/or at an incident angle of 30°, the beam splitter has a maximum transmittance T(420-680)max and a minimum transmittance T(420-680)min in a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 680 nm, and wherein the difference between T(420-680)max and T(420-680)min is less than 10% (Figs. 26-28) and/or
wherein the beam splitter has a maximum reflectance R(420-680)max and a minimum reflectance R(420-680)min in a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 680 nm, wherein the difference between R(420-680)max and R(420-680)min is less than 10% and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum transmittance T(430)max and a minimum transmittance T(430)min at 430 nm and wherein the difference between T(430)max and T(430)min is less than 10% and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum reflectance R(430)max and a minimum reflectance R(430)min at 430 nm, wherein the difference between R(430)max and R(430)min is less than 10%, and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum transmittance T(535)max and a minimum transmittance T(535)min at 535 nm, wherein the difference between T(535)max and T(535)min is less than 10%, and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum reflectance R(535)max and a minimum reflectance R(535)min at 535 nm, wherein the difference between R(535)max and R(535)min is less than 10%, and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum transmittance T(565)max and a minimum transmittance T(565)min at 565 nm, wherein the difference between T(565)max and T(565)min is less than 10%, and/or
the beam splitter has a maximum reflectance R(565)max and a minimum reflectance R(565)min at 565 nm, wherein the difference between R(565)max and R(565)min is less than 10%.
Regarding claim 4, Tohara discloses wherein the difference between the CIE x coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE x coordinates of the reflected light beam is less than 0.05 (Fig. 7B; paras. [0052, 0081-0082, 0085, 0098-0099]) and/or
the difference between the CIE y coordinates of the specific light beam and the CIE y coordinates of the reflected light beam is less than 0.05 (Fig. 7B; paras. [0052, 0081-0082, 0085, 0098-0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Tohara discloses wherein the specific light beam has a chromaticity according to CIE of x in the range from 0.283 to 0.383 and/or a chromaticity according to CIE of y in the range from 0.283 to 0.383 (Figs. 6, 8, 12, 14).
Regarding claim 6, Tohara discloses wherein for light having a specific wavelength within the range of 450 nm and 650 nm which is incident on the beam splitter along a second direction with an incident angle of 30° enclosed between a vector pointing in said first direction and a vector pointing in said second direction, said specific light beam after transmitting through the beam splitter has a phase having a phase difference of an absolute value of less than or equal to 30° compared to the case in which, under otherwise identical conditions, the beam splitter is replaced by a reference substrate made of the substrate material and having a thickness identical to the total thickness of the beam splitter (paras. [0063, 0089]).
Regarding claim 7, Tohara discloses wherein the phase difference has an absolute value which is less than or equal to 20°, and/or is greater than or equal to 0.5° (paras. [0063, 0089]).
Regarding claim 8, Tohara discloses wherein the coating has at least two layers and/or between 1 and 5000 layers (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Tohara discloses wherein a thickness of each layer of the coating along the first direction
is greater than or equal to 1 nm; and/or
is less than or equal to 5000 nm; and/or
is between 1 nm and 5000 nm (Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Tohara discloses wherein a layer of the coating is a dielectric layer, and/or a layer of the coating having a thickness along the first direction of 10 nm or less, comprises metal, and/or the coating has no layers made of and/or comprising metal (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 11, Tohara discloses wherein the coating has a spatially variable index layer or is made of one single spatially variable index layer (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 12, Tohara discloses wherein the coating is at least partially applied to the substrate by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (paras. [0059, 0123]).
Regarding the product-by-process limitation of claim 12, it has been recognized that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 13, Tohara discloses wherein a layer of the coating constitutes a matching layer (Table 1; paras. [0123, 0129]), and wherein optionally
(i) the matching layer has a refractive index and/or an optical dispersion corresponding to the refractive index and/or the dispersion pattern, respectively, of the substrate,
(ii) the ratio of the refractive index of the matching layer and the refractive index of the substrate is between 0.95 and 1.05,
(iii) the matching layer has a thickness of between 15 nm and 750 nm,
(iv) the matching layer is arranged directly on the substrate and/or as an adhesive layer,
(v) two or more layers of the coating each constitute a matching layer, and/or
(vi) the total thickness of all matching layers of the coating is greater than the thickness of each of the other layers of the coating
(vii) the total thickness of all matching layers of the coating is in the range from 250 nm to 1750 nm.
Regarding claim 14, Tohara discloses wherein the matching layer comprises
a. one or more components selected from one or more oxides, one or more fluorides, one or more nitrides, one or more sulfides, one or more selenides, one or more metals, and combinations of two or more thereof (Table 1; para. [0123]); and/or
b. one or more components selected from one or more metal oxides, one or more metal fluorides, one or more metal nitrides, one or more metal sulfides, one or more metal selenides and combinations of two or more thereof (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 15, Tohara discloses wherein
a. the oxide is selected from silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, praseodymium oxide, scandium oxide, tin oxide, chromium oxide, indium oxide and combinations of two or more thereof (Table 1; para. [0123]);
b. the fluoride is selected from aluminum fluoride, magnesium fluoride, neodymium fluoride, lanthanum fluoride, yttrium fluoride, gadolinium fluoride, ytterbium fluoride and combinations of two or more thereof;
c. the nitride is selected from aluminum nitride, silicon nitrides and combinations thereof;
d. the sulfide is zinc sulfide;
e. the selenide is zinc selenide; and/or
f. the metal is selected from aluminum, silver, gold, chromium, nickel and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Tohara discloses wherein a thickness of the coating along the first direction is greater than or equal to 500 nm; and/or
is less than or equal to 3000 nm; and/or
is between 500 nm and 3000 nm (Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, Tohara discloses wherein a refractive index of the coating is 1.45 or greater; and/or is 3.00 or less (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 18, Tohara discloses wherein a thickness of the substrate along the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm; and/or
is less than or equal to 20.0 mm; and/or
is between 0.1 mm and 20.0 mm (Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Tohara discloses wherein a refractive index of the substrate is 1.45 or greater; and/or is 3.00 or less (Table 1; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Tohara discloses wherein the substrate is essentially cuboidal (Figs. 1-29).
Regarding claim 21, Tohara discloses wherein the substrate comprises glass, and/or untempered glass (para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 22, Tohara discloses wherein a coating is arranged on each of the two main surfaces of the substrate, wherein optionally the two coatings are identical (Table 1; paras. [0123, 0129]).
Regarding claim 23, Tohara discloses wherein the coating has a reflectance of at least 0.03 and/or at most 0.35, a transmittance of at least 0.65 and/or at most 0.97 (Figs. 7, 13, 15, 26-28), and/or
an absorbance of at least 0.001 and/or at most 0.01, in particular for light of the specific wavelength incident on the partial beam splitter, and/or for a value for the refractive index of ne.
Regarding claim 24, Tohara discloses a stack comprising two or more beam splitters claim 1, wherein optionally the beam splitters are arranged one above the other along a stacking direction (Figs. 1-29; para. [0129]).
Regarding claim 25, Tohara discloses wherein the beam splitters following one another along the stacking direction or along a direction antiparallel to the stacking direction have a different reflectivity and/or a different transmittivity for the portion of the specific light beam incident on them respectively (Figs. 1-29; paras. [0081, 0098, 0129]).
Regarding claim 26, Tohara discloses wherein the specific light beam is guided and/or can be guided along the beam splitters within the stack (paras. [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 27, Tohara discloses a method of manufacturing a beam splitter, comprising providing a substrate and arranging a coating on a main surface of the substrate so as to obtain a beam splitter according to claim 1 (Table 1; paras. [0123, 0129]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights