DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 October 2024 and 17 April 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At Line 2 of Claim 8, the following is suggested: “… layer
At Line 3 of Claim 9, the following is suggested: “degrees
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1. Claims 1-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0324179 to Thyagarajan et al. (“Thyagarajan”) in view of US 2022/0221786 to Xiao et al. (“Xiao”).
With regard to Claim 1, Thyagarajan teaches an angle-insensitive (i.e. non-dichroic) optical thin film structure comprising a Bragg reflector structure and a graded index layer deposited thereon (see Abstract; FIGs. 3, 4A, 6, 8, 10; ¶¶ [0004]-[0007], [0038]). The Bragg reflector structure of Thyagarajan comprises a plurality of pairs of layers, the layers residing adjacent each other, featuring the claimed relative refractive indices, and comprising thicknesses corresponding to a quarter of targeted wavelengths for each layer (see FIGs. 3, 6,10; ¶¶ [0004], [0006], [0041], [0048]).
Bragg teaches a graded index layer featuring a continuously changing refractive index (see ¶ [0040]) and that thickness thereof is selectable and result-effective with respect to shifting incident light thereon (see ¶ [0065]); however the reference does not expressly teach provision of the layer such that the refractive index changes to that of the first layer in an underlying Bragg reflector structure. Xiao is similarly directed to multilayer Bragg reflector structures, and teaches a continuously graded interface layer configured to match the refractive index of an interface layer to prevent formation of low-reflectivity interfaces (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0049]-[0050], [0075]-[0076]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the graded index layer of Thyagarajan to match that of interfacing layers in order to prevent formation of low-reflectivity regions as taught by Xiao.
With regard to Claims 2-3, Thyagarajan teaches selecting Bragg reflector structure wavelength based on underlying substrate color (see ¶¶ [0049]-[0059]).
With regard to Claims 4-6, Thyagarajan teaches materials for Bragg reflector structure layer pairs and graded index layers featuring the claimed refractive indices (see ¶¶ [0006], [0040], [0044]).
With regard to Claims 10 and 14, Thyagarajan teaches the thickness of the Bragg reflector structure layers can be selected without particular limitation to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength (see ¶¶ [0044], [0048]), and that the thickness of the graded index layer is result-effective with respect to reflectivity (see ¶ [0065]); however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed thicknesses of Bragg reflector structure and graded index layer. In view of the teachings of Thyagarajan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have employed the claimed thicknesses of Bragg reflector structure and graded index layers throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of a desired Bragg wavelength.
With regard to Claim 11, Thyagarajan teaches selection of graded index layer thickness such that reflectivity is maintained (see ¶ [0065]), and Xiao teaches arrangements featuring total reflectivity losses of 1-2% (see ¶ [0067]).
With regard to Claim 13, Thyagarajan teaches film structures comprising a plurality of stacked Bragg reflector layers, each configured to reflect diverse target wavelengths of any desired value (see ¶ [0063]).
2. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan in view of Xiao as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2019/0019976 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
With regard to Claims 7-8, Thyagarajan teaches formation of layer materials via chemical vapor deposition, and usage of a variety of materials for graded index layers (see ¶¶ [0014], [0038], [0064]). Thyagarajan also teaches control of layers deposited via chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”) via controlling deposition conditions and duration (see ¶ [0064]); however the reference does not expressly teach graded layer formation using silicon and nitrogen. Kim is similarly directed to optical layer structures featuring refractive index gradients, and teaches controlling refractive index of a CVD-deposited silicon nitride layer via controlling mass flow rates of silane and ammonia gases (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0080]-[0087]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deposited a silicon nitride layer as a graded index layer material in the structure of Thyagarajan and to have controlled the refractive index thereof via controlling the mass flow of silane and ammonia constituents as claimed.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan in view of Xiao and Kim as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of US 5,170,291 to Szczyrbowski et al. (“Szczyrbowski”).
With regard to Claim 9, to the extent that the chemical vapor deposition techniques disclosed by Thyagarajan and Kim would not be implicitly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate plasma-enhanced versions of such techniques, Szczyrbowski is noted as teaching plasma-enhanced CVD for deposition of optically-effective layer systems (see Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed plasma-enhanced CVD to produce layer structures in Thyagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan in view of Xiao as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2001/0016262 to Toyoshima et al. (“Toyoshima”).
With regard to Claim 12, Thyagarajan teaches graded index layers featuring continuous gradients (see ¶ [0040]); however the reference does not expressly teach a linear profile thereof. Toyoshima is directed to formation of anti-reflective coating layers featuring refractive index gradients, and teaches layers with a linear gradient profile to control surface reflectance (see Abstract; FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a linear gradient profile in the graded index layer of Thyagarajan, as taught by Toyoshima, as a measure of surface reflectance control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
