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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected claims 1-17 and 20 and withdrawn claims 18 and 19. However, The Examiner believes that claims 4-6 corresponds to Species B as indicated in the previous restriction (07/30/2026).
Therefore, only claims 1-3, 7-17 and 20 are elected;
and
Claims 4-6, 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/27/2026.
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, 7-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stalder US 20170363789.
Regarding claim 1, Stalder discloses an optical element, in at least figs.1-3 and 7-13, comprising:
a substrate (1); and
a coating (3 and two layers of 4, 3 formed between two layers of 4, para.11 and 16), wherein the coating comprises:
a first major surface (bottom surface of the coating, see figs.1 and 7);
a second major surface (upper surface of the coating, see figs.1 and 7) opposite the first major surface;
the first major surface of the coating is in direct contact with the substrate (see figs.1 and 7);
a layer of zinc chalcogenide (a bottom layer 4) atop the substrate; and
a layer of Au (3, para.17) atop the layer of zinc chalcogenide (see figs.1 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Stalder discloses the layer of zinc chalcogenide comprises at least one of a layer of ZnSe or a layer of ZnS (para.18).
Regarding claim 8, Stalder discloses the layer of Au is in direct contact with the layer of zinc chalcogenide (see figs.1 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, Stalder discloses the layer of zinc chalcogenide is in direct contact with the substrate (see figs.1 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Stalder discloses the layer of Au has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 300 nm (para.15).
Regarding claim 11, Stalder discloses the layer of zinc chalcogenide has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (para.16).
Regarding claim 12, Stalder discloses the layer of zinc chalcogenide is a first layer of zinc chalcogenide (see figs.1 and 7, para.11 and 16), and wherein the coating further comprises: a second layer of zinc chalcogenide atop the layer of Au (see figs.1 and 7, para.11 and 16).
Regarding claim 13, Stalder discloses the second layer of zinc chalcogenide comprises at least one of a layer of ZnSe or a layer of ZnS (para.18).
Regarding claim 14, Stalder discloses the second layer of zinc chalcogenide has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (para.16).
Regarding claim 15, Stalder discloses the layer of Au is in direct contact with the second layer of zinc chalcogenide (see figs.1 and 7).
Regarding claim 17, Stalder discloses the substrate comprising at least one of aluminum, aluminum alloy, sapphire, glass, oxides, chalcogenides, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, fluorides, silicon, or germanium (para.12).
Regarding claim 20, Stalder discloses a method of making an optical element, in at least figs.1-3 and 7-13, comprising:
forming a coating (3 and two layers of 4, 3 formed between two layers of 4, para.11 and 16) on a substrate (1),
wherein forming the coating comprises:
forming a layer of zinc chalcogenide (a bottom layer 4) atop the substrate; and
forming a layer of Au (3, para.17) atop the layer of zinc chalcogenide;
wherein the coating comprises:
a first major surface (bottom surface of the coating, see figs.1 and 7);
a second major surface (upper surface of the coating, see figs.1 and 7) opposite the first major surface; and
the first major surface of the coating is in direct contact with the substrate (see figs.1 and 7).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder US 20170363789 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Stalder discloses the coating has an average reflectance for all wavelengths from 7.5 µm to 13.5 µm incident on the second major surface of the coating at an angle of incidence that is greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 55° (para.1, figs.2, 3, 12 and 13).
Stalder does not explicitly disclose the average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99%. However, Stalder discloses the average reflectance is high (para.1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Stalder’s optical element to have the average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99% which is considered high value as well. One would have chosen the value of the average reflectance according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an optical element with an average reflectance while not making the average reflectance too small to make the optical element unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the optical element to have the average reflectance within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the optical element with excellent reflection of infrared light (para.1) in order to have the optical element with high reliability and reducing the fraction of IR radiation (abstract). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99% through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, 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 average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99% in the optical element of Stalder for the purpose of having high reflection of infrared light and reducing the fraction of IR radiation (abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder US 20170363789 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hebrink US 20210018713.
Regarding claim 3, Stalder does not explicitly disclose the coating further comprises a multi-layer stack of alternating high index layers and low index layers atop the layer of Au.
Hebrink discloses an optical element, in at least fig.4, the coating (204) further comprises a multi-layer stack (206) of alternating high index layers (212) and low index layers (210)(para.82) atop the layer of Au (208, para.111)(para.77 and fig.4) for the purpose of providing high reflectance throughout the reflective band 700 to 3000 nanometers (para.108 and 107).
Therefore, 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 coating further comprises a multi-layer stack of alternating high index layers and low index layers atop the layer of Au as taught by Hebrink in the optical element of Stalder for the purpose of providing high reflectance throughout the reflective band 700 to 3000 nanometers.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder US 20170363789 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benerjee US 20150309231.
Regarding claim 2, Stalder discloses the coating has an average reflectance for all wavelengths from 7.5 µm to 13.5 µm incident on the second major surface of the coating at an angle of incidence that is greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 55° (para.1, figs.2, 3, 12 and 13) and the layer of Au can be copper as well (para.17).
Stalder does not explicitly disclose the average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99%.
Benerjee discloses an optical element, in at least figs.8A-10, the average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99% (see fig.9 and 10 discloses at least greater than 95%) for the purpose of having high reflectance in IR range (fig.10 and para.62).
Accordingly, 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 average reflectance of greater than or equal to 98%, or greater than or equal to 99% as taught Benerjee in the optical element of Stalder for the purpose of having high reflectance in IR range.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder US 20170363789 in view of Benerjee US 20150309231 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hebrink US 20210018713.
Regarding claim 3, Stalder in view of Benerjee does not explicitly disclose the coating further comprises a multi-layer stack of alternating high index layers and low index layers atop the layer of Au.
Hebrink discloses an optical element, in at least fig.4, the coating (204) further comprises a multi-layer stack (206) of alternating high index layers (212) and low index layers (210)(para.82) atop the layer of Au (208, para.111)(para.77 and fig.4) for the purpose of providing high reflectance throughout the reflective band 700 to 3000 nanometers (para.108 and 107).
Therefore, 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 coating further comprises a multi-layer stack of alternating high index layers and low index layers atop the layer of Au as taught by Hebrink in the optical element of Stalder in view of Benerjee for the purpose of providing high reflectance throughout the reflective band 700 to 3000 nanometers.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder US 20170363789 as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 16, Stalder at least one of the first layer of zinc chalcogenide or the second layer of zinc chalcogenide has an extinction coefficient at all wavelengths from 7.5 μm to 13.5 μm (para.18 discloses ZnS).
Stalder does not explicitly disclose the extinction coefficient less than or equal to 1E-6. However, Stalder discloses the same material ZnS used as the current application to have high reflection of infrared light (para.1), so that Stalder teaches that the extinction coefficient of the ZnS is very small at all wavelengths from 7.5 μm to 13.5 μm as well. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Stalder’s optical element to have the extinction coefficient less than or equal to 1E-6 which is considered very small value as well. One would have chosen the value of the extinction coefficient according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an optical element with an extinction coefficient while not making the extinction coefficient too big to make the optical element unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the optical element to have the extinction coefficient within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the optical element with excellent reflection of infrared light (para.1) in order to have the optical element with high reliability and reducing the fraction of IR radiation (abstract). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the extinction coefficient less than or equal to 1E-6 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, 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 extinction coefficient less than or equal to 1E-6 in the optical element of Stalder for the purpose of having high reflection of infrared light and reducing the fraction of IR radiation (abstract).
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Banerjee US 20150309231 (in at least figs.8A-10) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 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, Michael H 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.
/JIA X PAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights