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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The phrase “a wavelength … a light having a wavelength of 550 nm to 750 nm” and the phrase “a wavelength … a light having a wavelength of 950 nm to 1,150 nm” recited in claim 2 are confusing and indefinite. Clarification and correction are 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Takagi et al (US 2020/0386928 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by US patent application publication by Jung et al (US 2024/0125988 A1) and Shiono et al (US 2022/0011484 A1) and.
Takagi et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an optical filter that is comprised of a first anti-reflection film (30, Figure 1C) that is comprised of dielectric multilayer, (please see paragraph [0139]), a light-absorbing layer (10), a glass substrate (20, please see paragraph [0125]), and a second anti-reflection film (30) that is comprised dielectric multilayer in this order.
Takagi et al teaches that the optical filter teaches that the sum transmittance of the light having a wavelength of 450 nm to 700 nm at an incident angle of 0 degree is defined as S1(0), (please see Figure 9A). The sum of a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 700 nm to 1,000 nm at an incident angle of 0 degree is defined as S2(0) and a sum of transmittance of light having a wavelength of 1,000 nm to 1,300 nm at an incident angle of 0 degree is defined as S3(0).
As shown in Figure 9A, the transmittance of light, with zero angle incidence, in the wavelength range 450 nm to 600 nm is above 80%. The transmittance of light at 700 nm is about 2.3%, (please see paragraph [0170]). The transmittance of light in the wavelength range of 700 nm to 1000 nm is less than 2% and with an average of 0.4% in the wavelength range of 700 nm to 800nm. The transmittance of light in the wavelength range of 1000 nm to 1300 nm increases from close to 0% to about 50%.
Since the transmittance of light in the wavelength range from 700 nm to 1000 nm, S2(0), is close to zero, the ratio S1(0)/ S2(0) should be greater than 40 and the ratio S3(0)/ S2(0) should be either implicitly true or obvious modified by one skilled in the art to be greater than 40 for the benefit of allowing the optical filter to achieve desired transmittance spectrum.
As shown in Figure 10A, Takagi et al teaches that the transmittance spectra of light incident on the optical filter at 0 and 30 degrees have essentially the identical curve, this means the sum of transmittance of light incident at 30 degrees for wavelength range 450 nm to 700, S1(30), the sum of transmittance of light incident at 30 degrees for wavelength range 700 nm to 1,000 nm, S2(30), and the sum of transmittance of light incident at 30 degrees for wavelength 1000 nm to 1300, S3(30), should have the following conditions. Specifically, the ratio S1(30)/ S2(30) should be greater than 40 and the ration S3(30)/ S2(30) should be either implicitly true or obvious modified by one skilled in the art to be greater than 40 for the benefit of allowing the optical filter to achieve desired transmittance spectrum.
Takagi et al teaches that the thickness of the dielectric multilayer film may have a thickness of about 400 nm, (please see paragraph [0175]). It however does not teach explicitly that it has a thickness of 1500 nm or more. Jung et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical filter that is comprised of dielectric multilayer film (201 and 202, Figure 2), a substrate (100) and an absorbing layer (300, please see paragraph [0149]), wherein the dielectric multilayer film may have a thickness greater than 1500 nm, (please see Table 6). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Jung et al to modify the dielectric multilayer film to have a thickness greater than 1500 nm for the benefit of allowing the optical filter to have the desired properties.
Takagi et al teaches that the light absorbing layer (10) comprises a resin that includes polyimide, (please see paragraph [0122]). In light of the teachings by Shiono et al the resin, polyimide, has a glass transition temperature of 200 degrees Celsius or higher, (please see the abstract of Shiono et al). Takagi et al teaches that the light absorbing layer is for absorbing infrared light, (please see paragraph [0085]). Shiono et al teaches a light absorbing layer may comprises resin, with glass transition temperature of 200 degrees Celsius or higher with a near-infrared dye mixed in, (please see the abstract). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Shiono et al to specifically incorporate near-infrared dye in the resin layer to explicitly form the near-infrared light absorbing layer taught by Takagi et al.
With regard to claim 2, it is rejected under 25 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The claim can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Takagi et al teaches that in the range of 550 nm to 750 nm, the transmittance of light at 50% is corresponding to a wavelength of about 640 nm. The transmittance of the light reaches 50% is also at a wavelength of about 1200 nm, (please see Figure 9A). The difference between 640 nm and 1200 is more than 300 nm. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the 50% transmittance of the light is within 950 nm to 1150 nm. However, one skilled in the art has the basic knowledge that by changing the thickness of the layers, the refractive indices of the filter materials and absorber dye, the spectrum of the optical filter may be designed. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the optical filter to modify the transmittance spectrum as desired to make the optical filter have the desired properties.
With regard to claim 3, in light of Figures 9A and 10A, the absolute difference between S1(0)/ S2(0) and S1(30)/ S2(30) is less than 200. The absolute difference between S3(0)/ S2(0) and S3(30)/ S2(30) is less than 200.
With regard to claim 4, in light of Jung et al (please see Figure 15), the reflectance of 50% in the wavelength range 650 nm to 830 nm and the reflectance of 50% in the wavelength range 950 to 1200 have respective corresponding wavelengths that are different from each other by 230 nm or greater.
With regard to claim 5, in light of Jung et al (please see Figures 15 and 18) the average reflectance of the light in the wavelength range of 450 to 600 nm could be less than 5%.
With regard to claim 6, in light of Jung et al the difference between average reflectance of light having a wavelength in the range of 450 nm to 600 nm, with light incident on either the first dielectric multilayer film or the second dielectric multilayer film should be less than 0.5% since they are essentially the same.
With regard to claim 9, both the Takagi et al and Shiono et al teach that the light absorbing layer (10) comprises a resin that includes polyimide, (please see paragraph [0122] of Takagi et al and the abstract for Shiono et al).
With regard to claim 10, Shiono et al teaches near infrared dyes (NIR) that may have maximum absorption in the wavelength ranges of 800 nm to 1200 nm, and in the wavelength range of 680 nm to 760 nm may be used, (please see paragraphs [0025] and [0033]). Although this reference does not teach explicitly to use three different dyes each has different absorption maximum, it is within general level of skill in the art to select the desired dyes with desired absorption maximum spectra for the benefit of allowing desired near infrared absorption property be achieved.
With regard to claim 12, Takagi et al teaches that the optical filter may be included in an imaging apparatus, (please see paragraph [0001]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, Shiono et al and Jung et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Ooi et al (US 2017/0192144 A1).
The optical filter taught by Takagi et al in combination with the teachings of Shiono et al and Jung et as described in claims 1 and 3 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 7, these references do not teach explicitly to include a third dielectric multilayer film between the light-absorbing layer and the glass substrate. Ooi et al teaches an optical filter that is comprised of dielectric multilayer films, substrate and absorbing layer (please see Figure 1C). Ooi et al teaches the optical filter further comprises a third dielectric multilayer film (12b, Figure 1C) that is between an absorbing layer (11) and the substrate layer (13). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ooi et al to further include a third dielectric multilayer film for the benefit of providing additional design to the transmittance spectrum of the optical filter to achieve desired filtering function.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, Shiono et al and Jung et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Apitz et al (US 2020/0244030A1).
The optical filter taught by Takagi et al in combination with the teachings of Shiono et al and Jung et as described in claims 1 and 3 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, these references do not teach explicitly that the glass substrate comprises an ytterbium containing glass substrate. Apitz in the same field of endeavor teaches a glass substrate wherein the glass comprises ytterbium ion doped phosphate glass, (please see paragraph [0027]). It is known in the art that ytterbium containing glass is suitable for near infrared wavelength range of light (i.e. 1030 nm to 1070 nm). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use suitable glass material as the substrate, for it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, in light of Figures 9A and 10A of Takagi et al, the absolute difference of the ratios of S1(0)/ S2(0) and S1(30)/ S2(30) should be less than 130. The absolute difference between S3(0)/ S2(0) and S3(30)/ S2(30) should be less than 130.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, Shiono et al and Jung et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Shiono et al (US 2018/0067243A1).
The optical filter taught by Takagi et al in combination with the teachings of Shiono et al and Jung et as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 11, these references do not teach explicitly that the light-absorbing layer has a thickness of 2 mm or less. Shiono et al (‘243) in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical filter comprises dielectric multilayer films and light absorbing layer, (please see Figure 1D), wherein the light absorbing layer (11) may be made to have a thickness of 0.9 mm, (please see paragraph [0316]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Shiono et al (‘243) to make the light absorbing layer has a thickness less than 2 mm, for the benefit of making the thickness of the optical filter has a desired thickness and dimension. Shiono et al (‘484) teaches the content of the near infrared absorbing dye may be 1 to 20 parts by mass per 100 parts, (please see paragraph [0174]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US patent application publication by Kubo et al (US 2020/0040161 A1) teaches an optical filter that is comprised of dielectric multilayer films, glass substate and light absorbing layer, (please see Figure 2) wherein the transmittance spectrum may comprise maximum in visible wavelength range and infrared wavelength range greater than 1000 nm, (please see Figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights