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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/04/2025 and 05/01/2205 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3, 5-10, 16, 18, and 20 are photographs. 37 CFR 1.84(b) states that photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications unless photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Applicant has not provide such a showing. 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 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 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18 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.
With regards to claims 11, 16, and18 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the light emitter”.
With regards to claims 12, 15, 16, and18, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the light receiver.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Hohn et al (US 2012/00104291) in view of CN 104101930 (herein referred to as CN).
Hohn teaches an article that includes an optical filter (0002), the optical filter comprising:
at least one wavelength selective absorbing layer, wherein each of the wavelength selective absorbing layer and the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for wavelengths between 900 nm - 980 nm greater than about 30% (abstract).
Hohn is relied upon as above, but does not teach the filter should further comprise a wavelength selective reflective layer. However, CN teaches the angle of incidence dependence and efficiency of a cut filter may be improved by including a reflective layer in addition to an absorbing layer (0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a wavelength selective reflective layer to the filter disclosed in Hohn. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of said filter.
With regards to claim 2, Hohn teaches the wavelength selective absorbing layer may be printed (0092+).
With regards to claim 3, Hohn teaches the optical filter has visible transmittance for all wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 830 nm - 900 nm greater than about 30% (abstract; 0019-0020).
With regards to claim 4, Hohn teaches the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 800 nm - 1200 nm greater than about 30% 3(abstract; 0019-0020).
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14- 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millikan (US 2013/0300850) in view of Hohn et al (US 2012/00104291) and CN 104101930 (herein referred to as CN).
Millikan teaches a system comprising an object; an optical filter adjacent to the object (0029). Said filter may be a visible light cutting filter (0029). Millikan does not teach the filter should comprise the claimed filter. However, Hohn teaches an article that includes an optical filter (0002), the optical filter comprising:
at least one wavelength selective absorbing layer, wherein each of the wavelength selective absorbing layer and the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for wavelengths between 900 nm - 980 nm greater than about 30% (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the filer of Hohn in the system of Millikan. The motivation for doing so would have been because said filter is taught to be effective in filtering out visible light (as is desired by Millikan).
Hohn is relied upon as above, but does not teach the filter should further comprise a wavelength selective reflective layer. However, CN teaches the angle of incidence dependence and efficiency of a cut filter may be improved by including a reflective layer in addition to an absorbing layer (0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a wavelength selective reflective layer to the filter disclosed in Hohn. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of said filter.
With regards to claim 2, Hohn teaches the wavelength selective absorbing layer may be printed (0092+).
With regards to claim 3, Hohn teaches the optical filter has visible transmittance for all wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 830 nm - 900 nm greater than about 30% (abstract; 0019-0020).
With regards to claim 4, Hohn teaches the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 800 nm - 1200 nm greater than about 30% 3(abstract; 0019-0020).
With regards to claim 6, Hohn teaches said wavelengths are “substantially filtered out” (00098) -herein understood to read on the claimed “average visible transmittance is less than about 1%.” Alternatively, Hohn teaches it is preferable to substantially filter out the visible wavelengths. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to minimize the visible transmittance of the filter as much as possible.
With regards to claim 7, Hohn teaches the average near infrared transmittance is
greater than about 75% (0019-0020).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Hohn teaches the absorbing layer comprises dye (which absorbs light whereas pigments tend to scatter light). Thus, said layer is understood to inherently meet the “scatter” limitations in for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of said claims. Furthermore, Hohn teaches the transmittance of wavelengths between 830 nm and 900 nm can 100%, which means scatter is below that claimed in claims 8 and 9.
With regards to claim 10, Hohn is understood to teach the claimed invention “wherein the wavelength selective absorbing layer scatters more light in visible wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm compared to light scattered in near infrared wavelengths between 830 nm and 900 nm” since scatter in the higher range is considered to be 0%.
With regard to claim 12, Millikan teaches the system may comprise a near-IR camera (0054-herien understood to read on the claimed light receiver).
With regards to claim 14, Cn teaches the multilayer filter may further comprise as substrate.
With regards to claim 15, in the system rendered obvious by the prior art, it is understood “the optical filter is configured to at least partially shield the light receiver from visible wavelengths while substantially allowing the light receiver to receive near-infrared wavelengths.”
With regards to claim 16, the optical filter is inherently understood to be “configured to
camouflage one or both of the light receiver and the light emitter from visual perception” since it blocks visible light.
With regards to claim 18, the system of Millikan is understood to teach the claimed invention wherein the at least one light emitter and light receiver are components of an electronic device and the optical filter is a component of an article that has a three dimensional shape and includes one or more attachment features configured to attach the article including the optical filter to the electronic device wherein the camera is the electronic device and the filter (which is attached to the camera) reads on the article with a three dimensional shape and attachment feature..
With regards to claim 19, the camera of Millikan comprises a light receiver.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millikan (US 2013/0300850) in view of Hohn et al (US 2012/00104291) and CN 104101930 (herein referred to as CN), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Coombs (US2006/0023327)
Said references are relied upon as above, but do not teach the filter may further comprise a wavelength selective scattering layer. However, Coombs teaches that It will be recognized by those skilled in the art of optical coating design that a single layer can be replaced by a plurality of multiple layers without substantially affecting the function (0048). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use multiple wavelength selective absorbing layers in the filter disclosed in Hohn. The motivation for doing so would have been those skilled in the art recognize that a single layer can be replaced by a plurality of multiple layers without substantially affecting the function. Said additional layer is understood to read on the claimed “wavelength selective scattering layer.”
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1840627 (herein referred to as Eberl) in view of Hohn et al (US 2012/00104291) and CN 104101930 (herein referred to as CN).
Eberl teaches a system comprising an object; an optical filter adjacent to the object (1.3). Said filter may be a visible light cutting filter (1.5). Eberl does not teach the filter should comprise the claimed filter. However, Hohn teaches an article that includes an optical filter (0002), the optical filter comprising:
at least one wavelength selective absorbing layer, wherein each of the wavelength selective absorbing layer and the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for wavelengths between 900 nm - 980 nm greater than about 30% (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the filer of Hohn in the system of Eberl. The motivation for doing so would have been because said filter is taught to be effective in filtering out visible light (as is desired by Eberl).
Hohn is relied upon as above, but does not teach the filter should further comprise a wavelength selective reflective layer. However, CN teaches the angle of incidence dependence and efficiency of a cut filter may be improved by including a reflective layer in addition to an absorbing layer (0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a wavelength selective reflective layer to the filter disclosed in Hohn. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of said filter.
With regards to claim 2, Hohn teaches the wavelength selective absorbing layer may be printed (0092+).
With regards to claim 3, Hohn teaches the optical filter has visible transmittance for all wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 830 nm - 900 nm greater than about 30% (abstract; 0019-0020).
With regards to claim 4, Hohn teaches the optical filter has average visible transmittance for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of less than about 30% and average near infrared transmittance for all wavelengths between 800 nm - 1200 nm greater than about 30% 3(abstract; 0019-0020).
With regards to claim 6, Hohn teaches said wavelengths are “substantially filtered out” (00098) -herein understood to read on the claimed “average visible transmittance is less than about 1%.” Alternatively, Hohn teaches it is preferable to substantially filter out the visible wavelengths. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to minimize the visible transmittance of the filter as much as possible.
With regards to claim 7, Hohn teaches the average near infrared transmittance is
greater than about 75% (0019-0020).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Hohn teaches the absorbing layer comprises dye (which absorbs light whereas pigments tend to scatter light). Thus, said layer is understood to inherently meet the “scatter” limitations in for wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm of said claims. Furthermore, Hohn teaches the transmittance of wavelengths between 830 nm and 900 nm can 100%, which means scatter is below that claimed in claims 8 and 9.
With regards to claim 10, Hohn is understood to teach the claimed invention “wherein the wavelength selective absorbing layer scatters more light in visible wavelengths between 400 nm - 700 nm compared to light scattered in near infrared wavelengths between 830 nm and 900 nm” since scatter in the higher range is considered to be 0%.
With regards to claim 11, the system may comprise a light emitter which is a near IR laser or LED (see section 1.3.3.1)
With regards to claim 12, the receiver may have a near IR receiving band (section 1. 3.3.1).
With regards to claim 13, the system of Eberl is understood to read on the claimed iris scanning system.
With regards to claim 14, Cn teaches the multilayer filter may further comprise as substrate.
With regards to claim 15, in the system rendered obvious by the prior art, it is understood “ the optical filter is configured to at least partially shield the light receiver from visible wavelengths while substantially allowing the light receiver to receive near-infrared wavelengths.”
With regards to claim 16, the optical filter is inherently understood to be “configured to
camouflage one or both of the light receiver and the light emitter from visual perception” since it blocks visible light.
With regards to claim 18, the system of Eberl is understood to teach the claimed invention wherein the at least one light emitter and light receiver are components of an electronic device and the optical filter is a component of an article that has a three dimensional shape and includes one or more attachment features configured to attach the article including the optical filter to the electronic device wherein the camera is the electronic device and the filter (which is attached to the camera) reads on the article with a three dimensional shape and attachment feature..
With regards to claim 19, the detector of Eberl comprises a light receiver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights