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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 January 2025, 27 June 2025, and 21 November 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,611, hereinafter ‘611. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons outlined below.
Regarding claim 1, ‘611 claims an optical sensor device (col. 18 line 65), comprising:
a concealment component (col. 19 line 1) that includes:
an optical filter (col. 19 line 2), and
one or more diffusive optical structures (col. 19 line 3) configured to:
diffuse and reflect a first portion of light associated with a scene away from the one or more diffusive optical structures (col. 19 approx. lines 33-37), and
diffuse and distribute a second portion of the light in a diffused pattern on an input surface of the optical filter (col. 19 lines 9-12) (in the claims of ‘611 recited on approx. col. 18 line 65-col. 19 line 37, different light portions would either be reflected or distributed by the diffusive optical structures based on wavelength of the light portions; since ‘611 recites the diffusive optical structures both distribute light and reflect light, the first and second light portions associated with a scene are inherent).
Regarding claim 2, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further claims the optical filter is configured to: allow the second portion of the light to pass through the optical filter (col. 19 lines 13-20).
Regarding claim 5, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further claims the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and distribute a third portion of the light in a diffused pattern on the input surface of the optical filter (col. 19 lines 9-12; the instant claims do not limit the claimed third portion of light from being different from the claimed second portion of light; further, it is appreciated that the limitation “reflect a portion of the light” on lines 34-35 of ‘611 can be broadly interpreted to include other portions of light); and wherein the optical filter is configured to: prevent the third portion of the light from passing through the optical filter (col. 19 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 6, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 5, as outlined above, and further claims the optical filter is further configured to: reflect at least a subset of the third portion of the light (col. 19 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 8, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 6, as outlined above, and further claims the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and direct the subset of the third portion of the light away from the concealment component in a concealment pattern (col. 19 lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 9, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 5, as outlined above, and further claims the optical filter is further configured to: cause at least a subset of the third portion of the light to be directed away from or absorbed by the optical filter in a concealment pattern (col. 19 lines 21-32; light beams reflected by optical filter are directed away from the optical filter and into the diffusive optical structures to create a concealment pattern).
Regarding claim 10, ‘611 claims an optical sensor device (col. 18 line 65), comprising:
a concealment component (col. 19 line 1) that includes:
one or more diffusive optical structures (col. 19 line 3) configured to:
reflect a first portion of light associated with a scene away from the concealment component (col. 19 approx. lines 33-37); and
diffuse and reflect a second portion of the light in a diffused pattern away from the concealment component (col. 19 approx. lines 33-37; the instant claim does not limit the claimed second portion of light from being different from the claimed first portion of light; further, it is appreciated that the limitation “reflect a portion of the light” on lines 34-35 of ‘611 can be broadly interpreted to include other portions of light).
Regarding claim 11, ‘611 claims the optical sensor device of claim 10, as outlined above, and further claims an optical filter (col. 19 line 2); and wherein the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and distribute a third portion of the light in a diffused pattern on an input surface of the optical filter (col. 19 lines 9-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al. (US 2019/0025481 A1, of record), hereinafter Du.
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches an optical sensor device (abstract, Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a concealment component (Fig. 1-2 optical filter 10, paragraphs 0068-0069) that includes:
an optical filter (Fig. 1F wavelength selective reflective layer 16 and wavelength selective absorbing layer 34 together act as an optical filter, paragraphs 0053-0056), and
one or more diffusive optical structures (Fig. 1F wavelength selective scattering layer 14, paragraphs 0039, 0043) configured to:
diffuse and reflect a first portion of light associated with a scene away from the one or more diffusive optical structures (paragraphs 0042 and 0046), and
diffuse and distribute a second portion of the light in a diffused pattern on an input surface of the optical filter (paragraphs 0042 and 0046; NIR light passes through beaded diffuser layer and is thus diffused).
Regarding claim 2, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical filter is configured to: allow the second portion of the light to pass through the optical filter (paragraphs 0007-0010, 0053, 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical filter is further configured to: allow at least a subset of the second portion of the light, that was reflected off an optical sensor element of the optical sensor device, to pass to the one or more diffusive optical structures (Fig. 1-2; the concealment component (Fig. 1-2 optical filter 10) has a visible light transmittance of less than 0.1% (paragraphs 0009-0010), meaning that at least some visible light is emitted to the optical sensor elements (Fig. 1E sensor segments 32a-d); some of this visible light will inherently reflect off of the surface of the sensor segments; this visible light will then be directed back through the concealment component parts, and while some of this visible light will be absorbed by absorbing layer 34 and reflected by reflective layer 16, the remainder of the visible light will pass back through wavelength selective reflective layer 16 and wavelength selective absorbing layer 34 to the beaded diffuser 14).
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: distribute the subset of the second portion of the light in a diffused pattern away from the concealment component (Fig. 1-2; as outlined above, the subset of light that has reflected off of the sensor segments and that have passed through layers 16 and 34 will reach and at least partially pass through the diffusive layer 14, thus creating a diffused pattern (haze) away from the optical filter 10).
Regarding claim 5, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and distribute a third portion of the light in a diffused pattern on the input surface of the optical filter (paragraphs 0042, 0046; the beaded diffuser scatters/reflects some visible light, but also allows for some visible light to pass through); and wherein the optical filter is configured to: prevent the third portion of the light from passing through the optical filter (paragraphs 0009-0010, 0049, 0053, 0061).
Note, for clarity of the record, the examiner has interpreted the three portions of light in claims 5-9 with respect to Du as follows:
First portion of light: visible light reflected by beaded diffuser 14
Second portion of light: infrared light transmitted through beaded diffuser 14, wavelength selective reflective layer 16, and wavelength absorbing layer 34
Third portion of light: visible light that transmits through beaded diffuser 14
Regarding claim 6, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical filter is further configured to: reflect at least a subset of the third portion of the light (paragraphs 0049, 0055).
Regarding claim 7, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 6, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical filter is further configured to: absorb at least another subset of the third portion of the light (paragraphs 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 8, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 6, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and direct the subset of the third portion of the light away from the concealment component in a concealment pattern (paragraph 0039 “When the diffusive coating is coated on clear substrate, it may have a higher haze to hide the items underneath. When the coating is coated on a reflector, the coating will diffuse incident light twice, by reflection”; the concealment pattern of Du is the reflective haze emitted by the optical filter 10, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 9, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical filter is further configured to: cause at least a subset of the third portion of the light to be directed away from or absorbed by the optical filter in a concealment pattern (paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0053, 0055; light from the reflective film of the optical filter re-emits light through the diffusive coating, and the diffusive coating creates visible haze to conceal the sensor device, the haze is the concealment pattern of Du).
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches an optical sensor device (abstract, Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a concealment component (Fig. 1-2 optical filter 10, paragraphs 0068-0069) that includes:
one or more diffusive optical structures (Fig. 1F wavelength selective scattering layer 14, paragraphs 0039, 0043) configured to:
reflect a first portion of light associated with a scene away from the concealment component (paragraphs 0042 and 0046; a portion of incident light will inherently reflect off of the beaded diffuser without diffusion); and
diffuse and reflect a second portion of the light in a diffused pattern away from the concealment component (paragraphs 0042 and 0046).
Regarding claim 11, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches comprising: an optical filter (Fig. 1F wavelength selective reflective layer 16 and wavelength selective absorbing layer 34 together act as an optical filter, paragraphs 0053-0056); and wherein the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and distribute a third portion of the light in a diffused pattern on an input surface of the optical filter (paragraph 0042; NIR light passes through beaded diffuser layer and is thus diffused).
Note, for clarity of the record, the examiner has interpreted the three portions of light in claims 11-17 with respect to Du as follows:
First portion of light: visible light reflected by beaded diffuser 14 without being diffused
Second portion of light: visible light that is diffused and reflected by beaded diffuser 14
Third portion of light: infrared light transmitted through beaded diffuser 14, wavelength selective reflective layer 16, and wavelength absorbing layer 34
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.
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0025481 A1, of record) in view of Borremans et al. (US 2021/0372853 A1, of record), hereinafter Borremans.
Regarding claim 12, Du teaches the optical sensor device of claim 12, as outlined above, but does not teach the optical filter comprises a plurality of channels; and wherein a channel, of the plurality of channels, is configured to: allow a subset of the third portion of the light to pass through the optical filter.
Borremans, which relates to optical filters of sensing devices, teaches an optical filter comprising a plurality of channels (Borremans: Fig. 11B spectral filter 122, paragraph 0100), and wherein a channel, of the plurality of channels, is configured to allow a subset of light to pass through the optical filter (Borremans: paragraph 0100 recites the sensor elements can be configured to detect NIR light (i.e. the third portion of light), thus meaning the spectral filter 122 is configured to allow a subset of the third portion of light to pass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical filter of Du to comprise a plurality of channels; and wherein a channel, of the plurality of channels, is configured to: allow a subset of the third portion of the light to pass through the optical filter, as taught by Borremans, as doing so beneficially increases spatial selectivity of the optical filter, enhancing the camouflaging capabilities of the concealment component of Du.
Regarding claim 13, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches another channel, of the plurality of channels, is configured to: reflect another subset of the third portion of the light away from the optical filter (Borremans: paragraph 0100 “the integrated spectral filter elements of spectral filter 122 can include different filter types, including interference filters, such as Fabry-Perot filters and absorption filters, such as plasmonic filters and quantum dot filters, either alone or in combination”; since the spectral filter 122 can comprise interference filters, and is configured to selectively emit light of certain wavelengths, the interference filter reflects a subset of the third portion of light).
Regarding claim 14, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: diffuse and direct the other subset of the third portion of the light away from the concealment component in a concealment pattern (Du: paragraph 0039 “When the diffusive coating is coated on clear substrate, it may have a higher haze to hide the items underneath. When the coating is coated on a reflector, the coating will diffuse incident light twice, by reflection”; the concealment pattern of Du is the reflective haze emitted by the optical filter 10, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 15, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the other channel is configured to: cause the other subset of the third portion of the light to be directed away from the optical filter in a concealment pattern (Borremans teaches at least one of the spectral filter 122 channels can be an interference filter, which reflects light; Du teaches the diffusive layer which conceals sensor devices by emitting a concealing haze pattern; in the modified concealment component, light directed away by the filter will reenter though the diffusive layer and be diffused into the concealing haze pattern).
Regarding claim 16, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches another channel, of the plurality of channels, is configured to: absorb another subset of the third portion of the light (Borremans: paragraph 0100 “the integrated spectral filter elements of spectral filter 122 can include different filter types, including interference filters, such as Fabry-Perot filters and absorption filters, such as plasmonic filters and quantum dot filters, either alone or in combination”; since spectral filter 122 can comprise absorption filters, and is configured to selectively emit light of certain wavelengths, the absorption filter of the integrated filter 122 absorbs another subset of the third light beam).
Regarding claim 17, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 16, as outlined above, and further teaches the other channel, to absorb the other subset, is configured to: absorb another subset of the third portion of the light in a concealment pattern (Du recites the absorbing layer of the concealment component is used as part of the concealment of the optical sensor device (paragraphs 0053 and 0055); Borremans teaches the absorbing channel of the optical filter; in the modified concealment component, the absorbing channel absorbs a subset of the third portion of the light in a concealment pattern).
Regarding claim 18, Du teaches an optical sensor device (abstract, Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a concealment component (Fig. 1-2 optical filter 10, paragraphs 0068-0069) that includes:
an optical filter (Fig. 1F wavelength selective reflective layer 16 and wavelength selective absorbing layer 34 together act as an optical filter, paragraphs 0053-0056), and
one or more diffusive optical structures (Fig. 1F wavelength selective scattering layer 14, paragraphs 0039, 0043) configured to:
diffuse and reflect a first portion of light associated with a scene away from the one or more diffusive optical structures (paragraphs 0042 and 0046), and
diffuse and distribute a second portion of the light in a diffused pattern on a subset of the optical filter (paragraphs 0042 and 0046; NIR light passes through beaded diffuser layer and is thus diffused).
Du does not teach an optical filter comprising a plurality of channels and that the diffused pattern of the second portion of light is distributed on a subset of the plurality of channels.
Borremans, which relates to optical filters of sensing devices, teaches an optical filter comprising a plurality of channels (Borremans: Fig. 11B spectral filter 122, paragraph 0100).
Since the optical filter of Du resides under the diffusive layer, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical filter of Du to comprise a plurality of channels, as taught by Borremans, such that the diffused pattern of the second portion of light is distributed on a subset of the plurality of channels, as doing so beneficially increases spatial selectivity of the optical filter, enhancing the camouflaging capabilities of the concealment component of Du.
Regarding claim 19, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 18, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: distribute a reflected portion, of the second portion of the light, in a diffused pattern away from the one or more diffusive optical structures (Du: paragraphs 0039, 0042 and 0046; visible light that passes through the diffusive layer 14 that is reflected by the optical filter will reemit the visible light in a diffused pattern).
Regarding claim 20, Du, as modified by Borremans, teaches the optical sensor device of claim 18, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more diffusive optical structures are further configured to: distribute a subset, of the second portion of the light that was reflected from a sensor element of the optical sensor device, in a diffused pattern away from the one or more diffusive optical structures (Du: Fig. 1-2; the concealment component (Fig. 1-2 optical filter 10) has a visible light transmittance of less than 0.1% (paragraphs 0009-0010), meaning that at least some visible light is emitted to the optical sensor elements (Fig. 1E sensor segments 32a-d); some of this visible light will inherently reflect off of the surface of the sensor segments; this visible light will then be directed back through the concealment component parts, and while some of this visible light will be absorbed by absorbing layer 34 and reflected by reflective layer 16, the remainder of the visible light will pass back through wavelength selective reflective layer 16 and wavelength selective absorbing layer 34 to the beaded diffuser 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the remaining references cited on the attached PTO-892 form that were not specifically mentioned above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights