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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 February 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that a punctuation mark such as a semicolon be added at the end of each spectral characteristic to better delineate the limitations. For example, a semicolon should be added at the ends of lines 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 26 in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-10 are additionally objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. For example, in claim 1, lines 1-2, the reference characters “1” and “2” should be within parentheses. Additionally, from the drawings, these reference characters should be represented as “A1” and “A2”.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0067243 to Shiono et al. (hereafter Shiono).
Regarding claim 1, Shiono discloses an optical filter (see at least the abstract) comprising a dielectric multilayer film 1 (see at least Figs. 1C and 1D and paragraphs [0033]-[0034], where layer 12 is a dielectric multilayer film), a resin film (see at least Figs. 1C and 1D and paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and [0059], where absorption layer 11 is a resin film), a phosphate glass (see at least Figs. 1C and 1D and paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and [0182], where transparent substrate 14 can comprise a phosphate glass), and a dielectric multilayer film 2 in this order (see at least Figs. 1C and 1D and paragraphs [0033]-[0034], where layer 13 is a second dielectric multilayer film), wherein the resin film comprises a resin and a near-infrared ray absorbing dye having a maximum absorption wavelength in 690 nm to 800 nm in the resin (see at least paragraphs [0059] and [0095]-[0096], where the absorption layer includes a near-infrared absorbing dye with a maximum absorption wavelength in the range of 670 to 730 nm and a resin), the resin film has a thickness of 10 μm or less (see at least paragraph [0162], where the absorption layer more preferably has a thickness from 0.3 to 10 μm), and the optical filter satisfies all of the following spectral characteristics (i-1) to (i-8):
(i-1) an average transmittance T450-600(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm and an incident angle of 0 degrees is 88.5% or more (see at least Fig. 2);
(i-4) an average transmittance T600-700(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 600 nm to 700 nm and an incident angle of 0 degrees is 30% or more (see at least Fig. 2);
(i-6) an average transmittance T750-1100(0deg)AVE at a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,100 nm and an incident angle of 0 degrees is 0.5% or less (see at least Fig. 2);
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the optical filter satisfies the following spectral characteristics (i-2), (i-3), (i-5), (i-7), and (i-8):
(i-2) an absolute value of a difference between the average transmittance T450- 600(0deg)AVE and an average transmittance T450-600(60deg)AVE at a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm and an incident angle of 60 degrees is 6% or less;
(i-3) in a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm, an absolute value of a difference between a transmittance at an incident angle of 0 degrees and a transmittance at an incident angle of 60 degrees is 8% or less at maximum;
(i-5) an absolute value of a difference between the average transmittance T600- 700(0deg)AVE and an average transmittance T600-700(60deg)AVE at a wavelength of 600 nm to 700 nm and an incident angle of 60 degrees is 10% or less;
(i-7) an absolute value of a difference between the average transmittance T750- 1100(0deg)AVE and an average transmittance T750-1100(60deg)AVE at a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,100 nm and an incident angle of 60 degrees is 0.5% or less; and
(i-8) in a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,100 nm, an absolute value of a difference between a transmittance at an incident angle of 0 degrees and a transmittance at an incident angle of 60 degrees is 0.7% or less at maximum.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar optical filter would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The optical filter of Shiono meets the structural limitations recited in claim 1 and as such is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 1. Shiono is silent regarding the performance of the optical filter at an incident angle of 60 degrees. Optical transmittances at a variety of wavelengths and at varying incident angles are recognized to be result effective variables (see Fig. 2 of Shiono).
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the optical filter satisfying the spectral characteristics (i-2), (i-3), (i-5), (i-7), and (i-8) include ensuring optimized performance at a large incident angle, such as 60 degrees.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the optical filter satisfies the spectral characteristics (i-2), (i-3), (i-5), (i-7), and (i-8) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance at a large incident angle, such as 60 degrees.
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claim 2, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the optical filter further satisfies the following spectral characteristics (i-9) and (i-10):
(i-9) in a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the absolute value of the difference between the transmittance at an incident angle of 0 degrees and the transmittance at an incident angle of 60 degrees is 6% or less; and
(i-10) in a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,100 nm, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the absolute value of the difference between the transmittance at an incident angle of 0 degrees and the transmittance at an incident angle of 60 degrees is 1% or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar optical filter would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The optical filter of Shiono meets the structural limitations recited in claim 1 and as such is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 2. Shiono is silent regarding the performance of the optical filter at an incident angle of 60 degrees. Optical transmittances at a variety of wavelengths and at varying incident angles are recognized to be result effective variables (see Fig. 2 of Shiono).
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the optical filter satisfying the spectral characteristics (i-9) and (i-10) include ensuring optimized performance at a large incident angle, such as 60 degrees.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the optical filter satisfies the spectral characteristics (i-9) and (i-10) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance at a large incident angle, such as 60 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the optical filter satisfies the following spectral characteristics (i-11) and (i-12):
(i-11) when a dielectric multilayer film 2 side is set as an incident direction, an average of an absorption loss amount450-600 defined below in a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm is 10% or less: (absorption loss amount450-600) [%] = 100 - (transmittance at incident angle of 5 degrees) - (reflectance at incident angle of 5 degrees); and
(i-12) when a dielectric multilayer film 2 side is set as an incident direction, an average of an absorption loss amount750-1200 defined below in a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,200 nm is 60% or more: (absorption loss amount750-1200) [%] = 100 - (transmittance at incident angle of 5 degrees) - (reflectance at incident angle of 5 degrees).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar optical filter would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The optical filter of Shiono meets the structural limitations recited in claim 1 and as such is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 3.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the optical filter satisfying the spectral characteristics (i-11) and (i-12) include ensuring optimized performance, such as absorption loss.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the optical filter satisfies the spectral characteristics (i-11) and (i-12) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance, such as absorption loss.
Regarding claim 4, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the optical filter satisfies the following spectral characteristics (i-13) and (i-14):
(i-13) when a dielectric multilayer film 2 side is set as an incident direction, an average reflectance R2450-600(5deg)AVE at a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm and an incident angle of 5 degrees is 2% or less; and
(i-14) when a dielectric multilayer film 2 side is set as an incident direction, an average reflectance R2750-1200(5deg)AVE at a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,200 nm and an incident angle of 5 degrees is 35% or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar optical filter would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The optical filter of Shiono meets the structural limitations recited in claim 1 and as such is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 4.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the optical filter satisfying the spectral characteristics (i-13) and (i-14) include ensuring optimized performance, such as reduced reflection.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the optical filter satisfies the spectral characteristics (i-13) and (i-14) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance, such as reduced reflection, thus preventing ghost images.
Regarding claim 5, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono also discloses that at least one of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises one or more dielectric layers having a refractive index of 1.38 to 1.5 at a wavelength of 500 nm (see at least paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 9, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the phosphate glass satisfies all of the following spectral characteristics (ii- 1) to (ii-5):
(ii-1) an internal transmittance T450 at a wavelength of 450 nm is 92% or more;
(ii-2) an average internal transmittance T45o-6ooAvE at a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm is 90% or more;
(ii-3) IR50 at which an internal transmittance is 50% is in a wavelength range of 625 nm to 650 nm;
(ii-4) an average internal transmittance T750-1000AVE at a wavelength of 750 nm to 1,000 nm is 2.5% or less; and
(ii-5) an average internal transmittance T1000-1200AVE at a wavelength of 1,000 nm to 1,200 nm is 7% or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar phosphate glass would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The phosphate glass of Shiono is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 9 due to the use of the same or similar materials.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the phosphate glass satisfying spectral characteristics (ii- 1) to (ii-5) include ensuring optimized performance of the phosphate glass in order to be transparent in the visible and absorbent in the infrared.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the phosphate glass satisfies spectral characteristics (ii- 1) to (ii-5) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance of the phosphate glass in order to be transparent in the visible and absorbent in the infrared.
Regarding claim 10, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono also discloses that the near-infrared ray absorbing dye comprises a squarylium dye (see at least paragraph [0010]).
Shiono does not specifically disclose that the resin film satisfies all of the following spectral characteristics (iii-1) to (iii-3):
(iii-1) an internal transmittance T450 at a wavelength of 450 nm is 85% or more;
(iii-2) an average internal transmittance T450-600AVE at a wavelength of 450 nm to 600 nm is 90% or more; and
(iii-3) a wavelength IR50 at which an internal transmittance is 50% is in a range of 620 nm to 750 nm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same or similar resin film comprising the same or similar near-infrared ray absorbing dye would provide the same or similar optical characteristics. The resin film of Shiono is understood to likely meet the functional limitations recited in claim 10 due to the use of the same or similar materials.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the resin film satisfying spectral characteristics (iii-1) to (iii-3) include ensuring optimized performance of the resin film in order to be transparent in the visible and absorbent in the infrared.
Therefore, if the optical filter of Shiono does not currently meet the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical filter of Shiono so that the resin film satisfies spectral characteristics (iii-1) to (iii-3) for the purpose of ensuring optimized performance of the resin film in order to be transparent in the visible and absorbent in the infrared.
Regarding claim 11, Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono also discloses an imaging device comprising the optical filter according to claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0198]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0067243 to Shiono et al. (hereafter Shiono) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0018576 to Yamamoto et al. (hereafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claims 6-8¸ Shiono discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shiono does not specifically disclose that at least one of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises one or more dielectric layers formed of MgF2, that each of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises one or more dielectric layers formed of MgF2 and that at least one of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises three or more dielectric layers having different refractive indices.
However, Yamamoto teaches an infrared cut filter (see at least the abstract) comprising a dielectric multilayer film formed of MgF2 and comprising three or more dielectric layers having different refractive indices (see at least paragraph [0150], where the dielectric multilayer film can include SiO2 and TiO2 along with a three-layer anti-reflection film comprising MgF2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical film of Shiono to include the teachings of Yamamoto so that at least one of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises one or more dielectric layers formed of MgF2, that each of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises one or more dielectric layers formed of MgF2 and that at least one of the dielectric multilayer film 1 and the dielectric multilayer film 2 comprises three or more dielectric layers having different refractive indices for the purpose of creating an infrared cut filter with the dielectric multilayer film while providing anti-reflection properties (see at least paragraph [0150] of Yamamoto).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0063597 to Shimmo et al. discloses an infrared cut filter comprising a dielectric multilayer film comprising MgF2 (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0086]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights