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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025, 03/11/2025, and 03/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application’s claims are anticipated by the reference patent’s claims. Examiner notes that in the table provided below, the bolded text represents differences in claimed subject matter, the italicized text represents differences in semantics but not structural limitations, and claim 1 has been reorganized to depict parallel teachings without altering any of the structural limitations.
Instant application 19/061064
Reference U.S. Patent 12,271,012
Claim No.
Claim Language
Claim No.
Claim Language
1.
A glass for an optical filter,
the glass having:
an average transmittance of 3% or less at a wavelength of 1000 nm to 1200 nm;
and an average transmittance of 5% or less at a wavelength of 700 nm to 1200 nm.
a transmittance of 25% or more at a wavelength of 1550 nm.
1.
A glass for an optical filter,
the glass being a phosphate glass comprising Cu,
wherein the glass has:
an average transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm to 550 nm;
an average transmittance of 2% or less at a wavelength of 800 nm to 950 nm;
an average transmittance of 3% or less at a wavelength of 1000 nm to 1200 nm;
an average transmittance of 5% or less at a wavelength of 700 nm to 1200 nm;
a transmittance of 25% or more at a wavelength of 1550 nm;
and a wavelength at which a transmittance is 50% of 615 nm or more in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 800 nm.
2.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, wherein
the glass is a phosphate glass comprising Cu,
and the glass has: an average transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm to 550 nm;
and an average transmittance of 2% or less at a wavelength of 800 nm to 950 nm.
1.
…
the glass being a phosphate glass comprising Cu,
…
an average transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm to 550 nm;
an average transmittance of 2% or less at a wavelength of 800 nm to 950 nm;
3.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, having
a wavelength at which a transmittance is 50% in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 800 nm of 615 nm or more.
1.
…and
a wavelength at which a transmittance is 50% of 615 nm or more in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 800 nm.
4.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, comprising, in terms of mass % based on oxide: P.sub.2O.sub.5: 50% to 80%; Al.sub.2O.sub.3: 5% to 20%; ΣR.sub.2O: 0.5% to 20% where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O; ΣR′O: 0% to 15% where R′O is one or more components selected from CaO, MgO, BaO, SrO, and ZnO, and ΣR′O is a total content of R′O; and CuO: 4% to 20%.
2.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, comprising, in terms of mass % based on oxide: P.sub.2O.sub.5: 50% to 80%; Al.sub.2O.sub.3: 5% to 20%; ΣR.sub.2O: 0.5% to 20% where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O; ΣR′O: 0% to 15% where R′O is one or more components selected from CaO, MgO, BaO, SrO, and ZnO, and ΣR′O is a total content of R′O; and CuO: 4% to 20%.
5.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising more than 7% of CuO in terms of mass % based on oxide.
3.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, further comprising more than 7% of CuO in terms of mass % based on oxide.
6.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising 60% to 75% of P.sub.2O.sub.5 in terms of mass % based on oxide.
4.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, further comprising 60% to 75% of P.sub.2O.sub.5 in terms of mass % based on oxide.
7.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising 9% to 16.5% of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 in terms of mass % based on oxide.
5.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, further comprising 9% to 16.5% of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 in terms of mass % based on oxide.
8.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from BaO.
6.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, being substantially free from BaO.
9.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from a divalent cation other than Cu.
7.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, being substantially free from a divalent cation other than Cu.
10.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising more than 7% and 18% or less of ΣR.sub.2O where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O.
8.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, further comprising more than 7% and 18% or less of ΣR.sub.2O where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O.
11.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising two or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O.
9.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, further comprising two or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O.
12.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from Li.sub.2O.
10.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, being substantially free from Li.sub.2O.
13.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from B.sub.2O.sub.3.
11.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, being substantially free from B.sub.2O.sub.3.
14.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from F.
12.
The glass for an optical filter according to claim 2, being substantially free from F.
15.
An optical filter, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1.
13.
An optical filter, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1.
16.
A solid-state image sensor, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1.
14.
A solid-state image sensor, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1.
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 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter et al. (2012/0165178).
Regarding claim 1, Ritter discloses a glass for an optical filter ([0003]), the glass having: a transmittance of 25% or more at a wavelength of 1550 nm (at least Figure 1 depicts the transmittance at 1500 nm to be around 43%; Examiner notes the reading of the disclosure does not indicate that the glass exhibits a stop band over 1500 nm, thus Examiner infers that given the trajectory of the transmittance shown, the transmittance at 1550 nm is viewed to necessarily be greater than 25%); an average transmittance of 3% or less at a wavelength of 1000 nm to 1200 nm (at least Figure 1 depicts the transmittance at 1000 nm is less than 3%, thus indicating a wavelength exhibiting 3% or less transmittance); and an average transmittance of 5% or less at a wavelength of 700 nm to 1200 nm (at least Figure 1 depicts the transmittance at 700 nm to 1150 nm is 5% or less, thus including a wavelength exhibiting 5% or less transmittance).
Regarding claim 2, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, wherein the glass is a phosphate glass comprising Cu (at least Abstract), and the glass has: an average transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm to 550 nm (at least Figure 1 depicts the transmittance at 450 to 550 nm to be greater than 80%, thus including a wavelength exhibiting 80% or more transmittance); and an average transmittance of 2% or less at a wavelength of 800 nm to 950 nm (at least Figure 1 depicts all wavelengths from 800 nm to 950 nm to have a transmittance of less than 2%).
Regarding claim 3, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, having a wavelength at which a transmittance is 50% in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 800 nm of 615 nm or more (at least Figure 1 depicts the transmittance at slightly above 600 nm to be 50%).
Regarding claim 4, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1, comprising, in terms of mass % based on oxide: P.sub.2O.sub.5: 50% to 80% (at least [0042]; [0008]); Al.sub.2O.sub.3: 5% to 20% (at least [0043]; [0008]); ΣR.sub.2O: 0.5% to 20% where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O ([0008], range shown for ΣR.sub.2O falls within claimed range); ΣR′O: 0% to 15% where R′O is one or more components selected from CaO, MgO, BaO, SrO, and ZnO, and ΣR′O is a total content of R′O ([0008], range shown for ΣRO includes a minimum value of 15%, which falls within the claimed range); and CuO: 4% to 20% (at least [0021]; [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising 60% to 75% of P.sub.2O.sub.5 in terms of mass % based on oxide (at least [0042]; [0008] teaches 60%, thus including a value within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising 9% to 16.5% of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 in terms of mass % based on oxide (at least [0043]; [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from BaO ([0008] teaches a minimum amount of BaO to be 1%, thus interpreted to be substantially free of BaO).
Regarding claim 9, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from a divalent cation other than Cu ([0008] teaches minimum values of potential divalent cations such as for exemplary purposes Mg, to be 1%, thus considered to be substantially free from other divalent cations; the disclosure does not indicate other divalent cations).
Regarding claim 10, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising more than 7% and 18% or less of ΣR.sub.2O where R.sub.2O is one or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O, and ΣR.sub.2O is a total content of R.sub.2O ([0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, further comprising two or more components selected from Li.sub.2O, Na.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, Rb.sub.2O, and Cs.sub.2O ([0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from Li.sub.2O ([0008] teaches a minimum amount of Li2O to be 0).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from B.sub.2O.sub.3 ([0008] teaches no inclusion of B2O3; [0041] teaches at most 1% of boron oxide, thus interpreted to be B2O3 free).
Regarding claim 14, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, being substantially free from F ([0008] teaches no inclusion of just F).
Regarding claim 15, Ritter discloses an optical filter, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1 ([0003, 0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Ritter discloses a solid-state image sensor, comprising the glass for an optical filter according to claim 1 ([0012, 0073]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al. (2012/0165178).
Regarding claim 5, Ritter discloses the glass for an optical filter according to claim 4, but fails to teach further comprising more than 7% of CuO in terms of mass % based on oxide.
Although Ritter teaches a maximum value of 7% of CuO, Examiner notes that it still would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the value of CuO present to be greater than 7%, since 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). Doing so would allow for increased steepness in the IR cut range with a higher absorption at 850 nm, thereby improving IR filtering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
