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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/142,262 filed on May 2, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 24, 2026 has been entered.
The amended claims submitted March 24, 2026 in response to the office action mailed December 31, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1-36 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to independent claims 1, 14 and 23.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member.
The applied reference, Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1, has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
However, reference Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U is applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches (first embodiment Figs. 1-15) “An optical imaging module (imaging lens module 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (lens assembly 20), comprising at least one optical lens element (lens elements LE);
an optical path folding element (light folding component 30), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (light receive surface 31), a light exiting surface (light exit surface 39), and at least one optical reflective surface (reflection surfaces 32, 33, 34 and 35); and
a [retaining] element (the flat bottom portion of the first retaining element 40), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (the top side of 40 is disposed opposite to reflection surface 34), wherein the [retaining] element comprises an interval area (the area of the flat bottom portion between corresponsive surfaces 41) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air gap between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.);
wherein the at least one optical reflective surface is an optical total reflection surface (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30”) that is configured to totally internally reflect imaging light of the optical imaging module in the optical path folding element (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30”);
wherein the [retaining] element is sheet-shaped (see sheet-shape of the bottom portion of 40 in Fig. 4) and is disposed at an image side of the optical path folding element (through hole 49 in 40 corresponds to the light exit surface 39, thus 40 is disposed at the image side of light folding component 30);
wherein the interval area of the [retaining] element and the optical total reflection surface form an air slit therebetween (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air slit between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.); and
wherein an adhesive member (adhesives GE1 and GE2) is configured to fix the [retaining] element to the optical path folding element (GE1 fixes 40 to 12 and GE2 fixes 12 to 30, thus together, GE1 and GE2 fix 40 to 30 via their connections to 12. See paragraph [0088]: “adhesives GE1 are respectively disposed in the first recesses 43, so that the first retaining element 40 and the folding component accommodation portion 12 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE1.” and paragraph [0089] “the folding component accommodation portion 12 includes a plurality of second recesses 120, and adhesives GE2 are respectively disposed in the second recesses 120, so that the folding component accommodation portion 12 and the light folding component 30 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE2.”) to form the air slit (The air slit between 40 and 34 is formed when 40, 12 and 30 are all bonded together in a manner that 41 are in contact with 34 and provide a normal force thereto, see paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and the corresponsive surfaces 41 provide the light folding component 30 with a normal force”).”
However, the first embodiment of Tsai fails to explicitly teach that retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is “a light-blocking element”.
Tsai, 5th embodiment, Figs. 38-45 teaches (paragraph [0129]): “In this embodiment, a black material is coated on the surface of the first retaining element 40e, and an anti-reflection film layer is disposed on the surface of the black material so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40e, thereby preventing reflection of stray light.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the surface of retaining element 40 of the first embodiment of Tsai with a black material as taught by the 5th embodiment of Tsai so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40, thereby preventing reflection of stray light as taught by Tsai (paragraph [0129]).
Once the above modification has been made the retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is a light-blocking element.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the air slit is in air communication with outside at a position where the light-blocking element is located close to the light exiting surface (see Fig. 4 the air slit between 40 and 30 supported by 41 is in air communication with through hole 49 located close to light exit surface 39).”
Regarding claim 9, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1, wherein a width of the air slit is d (the thickness of the air slit is the thickness of 41), a thickness of the light-blocking element is t (the thickness of 41 is “a” thickness of 40/41, where other thicknesess of 40/41 would include the combined thickness of 40 and 41 or the individual thickness of 40), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.03 <d/t < 7.50 (since the thickness of the air slit is the thickness of 41, d/t is equal to 1.0 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 10, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the light- blocking element and the optical path folding element physically abut on each other (paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30”).”
Regarding claim 11, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the light- blocking element further comprises a cut opening (light through hole 49) that corresponds to the at least one optical reflective surface (see Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0088] 49 corresponds to 39, but 39 is part of the same surface as reflective surface 34), and the cut opening is connected to the interval area (see Fig. 4).”
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pei et al. WO 2022/007603 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Pei where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the light-blocking element further comprises a fixed area (41 see paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30).”
However, Tsai fails to teach “and the adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area.”
Note however, that Tsai teaches corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and adhesives GE2 which fix light folding component 30 to accommodation portion 12, where as can be seen from Figs. 4 and 5, GE2 is immediately above the section of 40 where 41 is positioned. All that is lacking is an explicit teaching of GE2 extending down onto the side surfaces of 40.
Pei teaches (claim 1) “An optical imaging module (periscope camera module of Fig. 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (first lens group 102), comprising at least one optical lens element (last paragraph of page 6: “the first lens group 102 may include one or more first lenses”);
an optical path folding element (reflection prism 101), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (101a), a light exiting surface (page 7 first paragraph “light emitting surface of the prism 101”), and at least one optical reflective surface (page 7 first paragraph “the reflective surface… of the prism 101”); and
a [spacer] element (inclined plane 110 with convex edge 110a), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (page 10 last paragraph: “the inclined surface of the prism is supported by the convex edge 110a, so as to prevent the inclined surface of the prism from being in too close contact with the bearing surface of the composite lens barrel.”), wherein the [spacer] element comprises an interval area (central area of 110 where the raised edge 110a is not located) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph “a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
wherein the at least one optical reflective surface is an optical total reflection surface (e.g. page 10 last paragraph: “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”) that is configured to totally internally reflect imaging light of the optical imaging module in the optical path folding element (e.g. page 10 last paragraph: “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”);
…
wherein the interval area of the [spacer] element and the optical total reflection surface form an air slit therebetween (page 10 last paragraph through page 11 first paragraph “an air gap… a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
wherein an adhesive member (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”) is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph: “so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103”) to form the air slit (the air gap between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface is not formed until the adhesive member is adhered to the lens barrel by the glue. Note also that the height of the glue must be equal to or greater than the height of 110a in order to fix the prism to the lens barrel, thus the air gap is either (a) the height of the glue and larger than the height of the edge 110a or (b) the air gap, the height of the glue and the height of the edge 110a are all equal to one another).”
(claim 3) “wherein the light-blocking element further comprises a fixed area (page 11 first paragraph glue slot between raised edge 110a and side wall 111), and the adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”).”
Pei further teaches (page 10 last paragraph): “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”
(page 11 first paragraph): “Referring to FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the raised edge 110 a may be disposed near the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to be formed between the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103 and the raised edge 110 a Glue slot. In this way, during assembly, the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103.”
Thus Pei teaches the use of an adhesive, exterior to the raised edge that defines the air slit, where the adhesive connects the prism to the surface thereunder in a manner which enables total internal reflection at the reflective surface of the prism.
Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow adhesive GE2 of Tsai to be fixed to the exterior side surface of 41 and/or 40 such that the light-blocking element comprises a fixed area (41), an adhesive member (GE2) is disposed on the fixed area (GE2 extending down to the sidewalls of 41/40), and the adhesive member is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element to form the air slit (GE2 fixes 30 to 12 and would also fix 30 to 41/40). This modification is obvious in view of Pei who teaches that glue can be arranged exterior to the spacer element that maintains the air slit to connect the holding element to the prism in a manner that does not introduce glue to the optically effective area of the total reflection surface. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsai already teaches adhesive GE2 extraordinarily close to the claimed position, and a greater bonding area would serve to more strongly adhere the elements together resulting in increased durability.
Regarding claim 4, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 3,” however, Tsai fails to teach (claim 4) “wherein an area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, a total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65.”
Pei teaches (claim 4): “wherein an area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab (the area covered with glue, last paragraph of page 12 to first paragraph of page 13: “the width of the UV glue191 (ie the pre-fixed glue) arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel is 100 μm-300 μm,” page 11 third paragraph “the length of the right-angled side of the isosceles right triangle is preferably 5.5-6 mm”. Thus the length of 110a is (5.5-6)*
2
=
(
7.8
-
8.5
)
mm. Thus the area covered with glue is 2x(0.1 mm-0.3mm)x(7.8mm)=(1.56 – 4.68)mm or 2x(0.1 mm-0.3mm)x(8.5mm)=(1.7 – 5.1)mm), a total area of the light-blocking element is As (page 11 third paragraph “the length of the right-angled side of the isosceles right triangle is preferably 5.5-6 mm”. Thus the length of the edges of 110 are each (5.5-6)*
2
=
(
7.8
-
8.5
)
mm and the area of 110 is (60.5 – 71.99)mm2), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65 (given the above ranges for Ab and As, for a prism with length 5.5 mm Ab/As=(0.026-0.077) and for a prism with length 6 mm Ab/As=(0.024-0.071).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose Ab/As such that 0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.024 to 0.077, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the area covered by the glue is an art recognized results effective variable in that it contributes to the strength with which the prism is bonded. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the area covered by the glue because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because increasing the surface area of the bonding region will improve the reliability of the adhesion.
Regarding claim 5, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 4” however, Tsai fails to teach “wherein the area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, the total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60.”
Pei teaches “wherein the area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, the total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60 (given the above ranges for Ab and As, for a prism with length 5.5 mm Ab/As=(0.026-0.077) and for a prism with length 6 mm Ab/As=(0.024-0.071).”
However, Pei fails to teach 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60, instead teaching a value of 0.077 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Thus Pei discloses the claimed invention except for 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the area of the bonding surfaces such that 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the area of the bonding surface is an art recognized results effective variable in that that it contributes to the strength with which the prism is bonded. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Ab because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because increasing the surface area of the bonding region will improve the reliability of the adhesion.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tsai teaches “the optical imaging module according to claim 1,” however, Tsai fails to explicitly teach (claim 7) “wherein a width of the air slit is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.002 mm <d<0.10mm.” and (claim 8) “wherein the width of the air slit is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.005mm<d< 0.07 mm.”
Pei teaches (claim 1) “An optical imaging module (periscope camera module of Fig. 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (first lens group 102), comprising at least one optical lens element (last paragraph of page 6: “the first lens group 102 may include one or more first lenses”);
an optical path folding element (reflection prism 101), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (101a), a light exiting surface (page 7 first paragraph “light emitting surface of the prism 101”), and at least one optical reflective surface (page 7 first paragraph “the reflective surface… of the prism 101”); and
a [spacer] element (inclined plane 110 with convex edge 110a), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (page 10 last paragraph: “the inclined surface of the prism is supported by the convex edge 110a, so as to prevent the inclined surface of the prism from being in too close contact with the bearing surface of the composite lens barrel.”), wherein the [spacer] element comprises an interval area (central area of 110 where the raised edge 110a is not located) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph “a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
wherein the at least one optical reflective surface is an optical total reflection surface (e.g. page 10 last paragraph: “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”) that is configured to totally internally reflect imaging light of the optical imaging module in the optical path folding element (e.g. page 10 last paragraph: “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”);
…
wherein the interval area of the [spacer] element and the optical total reflection surface form an air slit therebetween (page 10 last paragraph through page 11 first paragraph “an air gap… a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
wherein an adhesive member (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”) is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph: “so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103”) to form the air slit (the air gap between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface is not formed until the adhesive member is adhered to the lens barrel by the glue. Note also that the height of the glue must be equal to or greater than the height of 110a in order to fix the prism to the lens barrel, thus the air gap is either (a) the height of the glue and larger than the height of the edge 110a or (b) the air gap, the height of the glue and the height of the edge 110a are all equal to one another).”
(claim 7) “a width of the air slit is d (page 10 last paragraph: “the top surface of the convex edge 110a is 10-20 μm higher than the surface of the bearing surface”), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.002 mm < d < 0.10 mm (10-20 μm is 0.01 – 0.02 mm which is in the claimed range);
(claim 8) “wherein the width of the air slit is d (page 10 last paragraph: “the top surface of the convex edge 110a is 10-20 μm higher than the surface of the bearing surface”), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.005mm<d< 0.07 mm (10-20 μm is 0.01 – 0.02 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Tsai teaches the claimed optical imaging module except for the appropriate numerical value of the air slit between the total internally reflecting surface 34 and the retainer opposite thereto. Pei teaches that 0.01 – 0.02 mm is an appropriate width to enable total internal reflection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the width of the air slit, d, to be 0.01 – 0.02 mm as taught by Pei in the optical imaging module of Tsai because Tsai teaches that by making reflection surface 34 a total internal reflection surface there is no need to add additional reflection layer on the light folding component (Tsai paragraph [0071]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Feldman et al. US 2022/0163706 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Feldman).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 1,” however, Tsai fails to specifically teach “wherein the full height of the optical path folding element in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical imaging module that passes through the light incident surface is H, and the following condition is satisfied:
1mm<H<5 mm.”
Feldman teaches (claim 1) “An optical imaging module (optical system 300) comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (lens group 305), comprising at least one optical lens element (lenses 306, 307 and 308);
an optical path folding element (prism 100), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (S1), a light exiting surface (S3), and at least one optical reflective surface (all of S1, S2, S3 and S4 reflect light see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032]); and…
wherein the at least one optical reflective surface is an optical total reflection surface that is configured to totally internally reflect imaging light of the optical imaging module in the optical path folding element (paragraph [0032]: “total internal reflection”)”
(claim 6) “wherein the full height of the optical path folding element in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical imaging module that passes through the light incident surface is H (prism thickness in Fig. 3), and the following condition is satisfied:
1mm<H<5 mm (paragraph [0040]: “In some embodiments, the thickness of prism 100 of optical system 300 may be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters.”).”
Feldman further teaches (paragraph [0032]): “Given that the prism may have multiple surfaces, the prism may be designed to be relatively thin (e.g., the length between the surfaces S1 and S3 may have a small value) but still be able to fold the light multiple times. In some embodiments, such a prism may reduce at least a height along an optical axis and accordingly may potentially reduce the entire size of an optical system.”
(paragraph [0040]): “If the Z-height ratio and/or the thickness ratio is too high, prism 100 may be too large and heavy and may not effectively reduce the size of optical system 300, or lens group 305 may be too thin and may not achieve good light capture performance, according to some embodiments. Alternatively, if the Z-height ratio and/or the thickness ratio is too low, prism 100 may be too thin and may not capture sufficient light from the entire field of view (FOV). Therefore, designing optical system 300 to have appropriate parameters may reduce at least the partial Z-height and/or total Z-height of optical system 300 but still maintain high-quality optical performance. In some embodiments, the reduction of the Z-heights may accordingly decrease the size of optical system 300 and thus benefit the design and integration of small form factor telephoto cameras (using optical system 300)… In some embodiments, the thickness of prism 100 of optical system 300 may be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the full height of the prism, H, to be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters which is within the claimed range of 1 to 5 mm as taught by Feldman in the optical imaging module of Tsai so that the prism is not too large and heavy, can effectively reduce the size of the optical system, and still maintain high-quality optical performance as taught by Feldman (paragraph [0040]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Goldenberg et al. US 2024/0418967 A1 (hereafter Goldenberg).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Tsai teaches the optical imaging module according to claim 1, and Tsai further teaches (claims 12 and 13) “wherein an area of the light-blocking element corresponding to the air slit is Aa (the area of the flat bottom portion of 40 between 41), a total area of the light- blocking element is As (the total area of the flat bottom portion of 40 underneath 34).” However, Tsai does not explicitly disclose:
(claim 12): “and the following condition is satisfied: 0.10 < Aa/As < 0.90.”
(claim 13): “and the following condition is satisfied: 0.15 < Aa/As < 0.85.”
Goldenberg teaches a prism with stray-light prevention masks, see Fig. 13 and paragraph [0157].
Goldenberg further teaches “left stray light prevention mask 1326 and right stray light prevention mask 1328, which are located at the light entering surface 1302, together cover a surface area of more than 20% and less than 30% of the area of the light entering surface 1302. … top stray light prevention mask 1322 and bottom stray light prevention mask 1324 which are located at the light exiting surface 1304, together cover a surface area of more than 10% and less than 20% of the area of the light entering surface 1304.”
Since the area corresponding to the air-slit is the non-blocked portion of the reflective surface of the prism, applying the teachings of Goldenberg to Tsai would result in 0.7 < Aa/As < 0.9.
Thus Tsai discloses the claimed invention except for specific values of 0.15 < Aa/As < 0.85. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the optical effective portion of the reflective surface such that 0.7 < Aa/As < 0.9 as taught by Goldenberg, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the area of the optical effective portion is inversely related to the area of the stray-light preventing portion which is an art recognized results effective variable in that it reduces the undesired stray light as taught by Goldenberg (paragraph [0162]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Aa/As because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Tsai is silent regarding the size of these areas, and thus any reasonable prior art choices thereof can be applied.
Claims 14-16, 18-20, 23-29, 31-32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member and in view of Pei et al. WO 2022/007603 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Pei where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
The applied reference, Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1, has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
However, reference Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U is applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai teaches (first embodiment Figs. 1-15) “An optical imaging module (imaging lens module 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (lens assembly 20), comprising at least one optical lens element (lens elements LE);
an optical path folding element (light folding component 30), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (light receive surface 31), a light exiting surface (light exit surface 39), and at least one optical reflective surface (reflection surfaces 32, 33, 34 and 35); and
a [retaining] element (the flat bottom portion of the first retaining element 40), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (the top side of 40 is disposed opposite to reflection surface 34), wherein the [retaining] element comprises an interval area (the area of the flat bottom portion between corresponsive surfaces 41) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air gap between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.);
wherein the [retaining] element is sheet-shaped (see sheet-shape of the bottom portion of 40 in Fig. 4) and is disposed at an image side of the optical path folding element (through hole 49 in 40 corresponds to the light exit surface 39, thus 40 is disposed at the image side of light folding component 30);
wherein the interval area of the [retaining] element and the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element form an air slit therebetween (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air slit between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.); and
wherein the [retaining] element further comprises … an adhesive member (GE1)… and the adhesive member is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element (GE1 fixes 40 to 12 and GE2 fixes 12 to 30, thus together, GE1 and GE2 fix 40 to 30 via their connections to 12. See paragraph [0088]: “adhesives GE1 are respectively disposed in the first recesses 43, so that the first retaining element 40 and the folding component accommodation portion 12 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE1.” and paragraph [0089] “the folding component accommodation portion 12 includes a plurality of second recesses 120, and adhesives GE2 are respectively disposed in the second recesses 120, so that the folding component accommodation portion 12 and the light folding component 30 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE2.”) to form the air slit (The air slit between 40 and 34 is formed when 40, 12 and 30 are all bonded together in a manner that 41 are in contact with 34 and provide a normal force thereto, see paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and the corresponsive surfaces 41 provide the light folding component 30 with a normal force”).”.
However, the first embodiment of Tsai fails to explicitly teach that retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is “a light-blocking element”.
Tsai, 5th embodiment, Figs. 38-45 teaches (paragraph [0129]): “In this embodiment, a black material is coated on the surface of the first retaining element 40e, and an anti-reflection film layer is disposed on the surface of the black material so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40e, thereby preventing reflection of stray light.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the surface of retaining element 40 of the first embodiment of Tsai with a black material as taught by the 5th embodiment of Tsai so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40, thereby preventing reflection of stray light as taught by Tsai (paragraph [0129]).
Once the above modification has been made the retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is a light-blocking element.
However, Tsai fails to teach “wherein the light-blocking element further comprises a fixed area, an adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area, and the adhesive member is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element to form the air slit.”
Note however, that Tsai teaches corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and adhesives GE2 which fix light folding component 30 to accommodation portion 12, where as can be seen from Figs. 4 and 5, GE2 is immediately above the section of 40 where 41 is positioned. All that is lacking is an explicit teaching of GE2 extending down onto the side surfaces of 40.
Pei teaches (claim 14) “An optical imaging module (periscope camera module of Fig. 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (first lens group 102), comprising at least one optical lens element (last paragraph of page 6: “the first lens group 102 may include one or more first lenses”);
an optical path folding element (reflection prism 101), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (101a), a light exiting surface (page 7 first paragraph “light emitting surface of the prism 101”), and at least one optical reflective surface (page 7 first paragraph “the reflective surface… of the prism 101”); and
a [spacer] element (inclined plane 110 with convex edge 110a), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (page 10 last paragraph: “the inclined surface of the prism is supported by the convex edge 110a, so as to prevent the inclined surface of the prism from being in too close contact with the bearing surface of the composite lens barrel.”), wherein the [spacer] element comprises an interval area (central area of 110 where the raised edge 110a is not located) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph “a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
…
wherein the interval area of the [spacer] element and the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element form an air slit therebetween (page 10 last paragraph through page 11 first paragraph “an air gap… a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”); and
wherein the [spacer] element further comprises a fixed area (page 11 first paragraph glue slot between raised edge 110a and side wall 111), an adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”), and the adhesive member is configured to fix the [spacer] element to the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph: “so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103”) to form the air slit (the air gap between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface is not formed until the adhesive member is adhered to the lens barrel by the glue. Note also that the height of the glue must be equal to or greater than the height of 110a in order to fix the prism to the lens barrel, thus the air gap is either (a) the height of the glue and larger than the height of the edge 110a or (b) the air gap, the height of the glue and the height of the edge 110a are all equal to one another).”
Pei further teaches (page 10 last paragraph): “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”
(page 11 first paragraph): “Referring to FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the raised edge 110 a may be disposed near the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to be formed between the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103 and the raised edge 110 a Glue slot. In this way, during assembly, the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103.”
Thus Pei teaches the use of an adhesive, exterior to the raised edge that defines the air slit, where the adhesive connects the prism to the surface thereunder in a manner which enables total internal reflection at the reflective surface of the prism.
Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow adhesive GE2 of Tsai to be fixed to the exterior side surface of 41 and/or 40 such that the light-blocking element comprises a fixed area (41), an adhesive member (GE2) is disposed on the fixed area (GE2 extending down to the sidewalls of 41/40), and the adhesive member is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element to form the air slit (GE2 fixes 30 to 12 and would also fix 30 to 41/40). This modification is obvious in view of Pei who teaches that glue can be arranged exterior to the spacer element that maintains the air slit to connect the holding element to the prism in a manner that does not introduce glue to the optically effective area of the total reflection surface. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsai already teaches adhesive GE2 extraordinarily close to the claimed position, and a greater bonding area would serve to more strongly adhere the elements together resulting in increased durability.
Regarding claim 23, Tsai teaches (first embodiment Figs. 1-15) “An optical imaging module (imaging lens module 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (lens assembly 20), comprising at least one optical lens element (lens elements LE);
an optical path folding element (light folding component 30), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (light receive surface 31), a light exiting surface (light exit surface 39), and at least one optical reflective surface (reflection surfaces 32, 33, 34 and 35); and
a [retaining] element (the flat bottom portion of the first retaining element 40), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (the top side of 40 is disposed opposite to reflection surface 34), wherein the [retaining] element comprises an interval area (the area of the flat bottom portion between corresponsive surfaces 41) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air gap between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.);
wherein the [retaining] element is sheet-shaped (see sheet-shape of the bottom portion of 40 in Fig. 4) and is disposed at an image side of the optical path folding element (through hole 49 in 40 corresponds to the light exit surface 39, thus 40 is disposed at the image side of light folding component 30);
wherein the interval area of the [retaining] element and the optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element form an air slit therebetween (paragraph [0090]: “light undergoes total internal reflection at the … reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30” Thus there is distance maintained between 40 and 34 forming an air slit between the flat bottom portion of 40 and reflection surface 34 so that light undergoes total internal reflection when the light arrives at the interface from a medium of higher refractive index to another medium of lower refractive index, see paragraph [0071]. Thus, the apparent thicknesses of 41 depicted in Fig. 4 are actually present as supported by the specification.);
a width of the air slit is d (the width of the air slit defined by the height of 41), and the following condition is satisfied… and
wherein an adhesive member (adhesives GE1 and GE2) is configured to fix the [retaining] element to the optical path folding element (GE1 fixes 40 to 12 and GE2 fixes 12 to 30, thus together, GE1 and GE2 fix 40 to 30 via their connections to 12. See paragraph [0088]: “adhesives GE1 are respectively disposed in the first recesses 43, so that the first retaining element 40 and the folding component accommodation portion 12 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE1.” and paragraph [0089] “the folding component accommodation portion 12 includes a plurality of second recesses 120, and adhesives GE2 are respectively disposed in the second recesses 120, so that the folding component accommodation portion 12 and the light folding component 30 are fixed to each other via the adhesives GE2.”) to form the air slit (The air slit between 40 and 34 is formed when 40, 12 and 30 are all bonded together in a manner that 41 are in contact with 34 and provide a normal force thereto, see paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and the corresponsive surfaces 41 provide the light folding component 30 with a normal force”).”
However, the first embodiment of Tsai fails to explicitly teach that retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is “a light-blocking element”.
Tsai, 5th embodiment, Figs. 38-45 teaches (paragraph [0129]): “In this embodiment, a black material is coated on the surface of the first retaining element 40e, and an anti-reflection film layer is disposed on the surface of the black material so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40e, thereby preventing reflection of stray light.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the surface of retaining element 40 of the first embodiment of Tsai with a black material as taught by the 5th embodiment of Tsai so as to reduce a reflectivity of the metal surface of the first retaining element 40, thereby preventing reflection of stray light as taught by Tsai (paragraph [0129]).
Once the above modification has been made the retaining element 40 of Figs. 1-15 is a light-blocking element.
However, Tsai also fails to explicitly teach “0.002 mm < d < 0.10 mm”.
However, Tsai does teach (paragraph [0071]): “According to the present disclosure, the light in the light folding component can undergo at least one total internal reflection. Therefore, there is no need to add additional reflection layer on the light folding component.” and paragraph [0090]: “as shown in FIG. 3, the light undergoes total internal reflection at the reflection surface 33 and reflection surface 34 of the light folding component 30.”
Pei teaches (claim 23) “An optical imaging module (periscope camera module of Fig. 1), comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (first lens group 102), comprising at least one optical lens element (last paragraph of page 6: “the first lens group 102 may include one or more first lenses”);
an optical path folding element (reflection prism 101), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (101a), a light exiting surface (page 7 first paragraph “light emitting surface of the prism 101”), and at least one optical reflective surface (page 7 first paragraph “the reflective surface… of the prism 101”); and
a [spacer] element (inclined plane 110 with convex edge 110a), disposed opposite to the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element (page 10 last paragraph: “the inclined surface of the prism is supported by the convex edge 110a, so as to prevent the inclined surface of the prism from being in too close contact with the bearing surface of the composite lens barrel.”), wherein the [spacer] element comprises an interval area (central area of 110 where the raised edge 110a is not located) that maintains a distance from the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph “a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”);
…
wherein the interval area of the [spacer] element and the at least one optical reflective surface of the optical path folding element form an air slit therebetween (page 10 last paragraph through page 11 first paragraph “an air gap… a medium layer between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface of the composite lens barrel”), a width of the air slit is d (page 10 last paragraph: “the top surface of the convex edge 110a is 10-20 μm higher than the surface of the bearing surface”), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.002 mm < d < 0.10 mm (10-20 μm is 0.01 – 0.02 mm which is in the claimed range);
wherein an adhesive member (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”) is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element (page 11 first paragraph: “so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103”) to form the air slit (the air gap between the prism slope and the bottom bearing surface is not formed until the adhesive member is adhered to the lens barrel by the glue. Note also that the height of the glue must be equal to or greater than the height of 110a in order to fix the prism to the lens barrel, thus the air gap is either (a) the height of the glue and larger than the height of the edge 110a or (b) the air gap, the height of the glue and the height of the edge 110a are all equal to one another).”
Tsai teaches the claimed optical imaging module except for the appropriate numerical value of the air slit between the total internally reflecting surface 34 and the retainer opposite thereto. Pei teaches that 0.01 – 0.02 mm is an appropriate width to enable total internal reflection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the width of the air slit, d, to be 0.01 – 0.02 mm as taught by Pei in the optical imaging module of Tsai because Tsai teaches that by making reflection surface 34 a total internal reflection surface there is no need to add additional reflection layer on the light folding component (Tsai paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 27, however, Tsai fails to teach “wherein an area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, a total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65.”
Pei teaches “wherein an area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab (the area covered with glue, last paragraph of page 12 to first paragraph of page 13: “the width of the UV glue191 (ie the pre-fixed glue) arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel is 100 μm-300 μm,” page 11 third paragraph “the length of the right-angled side of the isosceles right triangle is preferably 5.5-6 mm”. Thus the length of 110a is (5.5-6)*
2
=
(
7.8
-
8.5
)
mm. Thus the area covered with glue is 2x(0.1 mm-0.3mm)x(7.8mm)=(1.56 – 4.68)mm or 2x(0.1 mm-0.3mm)x(8.5mm)=(1.7 – 5.1)mm), a total area of the light-blocking element is As (page 11 third paragraph “the length of the right-angled side of the isosceles right triangle is preferably 5.5-6 mm”. Thus the length of the edges of 110 are each (5.5-6)*
2
=
(
7.8
-
8.5
)
mm and the area of 110 is (60.5 – 71.99)mm2), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65 (given the above ranges for Ab and As, for a prism with length 5.5 mm Ab/As=(0.026-0.077) and for a prism with length 6 mm Ab/As=(0.024-0.071).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose Ab/As such that 0.05 < Ab/As < 0.65, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.024 to 0.077, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the area covered by the glue is an art recognized results effective variable in that it contributes to the strength with which the prism is bonded. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the area covered by the glue because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because increasing the surface area of the bonding region will improve the reliability of the adhesion.
Regarding claims 16 and 29, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 15 and 28, however, Tsai fails to teach “wherein the area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, the total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60.”
Pei teaches “wherein the area of the fixed area of the light-blocking element coated with the adhesive member is Ab, the total area of the light-blocking element is As, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60 (given the above ranges for Ab and As, for a prism with length 5.5 mm Ab/As=(0.026-0.077) and for a prism with length 6 mm Ab/As=(0.024-0.071).”
However, Pei fails to teach 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60, instead teaching a value of 0.077 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Thus Pei discloses the claimed invention except for 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the area of the bonding surfaces such that 0.10 < Ab/As < 0.60, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the area of the bonding surface is an art recognized results effective variable in that that it contributes to the strength with which the prism is bonded. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Ab because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because increasing the surface area of the bonding region will improve the reliability of the adhesion.
Regarding claims 18 and 26, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 23, and Tsai further teaches “wherein a width of the air slit is d (the thickness of the air slit is the thickness of 41), a thickness of the light-blocking element is t (the thickness of 41 is “a” thickness of 40/41, where other thicknesess of 40/41 would include the combined thickness of 40 and 41 or the individual thickness of 40), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.03 <d/t < 7.50 (since the thickness of the air slit is the thickness of 41, d/t is equal to 1.0 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claims 19 and 31, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 23, and Tsai further teaches “wherein the light- blocking element and the optical path folding element physically abut on each other (paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30”).”
Regarding claims 20 and 32, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 23, and Tsai further teaches “wherein the light- blocking element further comprises a cut opening (light through hole 49) that corresponds to the at least one optical reflective surface (see Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0088] 49 corresponds to 39, but 39 is part of the same surface as reflective surface 34), and the cut opening is connected to the interval area (see Fig. 4).”
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches “the optical imaging module according to claim 23,” however, Tsai fails to explicitly teach (claim 24) “wherein the width of the air slit is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.005 mm < d < 0.07 mm.” and (claim 25) “wherein the width of the air slit is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.007 mm < d < 0.04 mm.”
Pei teaches (claim 24) “a width of the air slit is d (page 10 last paragraph: “the top surface of the convex edge 110a is 10-20 μm higher than the surface of the bearing surface”), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.005 mm < d < 0.07 mm (10-20 μm is 0.01 – 0.02 mm which is in the claimed range);
(claim 25) “wherein the width of the air slit is d (page 10 last paragraph: “the top surface of the convex edge 110a is 10-20 μm higher than the surface of the bearing surface”), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.007 mm < d < 0.04 mm (10-20 μm is 0.01 – 0.02 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Tsai teaches the claimed optical imaging module except for the appropriate numerical value of the air slit between the total internally reflecting surface 34 and the retainer opposite thereto. Pei teaches that 0.01 – 0.02 mm is an appropriate width to enable total internal reflection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the width of the air slit, d, to be 0.01 – 0.02 mm as taught by Pei in the optical imaging module of Tsai because Tsai teaches that by making reflection surface 34 a total internal reflection surface there is no need to add additional reflection layer on the light folding component (Tsai paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 27, Tsai teaches “The optical imaging module according to claim 23, wherein the light-blocking element further comprises a fixed area (41 see paragraph [0088]: “corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30).”
However, Tsai fails to teach “and the adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area.”
Note however, that Tsai teaches corresponsive surfaces 41 in physical contact with the light folding component 30, and adhesives GE2 which fix light folding component 30 to accommodation portion 12, where as can be seen from Figs. 4 and 5, GE2 is immediately above the section of 40 where 41 is positioned. All that is lacking is an explicit teaching of GE2 extending down onto the side surfaces of 40.
Pei teaches “wherein the light-blocking element further comprises a fixed area (page 11 first paragraph glue slot between raised edge 110a and side wall 111), and the adhesive member is disposed on the fixed area (page 11 first paragraph “the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111”).”
Pei further teaches (page 10 last paragraph): “the reflective surface needs to realize the turning of the optical path based on the principle of total reflection.”
(page 11 first paragraph): “Referring to FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the raised edge 110 a may be disposed near the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to be formed between the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103 and the raised edge 110 a Glue slot. In this way, during assembly, the glue can be arranged between the convex edge 110a and the side wall 111 of the composite lens barrel 103, so as to facilitate the adhesion of the bottom surface of the prism (ie, the inclined surface of the prism) to the composite lens barrel 103.”
Thus Pei teaches the use of an adhesive, exterior to the raised edge that defines the air slit, where the adhesive connects the prism to the surface thereunder in a manner which enables total internal reflection at the reflective surface of the prism.
Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow adhesive GE2 of Tsai to be fixed to the exterior side surface of 41 and/or 40 such that the light-blocking element comprises a fixed area (41), an adhesive member (GE2) is disposed on the fixed area (GE2 extending down to the sidewalls of 41/40), and the adhesive member is configured to fix the light-blocking element to the optical path folding element to form the air slit (GE2 fixes 30 to 12 and would also fix 30 to 41/40). This modification is obvious in view of Pei who teaches that glue can be arranged exterior to the spacer element that maintains the air slit to connect the holding element to the prism in a manner that does not introduce glue to the optically effective area of the total reflection surface. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsai already teaches adhesive GE2 extraordinarily close to the claimed position, and a greater bonding area would serve to more strongly adhere the elements together resulting in increased durability.
Regarding claim 35, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches “A camera module (paragraph [0002]: “an imaging lens module applicable to an electronic device”), comprising:
the optical imaging module of claim 23 (see claim 23 above);” and Tsai further teaches “and
an image sensor (paragraph [0003]: “image sensors”) disposed on an image surface (image surface IMG which is where an image sensor of an imaging lens module is positioned) of the optical imaging module (see Fig. 3).”
Regarding claim 36, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches “the camera module of claim 35” and Tsai further teaches “An electronic device (paragraph [0002]: “an imaging lens module applicable to an electronic device”), comprising:
the camera module of claim 35 (see claim 35 and paragraph [0002]: “an imaging lens module applicable to an electronic device”).”
Claims 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member and in view of Pei et al. WO 2022/007603 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Pei where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) as applied to claims 14 and 23 above and further in view of Feldman et al. US 2022/0163706 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Feldman).
Regarding claims 17 and 30, the Tsai – Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 23, however, Tsai fails to specifically teach “wherein the full height of the optical path folding element in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical imaging module that passes through the light incident surface is H, and the following condition is satisfied:
1mm<H<5 mm.”
Feldman teaches (claims 14 and 23) “An optical imaging module (optical system 300) comprising:
an imaging lens assembly (lens group 305), comprising at least one optical lens element (lenses 306, 307 and 308);
an optical path folding element (prism 100), disposed at an image side of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical path folding element has a light incident surface (S1), a light exiting surface (S3), and at least one optical reflective surface (all of S1, S2, S3 and S4 reflect light see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032]); and…
wherein the at least one optical reflective surface is an optical total reflection surface that is configured to totally internally reflect imaging light of the optical imaging module in the optical path folding element (paragraph [0032]: “total internal reflection”)”
(claims 17 and 30) “wherein the full height of the optical path folding element in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical imaging module that passes through the light incident surface is H (prism thickness in Fig. 3), and the following condition is satisfied:
1mm<H<5 mm (paragraph [0040]: “In some embodiments, the thickness of prism 100 of optical system 300 may be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters.”).”
Feldman further teaches (paragraph [0032]): “Given that the prism may have multiple surfaces, the prism may be designed to be relatively thin (e.g., the length between the surfaces S1 and S3 may have a small value) but still be able to fold the light multiple times. In some embodiments, such a prism may reduce at least a height along an optical axis and accordingly may potentially reduce the entire size of an optical system.”
(paragraph [0040]): “If the Z-height ratio and/or the thickness ratio is too high, prism 100 may be too large and heavy and may not effectively reduce the size of optical system 300, or lens group 305 may be too thin and may not achieve good light capture performance, according to some embodiments. Alternatively, if the Z-height ratio and/or the thickness ratio is too low, prism 100 may be too thin and may not capture sufficient light from the entire field of view (FOV). Therefore, designing optical system 300 to have appropriate parameters may reduce at least the partial Z-height and/or total Z-height of optical system 300 but still maintain high-quality optical performance. In some embodiments, the reduction of the Z-heights may accordingly decrease the size of optical system 300 and thus benefit the design and integration of small form factor telephoto cameras (using optical system 300)… In some embodiments, the thickness of prism 100 of optical system 300 may be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the full height of the prism, H, to be in a range of 2.07 and 4.1 millimeters which is within the claimed range of 1 to 5 mm as taught by Feldman in the optical imaging module of Tsai so that the prism is not too large and heavy, can effectively reduce the size of the optical system, and still maintain high-quality optical performance as taught by Feldman (paragraph [0040]).
Claims 21, 22, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsai et al. US 2023/0324656 A1 (hereafter Tsai) or Tsai et al. CN 217404597 U (which is a patent family member of US 2023/0324656) where reference will be made to the English language US PGPub family member and in view of Pei et al. WO 2022/007603 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Pei where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) as applied to claims 14 and 23 above and further in view of Goldenberg et al. US 2024/0418967 A1 (hereafter Goldenberg).
Regarding claims 21, 22, 33 and 34, the Tsai - Pei combination teaches the optical imaging module according to claims 14 and 23, and Tsai further teaches (claims 21, 22, 33 and 34) “wherein an area of the light-blocking element corresponding to the air slit is Aa (the area of the flat bottom portion of 40 between 41), a total area of the light- blocking element is As (the total area of the flat bottom portion of 40 underneath 34).” However, Tsai does not explicitly disclose:
(claims 21 and 33): “and the following condition is satisfied: 0.10 < Aa/As < 0.90.”
(claims 22 and 34): “and the following condition is satisfied: 0.15 < Aa/As < 0.85.”
Goldenberg teaches a prism with stray-light prevention masks, see Fig. 13 and paragraph [0157].
Goldenberg further teaches “left stray light prevention mask 1326 and right stray light prevention mask 1328, which are located at the light entering surface 1302, together cover a surface area of more than 20% and less than 30% of the area of the light entering surface 1302. … top stray light prevention mask 1322 and bottom stray light prevention mask 1324 which are located at the light exiting surface 1304, together cover a surface area of more than 10% and less than 20% of the area of the light entering surface 1304.”
Since the area corresponding to the air-slit is the non-blocked portion of the reflective surface of the prism, applying the teachings of Goldenberg to Tsai would result in 0.7 < Aa/As < 0.9.
Thus Tsai discloses the claimed invention except for specific values of 0.15 < Aa/As < 0.85. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the optical effective portion of the reflective surface such that 0.7 < Aa/As < 0.9 as taught by Goldenberg, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the area of the optical effective portion is inversely related to the area of the stray-light preventing portion which is an art recognized results effective variable in that it reduces the undesired stray light as taught by Goldenberg (paragraph [0162]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Aa/As because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Tsai is silent regarding the size of these areas, and thus any reasonable prior art choices thereof can be applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the first paragraph of page 12 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights