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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach wherein the nanostructure units extend non-directionally because Xi’s array of nanostructures extend directionally as exemplified in Figure 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach wherein the nanostructure units extend non-directionally because Xi’s array of nanostructures extend directionally as exemplified in Figure 1, Examiner notes that [0037, 0043] teach the cross-sectional area of the nanostructures may include irregular shapes, which Examiner interprets to read on the claimed “non-directional” limitation. Therefore, Examiner maintains the prior art teaches the limitations of the independent claim(s).
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.
Claims 1, 4-14, and 17-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (2020/0132986, of record) in view of Okumura (2006/0051085, of record) in view of Xi et al. (2010/0259823, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lai discloses a metal light blocking element (Figure 1, 1, light shielding sheet; [0032] teaches 1, light shielding sheet, has 10, metal substrate), surrounding a central axis (central axis through 103, first through light hole), a first annular surface disposed opposite to an outer surface (1032, hole wall), and the first annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1); a second annular surface disposed opposite to the outer surface (1031, hole wall), the second annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1), and the first annular surface connected to the second annular surface to form a minimum opening structure (Figure 1; 104, second through light hole); and an anti-reflecting layer disposed on the first annular surface and the second annular surface, covering the minimum opening structure (11, light extinction film), and comprising: a light absorbing layer (111, light absorption film); wherein the minimum opening structure is a tip end opening structure (Figure 1), an angle is formed between the first annular surface and the second annular surface (angle formed between 1032, hole wall, and 1031, hole wall), the angle is α, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 degrees<α≤170 degrees (Figure 1 depicts that the angle formed between 1032, hole wall, and 1031, hole wall is roughly between 100 and 120 degrees).
Lai fails to teach an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element; and a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally. Lai and Okumura are related because both teach a metal light blocking element.
Okumura teaches a metal light blocking element comprising an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element (at least Figure 3, outer diameter surface of 28, diaphragm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Okumura and provide an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element, and consequently the outer surface to be the outer diameter surface. Doing so would allow for form fitting in a cylindrical lens barrel. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
The modified Lai fails to teach a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally. The modified Lai and Xi are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer.
Xi teaches an anti-reflecting layer comprising: a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures); wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures), and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally ([0037, 0043] teach the cross-sectional area of the nanostructures may include irregular shapes, which Examiner interprets to read on the claimed “non-directional” limitation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Xi and provide a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of unwanted reflection by incorporating gradient refractive index.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a connecting layer (Xi: 100, substrate), and the connecting layer is disposed between the light absorbing layer and the nano-ridged convex structure layer (the combination of the modified Lai in view of Xi teaches the claimed configuration as the Xi's substrate is interpreted to attach to the top of Lai's 111, light absorption film).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the connecting layer is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 30 nm≤d≤500 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thickness of the substrate to be between 30 and 500 nm, 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 a durable substrate while maintaining a compact size.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, wherein a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm (Xi: [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 6, wherein the height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤290 nm (Xi: [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, wherein the tip end opening structure has at least one shrinkage cavity structure (exposed portion of 1032, hole wall, which is exposed from 11, light extinction film; [0034]), and the at least one shrinkage cavity structure is closer to the central axis than a maximum outer diameter of the tip end opening structure to the central axis (Figure 1 depicts the exposed portion is closer to the central axis than d1, hole radius).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, wherein the angle is α, and the following condition is satisfied: 10 degrees≤α≤150 degrees (Figure 1 depicts that the angle formed between 1032, hole wall, and 1031, hole wall is roughly between 100 and 120 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 9, wherein the angle is α, and the following condition is satisfied: 20 degrees≤α≤120 degrees (Figure 1 depicts that the angle formed between 1032, hole wall, and 1031, hole wall is roughly between 100 and 120 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, further comprising: a recess structure disposed on at least one of the first annular surface and the second annular surface (recess formed by 11, light extinction film, to expose 1032, hole wall; the recess is disposed on the first annular surface), the recess structure caving towards the outer diameter surface (Figure 1, the recess caves towards outer peripheral of 1, light shielding sheet), and at least one portion of the anti-reflecting layer disposed on the recess structure (Figure 1, the recess is formed by 11, light extinction film, thus the light extinction film is disposed on the recess structure).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lai discloses an imaging lens assembly module (Okumura: Figure 2), comprising: an imaging lens set (Okumura: 24, first lens); and at least one of the metal light blocking element of claim 1 (Okumura: 28, diaphragm), wherein the at least one metal light blocking element is disposed opposite to the imaging lens set (Okumura: Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Lai discloses an electronic device (Okumura: Figures 1A and 1B), comprising: the imaging lens assembly module of claim 12 (Okumura: Figure 2); and an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly module (Okumura: 30, CCD image sensor).
Regarding claim 14, Lai discloses a metal light blocking element (Figure 1, 1, light shielding sheet; [0032] teaches 1, light shielding sheet, has 10, metal substrate), surrounding a central axis (central axis through 103, first through light hole), a first annular surface disposed opposite to an outer surface (1032, hole wall), and the first annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1); a second annular surface disposed opposite to the outer surface (1031, hole wall), the second annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1), and the first annular surface connected to the second annular surface to form a minimum opening structure (Figure 1; 104, second through light hole); and an anti-reflecting layer disposed on the first annular surface and the second annular surface, covering the minimum opening structure (11, light extinction film), and comprising: a light absorbing layer (111, light absorption film).
Lai fails to teach an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element; a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally; wherein a length of the first annular surface along the central axis is L1, a length of the second annular surface along the central axis is L2, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.01 mm≤L1+L2≤3.00 mm. Lai and Okumura are related because both teach a metal light blocking element.
Okumura teaches a metal light blocking element comprising an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element (at least Figure 3, outer diameter surface of 28, diaphragm); wherein a length of the first annular surface along the central axis is L1 (Figure 4, thickness of 28a, first plate portion), a length of the second annular surface along the central axis is L2 (Figure 4, thickness of 28b, second plate portion), and the following condition is satisfied: 0.01 mm≤L1+L2≤3.00 mm ([0044] teaches the thickness of 28a, first plate portion, is from 0.01 to 0.02 mm and the thickness of 28b, second plate portion, is from 0.05 to 0.1 mm; thus the values fall within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Okumura and provide an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element; wherein a length of the first annular surface along the central axis is L1, a length of the second annular surface along the central axis is L2, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.01 mm≤L1+L2≤3.00 mm. Doing so would allow for form fitting in a cylindrical lens barrel and a satisfactory strength and durability of the light blocking element. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
The modified Lai fails to teach a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally. The modified Lai and Xi are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer.
Xi teaches an anti-reflecting layer comprising: a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures); wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures), and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally ([0037, 0043] teach the cross-sectional area of the nanostructures may include irregular shapes, which Examiner interprets to read on the claimed “non-directional” limitation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Xi and provide a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of unwanted reflection by incorporating gradient refractive index.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a connecting layer (Xi: 100, substrate), and the connecting layer is disposed between the light absorbing layer and the nano-ridged convex structure layer (the combination of the modified Lai in view of Xi teaches the claimed configuration as the Xi's substrate is interpreted to attach to the top of Lai's 111, light absorption film).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 17, but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the connecting layer is d, and the following condition is satisfied: 30 nm≤d≤500 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thickness of the substrate to be between 30 and 500 nm, 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 a durable substrate while maintaining a compact size.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, wherein a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm (Xi: [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 19, wherein the height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤290 nm (Xi: [0022]).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, wherein the length of the first annular surface along the central axis is L1, the length of the second annular surface along the central axis is L2, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.03≤L1/L2≤5 (Okumura: [0044] teaches the thickness of 28a, first plate portion, is from 0.01 to 0.02 mm and the thickness of 28b, second plate portion, is from 0.05 to 0.1 mm; thus the values fall within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, further comprising: a recess structure disposed on at least one of the first annular surface and the second annular surface (recess formed by 11, light extinction film, to expose 1032, hole wall; the recess is disposed on the first annular surface), the recess structure caving towards the outer diameter surface (Figure 1, the recess caves towards outer peripheral of 1, light shielding sheet), and at least one portion of the anti-reflecting layer disposed on the recess structure (Figure 1, the recess is formed by 11, light extinction film, thus the light extinction film is disposed on the recess structure).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, wherein the minimum opening structure has at least one shrinkage cavity structure (exposed portion of 1032, hole wall, which is exposed from 11, light extinction film; [0034]), and the at least one shrinkage cavity structure is closer to the central axis than a maximum outer diameter of the minimum opening structure to the central axis (Figure 1 depicts the exposed portion is closer to the central axis than d1, hole radius).
Regarding claim 24, Lai discloses a metal light blocking element (Figure 1, 1, light shielding sheet; [0032] teaches 1, light shielding sheet, has 10, metal substrate), surrounding a central axis (central axis through 103, first through light hole), a first annular surface disposed opposite to an outer surface (1032, hole wall), and the first annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1); a second annular surface disposed opposite to the outer surface (1031, hole wall), the second annular surface closer to the central axis than the outer surface to the central axis (Figure 1), and the first annular surface connected to the second annular surface to form a minimum opening structure (Figure 1; 104, second through light hole); and an anti-reflecting layer disposed on the first annular surface and the second annular surface, covering the minimum opening structure (11, light extinction film), and comprising: a light absorbing layer (111, light absorption film).
Lai fails to teach an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element; a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally, a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm. Lai and Okumura are related because both teach a metal light blocking element.
Okumura teaches a metal light blocking element comprising an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element (at least Figure 3, outer diameter surface of 28, diaphragm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Okumura and provide an outer diameter surface surrounding the metal light blocking element. Doing so would allow for form fitting in a cylindrical lens barrel. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
The modified Lai fails to teach a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally, a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm. The modified Lai and Xi are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer.
Xi teaches an anti-reflecting layer comprising: a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures); wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units (at least Figure 1, 104, nanostructures), and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally ([0037, 0043] teach the cross-sectional area of the nanostructures may include irregular shapes, which Examiner interprets to read on the claimed “non-directional” limitation), a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Xi and provide a nanostructure layer disposed on the light absorbing layer; wherein the nanostructure layer comprises a plurality of nanostructure units, a nano-ridged convex structure is formed via the nanostructure units, and the nanostructure units extend non-directionally, a height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤350 nm. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of unwanted reflection by incorporating gradient refractive index.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 24, wherein the height of each of the nanostructure units is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 nm≤h≤290 nm (Xi: [0022]).
Claims 2, 15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (2020/0132986, of record) in view of Okumura (2006/0051085, of record) in view of Xi et al. (2010/0259823, of record) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 24 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (7,787,184, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. The modified Lai and Yoshikawa are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer.
Yoshikawa teaches an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material (col 7 lines 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Yoshikawa and provide wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. Doing so would allow for high light-shielding and light-absorbing performance, thereby more effectively reducing unnecessary light.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. The modified Lai and Yoshikawa are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer.
Yoshikawa teaches an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material (col 7 lines 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Yoshikawa and provide wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. Doing so would allow for high light-shielding and light-absorbing performance, thereby more effectively reducing unnecessary light.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Lai discloses the metal light blocking element of claim 24, but fails to teach wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. The modified Lai and Yoshikawa are related because both teach an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer.
Yoshikawa teaches an anti-reflecting layer including a light absorbing layer wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material (col 7 lines 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Yoshikawa and provide wherein the light absorbing layer is made of a carbon black material. Doing so would allow for high light-shielding and light-absorbing performance, thereby more effectively reducing unnecessary light.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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