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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 and 02/23/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/12/2026 has been entered. The amendments to the claims have overcome each 112(b) rejection and claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. Applicant argues none of the prior art discloses the feature “all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 12, 21, and 29. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yang and Feldman both teach a light blocking layer surrounding at least the optical surface (Fig. 12 of Yang; Fig. 5B of Feldman), which causes the optical surface to be spaced apart from the adjacent side surfaces of the optical path folding element – the plurality of matte structures are disposed on these adjacent side surfaces, so due to the light blocking layer they are spaced apart from the optical surface. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would be motivated to duplicate the light blocking layer and apply it similarly to the other surfaces that light is incident on for the purpose of blocking stray light, thus resulting in all of the plurality of matte structures to be spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20240019667 A1), hereinafter Chang, in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20210063617 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding independent claim 1, Chang discloses an optical path folding element (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising:
an optical portion (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), having:
an optical surface (S28; Fig. 5; ¶0038), wherein a light beam enters into the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5) and is reflected inside the optical path folding element (P21) through the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5);
a first reflective surface (inside surface of S29; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam again inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5); and
a second reflective surface (inside surface of S211; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam further again inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5);
a connection portion (outer part of P21; Fig. 5), having:
a plurality of connection surfaces (all outer surfaces of P21; Fig. 5), connected to the optical surface (S28), the first reflective surface (inside surface of S29) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S211) (Fig. 5); and
a light blocking layer (light-absorbing layer; ¶0064), for blocking light from passing through (¶0064).
Chang does not disclose a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion, wherein each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element, such that the outer surface of the connection portion has an undulating shape; and the light blocking layer is disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion, and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
However, Otake teaches a similar optical path folding element (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) comprising an optical portion (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) and a connection portion (outer part of 10; Fig, 1), wherein the optical portion (10) comprises a first reflective surface (inner surface of 12; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and a second reflective surface (inner surface of 13; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and the connection portion (outer part of 10) comprises a plurality of connection surfaces (outer surfaces of 10; Fig. 1), and further comprises a plurality of matte structures (30; Fig. 1; ¶0011), at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (outer part of 10) (Fig. 1), wherein each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures (30) is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element (10) (Figs. 1-3), such that the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 10) has an undulating shape (Figs. 1-3).
Further, Yang teaches a similar optical path folding element (109; Fig. 12; ¶0099) comprising an optical portion (109) and a connection portion (outer part of 109, specifically parts that are outside of 10 and 20; Fig. 12), and further comprising a light blocking layer (12, 22; Fig. 12; ¶0088, ¶0097) disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 109) for blocking light from passing through (¶0088).
Yang additionally teaches the light blocking layer (12) surrounds the optical surface (10; Fig. 12; ¶0088). When combined with the plurality of matte surfaces of Otake, this would result in the matte structures being spaced apart from the optical surface by the region with the light blocking layer. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would be further motivated to include a light blocking layer surrounding the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface as well for the purpose of blocking stray light at every surface with incident light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and a light blocking layer surrounding the optical surface, the first reflective surface, and the second reflective surface – thus causing the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface – as taught by Yang for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon and blocking stray light (¶0013 of Yang).
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the light beam emits from the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Chang nor Yang disclose a recess depth of each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm]. Otake does not explicitly disclose the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm].
However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Otake has the plurality of matte structures, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the recess depth h of each unitary structure satisfy 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm] for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the recess depths of the matte structures to be between 0.02 and 1.6 mm for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare (¶0004-¶0005 of Otake).
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 4, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a narrowed structure (G; Fig. 5; ¶0064) that partially reduces an aperture size inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0064).
Regarding claim 6, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 5, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the narrowed structure (G) is disposed between the first reflective surface (inside surface of S29) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S211) (Fig. 5), and the narrowed structure (G) is covered by the light blocking layer (a light-absorbing layer may also be provided on the surface of the groove structure; ¶0064).
Regarding claim 7, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a boundary line (see modified Fig. 5 below; located between two of the plurality of connection surfaces (see modified Fig. 5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion), and an angle between the two of the plurality of connection surfaces respectively located at opposite sides of the boundary line is θ. Neither Otake nor Yang disclose the following condition is satisfied: 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg.].
Chang does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg. is satisfied. Chang discloses θ = 180 degrees (modified Fig. 5; implicit1 that the outer surface facing out of the page is flat, resulting in 180 degrees between the two connection surfaces to the right and left of the boundary line) that is just outside the claimed range of “≤ 179 [deg.]”. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical path folding element of Chang the additional feature of having the θ value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Chang and because it would work equally as well at 179 degrees as it would at 180 degrees since this is not an optically active area and this angle would not affect the optical properties of the optical path folding element.
Regarding claim 8, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 7, as set forth above. Chang further discloses wherein a thickness of the optical path folding element (P21) along a direction perpendicular to the optical surface is T (D; Fig. 5), a distance between the boundary line and the optical surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical surface is d (d; modified Fig. 5), and the following condition is satisfied: 0.25 ≤ d/T ≤ 0.75 (d/T = 0.5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element of claim 1. Chang further discloses an imaging lens module (2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising: the optical path folding element of claim 1; a lens assembly (lens unit; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0050), wherein the light beam passes through the lens assembly (Fig. 5); and an image sensor (IMA2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21), wherein the image sensor (IMA2) is configured to receive the light beam (Fig. 5; ¶0050).
Regarding claim 40, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the imaging lens module according to claim 39, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the lens assembly (lens unit) has an aperture stop (ST2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), and the aperture stop (ST2) is elliptical (implicit that the aperture stop is elliptical because aperture stops are generally elliptical unless stated otherwise).
Regarding claim 41, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the imaging lens module of claim 39. Chang further discloses an electronic device comprising the imaging lens module of claim 39 (¶0002).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20120077897 A1), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 4, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses optical path folding element according to claim 1, wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment. Chang is silent on the material of the light blocking layer. Specifically, Chang does not disclose a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment.
However, Choi teaches a light blocking layer (¶0002) for use in optical devices (¶0003), wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer (A; ¶0008, ¶0048) and black pigment (D; ¶0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material of the light blocking layer of Chang in view of Otake and Yang to comprise acrylic monomer and black pigment for the purpose of blocking light and since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), and further in view of Konno (US 20070024739 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Otake, nor Yang disclose the connection portion further has at least one gate trace located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces.
However, Konno teaches a similar optical path folding element (101; Fig. 9) comprising an optical portion (101a, 101b; Fig. 9; ¶0098) and a connection portion (101n, 101m; Fig. 9; ¶0098) comprising a plurality of connection surfaces (101n, 101m; Fig. 9), wherein the connection portion further has at least one gate trace (Ge1) located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (101m) (Fig. 9; ¶0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Regarding claim 10, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses optical path folding element according to claim 9, including the plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and the at least one gate trace as taught by Konno, as set forth above. Neither Chang nor Yang disclose the at least one gate trace is surrounded by the plurality of matte structures.
Otake teaches the plurality of matte structures is disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (Figs. 1-3), and Konno teaches the at least one gate trace is located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (Fig. 9). This combination would result in the gate trace being surrounded by the plurality of matte structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon (¶0013 of Yang) and to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), and further in view of Baader (Baader-Planetarium.com, 2017, www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-t-2-90degrees-astro-amici-prism-with-bbhs-coating.html.).
Regarding claim 11, Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Otake, nor Yang discloses the optical portion is recessed with respect to the connection portion located around the optical portion.
However, Baader teaches a similar optical path folding element comprising an optical portion and a connection portion, wherein the optical portion is recessed with respect to the connection portion located around the optical portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical portion to be recessed with respect to the connection portion for the purpose of protecting the optical portion from getting damaged.
Claim(s) 12-18 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1), further in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), and further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1).
Regarding independent claim 12, Chang discloses an optical path folding element (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising:
an optical portion (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), having:
an optical surface (S28; Fig. 5; ¶0038), wherein a light beam enters into the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5) and is reflected inside the optical path folding element (P21) through the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5);
a first reflective surface (inside surface of S29; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam again inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5); and
a second reflective surface (inside surface of S211; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam further again inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5);
a connection portion (outer part of P21; Fig. 5), having:
a plurality of connection surfaces (S210 and all outer surfaces of P21; Fig. 5), connected to the optical surface (S28), the first reflective surface (inside surface of S29) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S211) (Fig. 5); and
a light blocking layer (light-absorbing layer; ¶0064), at least disposed on the connection portion for blocking light from passing through (¶0064).
Chang is silent on the material of the light blocking layer. Specifically, Chang does not disclose a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment. Chang additionally does not disclose a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion; and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the reflective surface and the second surface.
However, Choi teaches a light blocking layer (¶0002) for use in optical devices (¶0003), wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer (A; ¶0008, ¶0048) and black pigment (D; ¶0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material of the light blocking layer of Chang in view of Otake and Yang to comprise acrylic monomer and black pigment for the purpose of blocking light and since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Choi does not disclose a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion; and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the reflective surface and the second surface.
However, Otake teaches a similar optical path folding element (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) comprising an optical portion (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) and a connection portion (outer part of 10; Fig, 1), wherein the optical portion (10) comprises a first reflective surface (inner surface of 12; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and a second reflective surface (inner surface of 13; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and the connection portion (outer part of 10) comprises a plurality of connection surfaces (outer surfaces of 10; Fig. 1), and further comprises a plurality of matte structures (30; Fig. 1; ¶0011), at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (outer part of 10) (Fig. 1).
Further, Yang teaches a similar optical path folding element (109; Fig. 12; ¶0099) comprising an optical portion (109) and a connection portion (outer part of 109, specifically parts that are outside of 10 and 20; Fig. 12), and further comprising a light blocking layer (12, 22; Fig. 12; ¶0088, ¶0097) disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 109) for blocking light from passing through (¶0088).
Yang additionally teaches the light blocking layer (12) surrounds the optical surface (10; Fig. 12; ¶0088). When combined with the plurality of matte surfaces of Otake, this would result in the matte structures being spaced apart from the optical surface by the region with the light blocking layer. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would be further motivated to include a light blocking layer surrounding the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface as well for the purpose of blocking stray light at every surface with incident light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Choi to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and a light blocking layer surrounding the optical surface, the first reflective surface, and the second reflective surface – thus causing the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface – as taught by Yang for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon and blocking stray light (¶0013 of Yang).
Regarding claim 13, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 12, including the plurality of matte structures as set forth above. Neither Chang, Choi, nor Yang disclose each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element, such that the outer surface of the connection portion has an undulating shape.
However, Otake teaches each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures (30) is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element (10) (Figs. 1-3), such that the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 10) has an undulating shape (Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Choi to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon (¶0005 of Otake).
Regarding claim 14, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 13, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Choi, nor Yang disclose a recess depth of each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm]. Otake does not explicitly disclose the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm].
However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Otake has the plurality of matte structures, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the recess depth h of each unitary structure satisfy 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm] for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the recess depths of the matte structures to be between 0.02 and 1.6 mm for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare (¶0004-¶0005 of Otake).
Regarding claim 15, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 12, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the light beam emits from the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 12, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a narrowed structure (G; Fig. 5; ¶0064) that partially reduces an aperture size inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0064).
Regarding claim 17, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 12, as set forth above. hang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a boundary line (see modified Fig. 5; located between two of the plurality of connection surfaces (see modified Fig. 5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion), and an angle between the two of the plurality of connection surfaces respectively located at opposite sides of the boundary line is θ. Choi does not disclose the following condition is satisfied: 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg.].
Chang does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg. is satisfied. Chang discloses θ = 180 degrees (modified Fig. 5; implicit that the outer surface facing out of the page is flat, resulting in 180 degrees between the two connection surfaces to the right and left of the boundary line) that is just outside the claimed range of “≤ 179 [deg.]”. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical path folding element of Chang the additional feature of having the θ value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Chang and because it would work equally as well at 179 degrees as it would at 180 degrees since this is not an optically active area and this angle would not affect the optical properties of the optical path folding element.
Regarding claim 18, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 17, as set forth above. Chang further discloses wherein a thickness of the optical path folding element (P21) along a direction perpendicular to the optical surface is T (D; Fig. 5), a distance between the boundary line and the optical surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical surface is d (d; modified Fig. 5), and the following condition is satisfied: 0.25 ≤ d/T ≤ 0.75 (d/T = 0.5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion).
Regarding claim 42, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element of claim 12. Chang further discloses an imaging lens module (2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising: the optical path folding element of claim 12; a lens assembly (lens unit; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0050), wherein the light beam passes through the lens assembly (Fig. 5); and an image sensor (IMA2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21), wherein the image sensor (IMA2) is configured to receive the light beam (Fig. 5; ¶0050).
Regarding claim 43, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the imaging lens module according to claim 42, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the lens assembly (lens unit) has an aperture stop (ST2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), and the aperture stop (ST2) is elliptical (implicit that the aperture stop is elliptical because aperture stops are generally elliptical unless stated otherwise).
Regarding claim 44, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang and further in view of Yang discloses the imaging lens module of claim 42. Chang further discloses an electronic device comprising the imaging lens module of claim 39 (¶0002).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1), further in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), and further in view of Konno (US 20070024739 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, and further in view of Yang discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 13, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Choi, Otake, nor Yang disclose the connection portion further has at least one gate trace located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces.
However, Konno teaches a similar optical path folding element (101; Fig. 9) comprising an optical portion (101a, 101b; Fig. 9; ¶0098) and a connection portion (101n, 101m; Fig. 9; ¶0098) comprising a plurality of connection surfaces (101n, 101m; Fig. 9), wherein the connection portion further has at least one gate trace (Ge1) located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (101m) (Fig. 9; ¶0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Regarding claim 20, Chang in view of Choi, further in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 19, including the plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and the at least one gate trace as taught by Konno, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Choi, nor Yang disclose the at least one gate trace is surrounded by the plurality of matte structures.
Otake teaches the plurality of matte structures is disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (Figs. 1-3), and Konno teaches the at least one gate trace is located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (Fig. 9). This combination would result in the gate trace being surrounded by the plurality of matte structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon (¶0013 of Yang) and to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-28, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), and further in view of Konno (US 20070024739 A1).
Regarding independent claim 21, Chang discloses an optical path folding element (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising:
an optical portion (P21; Fig. 5; ¶0050), having:
an optical surface (S28; Fig. 5; ¶0038), wherein a light beam enters into the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5);
a first reflective surface (inside surface of S29; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5); and
a second reflective surface (inside surface of S211; Fig. 5; ¶0038), configured to reflect the light beam again inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5);
a connection portion (outer part of P21; Fig. 5), having:
a plurality of connection surfaces (S210 and all outer surfaces of P21; Fig. 5), connected to the optical surface (S28), the first reflective surface (inside surface of S29) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S211) (Fig. 5); and
a light blocking layer (light-absorbing layer; ¶0064), at least disposed on the connection portion for blocking light from passing through (¶0064).
Chang does not disclose at least one gate trace, located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces; and a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion, wherein the plurality of matte structures have at least part disposed on the connection portion to surround the at least one gate trace, and each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element, such that the outer surface of the connection portion has an undulating shape; and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
However, Otake teaches a similar optical path folding element (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) comprising an optical portion (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) and a connection portion (outer part of 10; Fig, 1), wherein the optical portion (10) comprises a first reflective surface (inner surface of 12; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and a second reflective surface (inner surface of 13; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and the connection portion (outer part of 10) comprises a plurality of connection surfaces (outer surfaces of 10; Fig. 1), and further comprises a plurality of matte structures (30; Fig. 1; ¶0011), at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (outer part of 10) (Fig. 1), wherein each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures (30) is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element (10) (Figs. 1-3), such that the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 10) has an undulating shape (Figs. 1-3).
Further, Yang teaches a similar optical path folding element (109; Fig. 12; ¶0099) comprising an optical portion (109) and a connection portion (outer part of 109, specifically parts that are outside of 10 and 20; Fig. 12), and further comprising a light blocking layer (12, 22; Fig. 12; ¶0088, ¶0097) disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 109) for blocking light from passing through (¶0088).
Yang additionally teaches the light blocking layer (12) surrounds the optical surface (10; Fig. 12; ¶0088). When combined with the plurality of matte surfaces of Otake, this would result in the matte structures being spaced apart from the optical surface by the region with the light blocking layer. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would be further motivated to include a light blocking layer surrounding the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface as well for the purpose of blocking stray light at every surface with incident light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and a light blocking layer surrounding the optical surface, the first reflective surface, and the second reflective surface – thus causing the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface – as taught by Yang for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon and blocking stray light (¶0013 of Yang).
Further, Konno teaches a similar optical path folding element (101; Fig. 9) comprising an optical portion (101a, 101b; Fig. 9; ¶0098) and a connection portion (101n, 101m; Fig. 9; ¶0098) comprising a plurality of connection surfaces (101n, 101m; Fig. 9), wherein the connection portion further has at least one gate trace (Ge1) located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (101m) (Fig. 9; ¶0098).
The combination of Konno and Otake would result in the gate trace being surrounded by the plurality of matte structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Otake and further in view of Yang to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Regarding claim 22, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the optical surface (S28) reflects the light beam entering into the optical path folding element (P21) further again (Fig. 5), and the light beam emits from the optical path folding element (P21) via the optical surface (S28) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, including a gate trace and a light blocking layer, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Otake, Yang, nor Konno explicitly disclose the at least one gate trace is covered by the light blocking layer.
However, Yang teaches a light blocking layer (12, 22; Fig. 12; ¶0088, ¶0097) disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 109) for blocking light from passing through (¶0088). The gate trace as taught by Konno is disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion. As a result, when combined with the light blocking layer being disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion as taught by Yang, the at least one gate trace would be covered by the light blocking layer.
The gate trace as taught by Konno is disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion. As a result, when combined with the light blocking layer being disposed on the outer surface of the connection portion as taught by Yang, the at least one gate trace would be covered by the light blocking layer.
Regarding claim 24, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, as set forth above. Neither Chang, Yang, nor Konno disclose a recess depth of each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm]. Otake does not explicitly disclose the following condition is satisfied: 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm].
However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Otake has the plurality of matte structures, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the recess depth h of each unitary structure satisfy 0.02 [mm] ≤ h ≤ 1.6 [mm] for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the recess depths of the matte structures to be between 0.02 and 1.6 mm for the purpose of efficiently suppressing reflection to avoid flare (¶0004-¶0005 of Otake).
Regarding claim 26, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, Chang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a narrowed structure (G; Fig. 5; ¶0064) formed by at least part of the plurality of connection surfaces (S210 and all outer surfaces of P21) and partially reducing an aperture size inside the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0064).
Regarding claim 27, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the connection portion (outer part of P21) further has a boundary line (see modified Fig. 5; located between two of the plurality of connection surfaces (see modified Fig. 5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion), and an angle between the two of the plurality of connection surfaces respectively located at opposite sides of the boundary line is θ. Neither Otake, Yang, nor Konno disclose the following condition is satisfied: 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg.].
Chang does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg. is satisfied. Chang discloses θ = 180 degrees (modified Fig. 5; implicit that the outer surface facing out of the page is flat, resulting in 180 degrees between the two connection surfaces to the right and left of the boundary line) that is just outside the claimed range of “≤ 179 [deg.]”. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical path folding element of Chang the additional feature of having the θ value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Chang and because it would work equally as well at 179 degrees as it would at 180 degrees since this is not an optically active area and this angle would not affect the optical properties of the optical path folding element.
Regarding claim 28, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 27, as set forth above. Chang further discloses wherein a thickness of the optical path folding element (P21) along a direction perpendicular to the optical surface is T (D; Fig. 5), a distance between the boundary line and the optical surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical surface is d (d; modified Fig. 5), and the following condition is satisfied: 0.25 ≤ d/T ≤ 0.75 (d/T = 0.5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion).
Regarding claim 45, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element of claim 21. Chang further discloses an imaging lens module (2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), comprising: the optical path folding element of claim 21; a lens assembly (lens unit; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21) (Fig. 5; ¶0050), wherein the light beam passes through the lens assembly (Fig. 5); and an image sensor (IMA2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (P21), wherein the image sensor (IMA2) is configured to receive the light beam (Fig. 5; ¶0050).
Regarding claim 46, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the imaging lens module according to claim 45, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the lens assembly (lens unit) has an aperture stop (ST2; Fig. 5; ¶0050), and the aperture stop (ST2) is elliptical (implicit that the aperture stop is elliptical because aperture stops are generally elliptical unless stated otherwise).
Regarding claim 47, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the imaging lens module of claim 45. Chang further discloses an electronic device comprising the imaging lens module of claim 39 (¶0002).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240019667 A1) in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), further in view of Yang (US 20210063617 A1), further in view of Konno (US 20070024739 A1), and further in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Chang in view of Otake, further in view of Yang, and further in view of Konno discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 21, wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment. Chang is silent on the material of the light blocking layer. Specifically, Chang does not disclose a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment.
However, Choi teaches a light blocking layer (¶0002) for use in optical devices (¶0003), wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer (A; ¶0008, ¶0048) and black pigment (D; ¶0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material of the light blocking layer of Chang in view of Otake, Yang, and Konno to comprise acrylic monomer and black pigment for the purpose of blocking light and since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 29-34, 36-37, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (US 20220163706 A1), hereinafter Feldman, in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1), and further in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A).
Regarding independent claim 29, Feldman discloses an optical path folding element (100; Fig. 5; ¶0031), a material of the optical path folding element (100) comprising plastic (¶0031), the optical path folding element (100) comprising:
an optical portion (100; Fig. 5; ¶0045), having:
an optical surface (S1 with coating 560; Fig. 5; ¶0047), wherein a light beam enters into the optical path folding element (100) via the optical surface (S1 with coating 560) (Fig. 5);
a first reflective surface (inside surface of S2; Fig. 3; ¶0032), configured to reflect the light beam inside the optical path folding element (100) (Fig. 3); and
a second reflective surface (inside surface of S3 without coating 550; Fig. 3; ¶0032), configured to reflect the light beam again inside the optical path folding element (100) (Fig. 3);
a connection portion (outer part of 100; Fig. 5), having:
a plurality of connection surfaces (all outer surfaces of 100 except where the light enters and exits; Figs. 3, 5), connected to the optical surface (S1), the first reflective surface (inside surface of S2) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S4) (Fig. 3); and
a narrowed structure (520; Figs. 1B, 5; ¶0031), formed by at least part of the plurality of connection surfaces (Figs. 1B, 5) and partially reducing an aperture size inside the optical path folding element (100) (¶0046); and
a light blocking layer (550; Fig. 5; ¶0047), at least disposed on a part of an outer surface of the connection portion (outer surfaces of 100) for blocking light from passing through (¶0047).
Feldman is silent on the material of the light blocking layer. Specifically, Feldman does not disclose a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer and black pigment. Feldman additionally does not disclose a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion; and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
However, Choi teaches a light blocking layer (¶0002) for use in optical devices (¶0003), wherein a material of the light blocking layer comprises acrylic monomer (A; ¶0008, ¶0048) and black pigment (D; ¶0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a material of the light blocking layer to comprise acrylic monomer and black pigment for the purpose of blocking light and since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Choi does not disclose a plurality of matte structures, at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion; and wherein all of the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the reflective surface and the second surface.
However, Otake teaches a similar optical path folding element (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) comprising an optical portion (10; Fig. 1; ¶0010) and a connection portion (outer part of 10; Fig, 1), wherein the optical portion (10) comprises a first reflective surface (inner surface of 12; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and a second reflective surface (inner surface of 13; Fig. 1; ¶0010), and the connection portion (outer part of 10) comprises a plurality of connection surfaces (outer surfaces of 10; Fig. 1), and further comprises a plurality of matte structures (30; Fig. 1; ¶0011), at least disposed on and integrally formed with the connection portion (outer part of 10) (Fig. 1).
Further, Feldman discloses the light blocking layer (550) surrounds the optical surface (S1 with coating 560) and the second reflective surface (inside surface of S3 without coating 550). When combined with the plurality of matte surfaces of Otake, this would result in the matte structures being spaced apart from the optical surface and the first reflective surface by the region with the light blocking layer. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would be further motivated to include a light blocking layer surrounding the second reflective surface as well for the purpose of blocking stray light at the second reflective surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Choi to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake and a light blocking layer surrounding the second reflective surface – thus causing the plurality of matte structures are spaced apart from all of the optical surface, the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface –for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon and blocking stray light (¶0047 of Feldman).
Regarding claim 30, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the optical surface (S1) reflects the light beam entering into the optical path folding element (100) further again (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 30, as set forth above. Feldman further discloses the light beam emits from the optical path folding element (100) via a second optical surface (S3; Fig. 3) that is different from the optical surface (S1) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 32, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, as set forth above. Chang further discloses the narrowed structure (520) is disposed between the first reflective surface (S2) and the second reflective surface (S3) (Figs. 1B, 5), and the narrowed structure (520) is covered by the light blocking layer (¶0033).
Regarding claim 33, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 32, as set forth above. Feldman further discloses the narrowed structure (520) further has a step structure at periphery thereof (Fig. 5), and the step structure forms a protrusion or a recess at the periphery of the narrowed structure (520) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 34, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, including the plurality of matte structures as set forth above. Neither Feldman nor Choi disclose each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element, such that the outer surface of the connection portion has an undulating shape.
However, Otake teaches each unitary structure of the plurality of matte structures (30) is tapered off and recessed from an outer surface of the connection portion towards an inner side of the optical path folding element (10) (Figs. 1-3), such that the outer surface of the connection portion (outer part of 10) has an undulating shape (Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feldman in view of Choi to incorporate a plurality of matte structures as taught by Otake for the purpose of preventing a flare phenomenon (¶0005 of Otake).
Regarding claim 36, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, as set forth above. Feldman further discloses the connection portion (outer part of 100) further has a boundary line (see modified Fig. 5B below; located between two of the plurality of connection surfaces (see modified Fig. 5B; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion), and an angle between the two of the plurality of connection surfaces respectively located at opposite sides of the boundary line is θ.
Feldman does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 130 [deg.] ≤ θ ≤ 179 [deg. is satisfied. Feldman discloses θ = 180 degrees (modified Fig. 5B; implicit that the outer surface facing out of the page is flat, resulting in 180 degrees between the two connection surfaces to the right and left of the boundary line) that is just outside the claimed range of “≤ 179 [deg.]”. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical path folding element of Feldman the additional feature of having the θ value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Feldman and because it would work equally as well at 179 degrees as it would at 180 degrees since this is not an optically active area and this angle would not affect the optical properties of the optical path folding element.
Regarding claim 37, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 36, as set forth above. Feldman further discloses a thickness of the optical path folding element (100) along a direction perpendicular to the optical surface is T (modified Fig. 5B), a distance between the boundary line and the optical surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical surface is d (modified Fig. 5), and the following condition is satisfied: 0.25 ≤ d/T ≤ 0.75 (d/T = 0.5; a boundary line does not affect the optics and can be any line on the connection portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
376
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 48, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element of claim 29. Feldman further discloses an imaging lens module (300; Fig. 3; ¶0026), comprising: the optical path folding element of claim 29; a lens assembly (305; Fig. 3; ¶0036), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (100) (Fig. 3; ¶0036), wherein the light beam passes through the lens assembly (305) (Fig. 3); and an image sensor (315; Fig. 3; ¶0036), disposed adjacent to the optical path folding element (100) (Fig. 3), wherein the image sensor (315) is configured to receive the light beam (Fig. 3; ¶0036).
Regarding claim 49, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the imaging lens module according to claim 48, wherein the lens assembly (305) has an aperture stop (320; Fig. 3; ¶0036), and the aperture stop (320) is elliptical (implicit that the aperture stop is elliptical because aperture stops are generally elliptical unless stated otherwise).
Regarding claim 50, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the imaging lens module of claim 48. Feldman further discloses an electronic device comprising the imaging lens module of claim 48 (¶0003).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman (US 20220163706 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1), further in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), and further in view of Konno (US 20070024739 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, as set forth above. Neither Feldman, Choi, nor Otake disclose the connection portion further has at least one gate trace located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces.
However, Konno teaches a similar optical path folding element (101; Fig. 9) comprising an optical portion (101a, 101b; Fig. 9; ¶0098) and a connection portion (101n, 101m; Fig. 9; ¶0098) comprising a plurality of connection surfaces (101n, 101m; Fig. 9), wherein the connection portion further has at least one gate trace (Ge1) located on at least one of the plurality of connection surfaces (101m) (Fig. 9; ¶0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gate trace for the purpose of the connection portion being made using injection molding (which inherently results in a gate trace) and for the gate trace to be located on a connection surface for the purpose of alleviating its influences on the effective usable area of the optical portion (¶0098 of Konno).
Claim(s) 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman (US 20220163706 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1), further in view of Otake (JP H09269405 A), and further in view of Feldman (US 20220163706 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120077897 A1) and further in view of Baader (Baader-Planetarium.com, 2017, www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-t-2-90degrees-astro-amici-prism-with-bbhs-coating.html.).
Regarding claim 38, Feldman in view of Choi and further in view of Otake discloses the optical path folding element according to claim 29, as set forth above. Neither Feldman, Choi, nor Otake disclose the optical portion is recessed with respect to the connection portion located around the optical portion.
However, Baader teaches a similar optical path folding element comprising an optical portion and a connection portion, wherein the optical portion is recessed with respect to the connection portion located around the optical portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical portion to be recessed with respect to the connection portion for the purpose of protecting the optical portion from getting damaged.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 3rd, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995), see MPEP 2112.
Prosecution Insights