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 amendments filed 05/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yarborough neither discloses nor teaches the claimed distance between the light blocking surface and the light folding path element satisfying 0mm<D<1.8 mm.
Regarding applicant argument that that Yarborough neither discloses nor teaches the claimed distance between the light blocking surface and the light folding path element satisfying 0mm<D<1.8 mm. This argument is misguided. The rejection does not rely on Yarborough for teaching the claimed light blocking surface, the claimed light path folding element, or the specific numerical distance value corresponding to D. Rather, Lee teaches the compact folded optical imaging module including the light path folding element and the light blocking structure arranged relative to the folded optical path for suppressing flare/stray light. Greer is relied upon for the anti-reflective light blocking member layer having irregular nanostructures. Yarborough is relied upon only as evidence that spacing between optical components is a know parameter adjusted to optimize optical performance. In Lee’s compact folded optical imaging module, the relative position of the light blocking surface with respect to the light path folding element affects the ability of the light blocking structure to intercept unwanted light, while also maintaining clearance for image-forming light passing through the opening hole and maintaining compactness of the module. Accordingly, the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is a result-effective variable. Selecting a small positive clearance satisfying 0mm<D<1.8 mm would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization to balance stray light suppression, optical clearance, assembly tolerance and compact module size.
Applicants argument that Yarborough’s mirrors are reflective rather than light blocking is also not persuasive because Yarborough is not relied upon to replace Lee’s light blocking surface with a reflective mirror. The claimed light blocking structure and light blocking surface remain taught by Lee in view of Greer. Yarborough is cited only to further evidence that optical component spacing is routinely adjusted to optimize optical performance. Therefore, the cited combination provides a sufficient reasoned basis for optimizing the distance D in the compact folded optical imaging module of Lee, as modified by Greer, to arrive at the claimed range. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
All rejections of record are maintained.
(Examiner recommends to amend the independent claims to further define the claimed distance D as a positive air gap measure between the anti-reflective light blocking membrane of the light blocking surface and a specifically identified facing surface of the light path folding element: such as the incident surface, the emitting surface, or the optical reflecting surface, wherein the distance D is measured in a direction normal to the specifically identified facing surface and satisfies 0 mm< D <1.8mm; Such an amendment would further clarify the claimed structural relationship between the nanostructured light blocking surface and the light path folding element and would overcome the current rejection if fully supported by the specification and if no new issues are raised)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 12, 14-18, 21-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an optical imaging module (Figures 2 and 3), comprising: an optical imaging lens assembly (Figure 2) comprising at least one optical lens element ([0046] discloses: 400, light-blocking structure); a light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module) having an incident surface (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module, as having an incident surface; [0062] discloses: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface), an emitting surface ([0062] discloses: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface) and at least one optical reflecting surface ([0062] discloses: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface), and the light path folding element disposed on an image side of the optical imaging lens assembly (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module, on right hand side of Figure 2, considered the image side of the optical lens assembly); and a light blocking element ([0100] discloses: 470, light blocking member) disposed on one of the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element (Figure 3 depicts: 470, light blocking member, to be disposed on 400, light-blocking structure), and the light blocking element comprising: an opening hole (Figure 3 depicts: opening hole on 470, light blocking member; [0101] discloses: 470, light blocking member, continuously disposed along the edge of 450, infrared cutoff filter; Examiner notes that this creates a hole in 470, light blocking member) corresponded to one of the incident surface and the emitting surface of the light path folding element (Figure 2 depicts: hole of 470, light blocking member, Figure 2 is perpendicular to hole, corresponding to the emitting surface of 300, second reflection module, that is considered the light path folding element); and a light blocking surface (Examiner notes that the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member are considered the light blocking surface) adjacent to the opening hole (Figure 3 depicts: 470, light blocking member); wherein the light blocking surface is opposite to at least one of the incident surface, the emitting surface and the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element (Examiner notes that at least one side of 470, light blocking member is opposite to the emitting/incident/reflecting surface of 300, second reflection module).
Lee fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer; wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures, and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form and a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.8 mm. Lee and Greer are related because they both control optical properties (Greer: 0035).
Greer teaches an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer ([0095] teaches: a lens with nanotexture enables anti-reflection; Examiner notes that the nanotexture layer is considered the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer); wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures ([0095] teaches: nanostructures), and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form ([0108] teaches: surface texture, may comprise, irregular jagged peaks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Greer and provide an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer; wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures, and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form. Doing so would allow for decrease or increase of the reflectivity of light incident upon the surface and to modified antireflective properties according to different concepts (Greer: 0107-0108), thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.8 mm. However, optimizing mirror/optical component distances is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yarborough teaches in Col. 3, lines 48-50, the spacing of the mirrors is set to optimize performance and establishes mirror/optical components as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for performance adjustments while maintaining a compact size for the module. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to set the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element to be below 1.8 mm as part of routine optimization of a result effective spacing parameter since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the incident surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to incident surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the emitting surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to emitting surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the at least one optical reflecting surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to reflecting surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1, wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ball-like protrusion structure (Greer: [0038] teaches: buckyball nanostructure; therefore considered to be a ball-like protrusion structure; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 7, wherein a size of the ball-like protrusion structure of each of the nanostructures is BS, and the following condition is satisfied:
12 nm < BS < 138 nm (Greer: [0088] teaches: nanoparticles with dimensions of 200 nm or less, which includes the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1, wherein the opening hole of the light blocking element is a non-circular opening hole (Figure 3 depicts: hole as non-circular, i.e., as a square).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.2 mm. However, optimizing mirror/optical component distances is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yarborough teaches in Col. 3, lines 48-50, the spacing of the mirrors is set to optimize performance and establishes mirror/optical components as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for performance adjustments while maintaining a compact size for the module. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to set the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element to be below 1.2 mm as part of routine optimization of a result effective spacing parameter since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses an optical imaging module (Figures 2 and 3), comprising: an optical imaging lens assembly (Figure 2) comprising at least one optical lens element ([0046] discloses: 400, light-blocking structure); a light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module) having an incident surface (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface), an emitting surface (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface) and at least one optical reflecting surface (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that, in a mirror, a single reflective surface performs the functions of an incident surface, a reflecting surface and an emitting surface), and the light path folding element disposed on an image side of the optical imaging lens assembly (Figure 2 depicts: 300, second reflection module, on right hand side of Figure 2, considered the image side of the optical lens assembly); and a light blocking element ([0100] discloses: 470, light blocking member) disposed on one of the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element (Figure 3 depicts: 470, light blocking member, to be disposed on 400, light-blocking structure), and the light blocking element comprising: a light blocking surface (Examiner notes that the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member are considered the light blocking surface) disposed toward the light path folding element (Figure 3 depicts: 470, light blocking member, disposed toward the light path folding element), wherein the light blocking surface is opposite to at least one of the incident surface, the emitting surface and the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element (Examiner notes that at least one side of 470, light blocking member is opposite to the emitting/incident/reflecting surface of 300, second reflection module).
Lee fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer; wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures, and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form and a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.8 mm. Lee and Greer are related because they both control optical properties (Greer: 0035).
Greer teaches an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer ([0095] teaches: a lens with nanotexture enables anti-reflection; Examiner notes that the nanotexture layer is considered the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer); wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures ([0095] teaches: nanostructures), and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form ([0108] teaches: surface texture, may comprise, irregular jagged peaks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Greer and provide an apparatus wherein the light blocking surface having an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer; wherein a surface of the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer has a plurality of nanostructures, and the nanostructures are arranged in an irregular form. Doing so would allow for decrease or increase of the reflectivity of light incident upon the surface and to modified antireflective properties according to different concepts (Greer: 0107-0108), thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.8 mm. However, optimizing mirror/optical component distances is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yarborough teaches in Col. 3, lines 48-50, the spacing of the mirrors is set to optimize performance and establishes mirror/optical components as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for performance adjustments while maintaining a compact size for the module. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to set the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element to be below 1.8 mm as part of routine optimization of a result effective spacing parameter since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the incident surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to incident surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the emitting surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to emitting surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15, wherein the light blocking surface (the 4 sides of 470, light blocking member) is opposite to the at least one optical reflecting surface (Figure 1 depicts: 400, light-blocking structure, opposite to reflecting surface of 300, second reflection module; Examiner notes that the top side of Figure 2 is considered the “main surface” with the “opposite” the bottom side of Figure 2; without further definition of the term “opposite” the limitations are considered unpatentable under BRI) of the light path folding element ([0046] discloses: 300, second reflection module).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15, wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ball-like protrusion structure (Greer: [0038] teaches: buckyball nanostructure; therefore considered to be a ball-like protrusion structure; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 15, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 21, wherein a size of the ball-like protrusion structure of each of the nanostructures is BS, and the following condition is satisfied:
12 nm < BS < 138 nm (Greer: [0088] teaches: nanoparticles with dimensions of 200 nm or less, which includes the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element is D, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm < D < 1.2 mm. However, optimizing mirror/optical component distances is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yarborough teaches in Col. 3, lines 48-50, the spacing of the mirrors is set to optimize performance and establishes mirror/optical components as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for performance adjustments while maintaining a compact size for the module. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to set the distance between the light blocking surface and the light path folding element to be below 1.2 mm as part of routine optimization of a result effective spacing parameter since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Lee discloses the camera module, comprising: the optical imaging module of claim 15; and an image sensor (in at least abstract discloses: an image sensor module).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Lee discloses an electronic device, comprising: the camera module of claim 29 (Examiner notes that the camera module of Lee is considered an electronic device).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record), as applied to claim 4 and 18 above, in view of Feldman et al. (US 2022/0163706, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 4.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon. Lee and Feldman are related because both disclose optical systems.
Feldman teaches a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon ([0038] teaches: 100, prism, may reflect light under a phenomenon called total internal reflection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Feldman and provide a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon. Doing so would allow for the light folding element to reflect light via total internal reflection, thereby increasing reflectivity and reducing optical losses.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 18.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon. Lee and Feldman are related because both disclose optical systems.
Feldman teaches a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon ([0038] teaches: 100, prism, may reflect light under a phenomenon called total internal reflection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Feldman and provide a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon. Doing so would allow for the light folding element to reflect light via total internal reflection, thereby increasing reflectivity and reducing optical losses.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record), as applied to claim 4 and 18 above, in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0084266, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 4.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film. Lee and Hu are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hu teaches disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film ([0046] teaches: reflecting mirrors with high-reflecting films).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Hu and provide a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film. Doing so would allow for high reflectivity, thereby reducing optical loss and improving overall optical efficiency of the optical imaging module.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 18.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film. Lee and Hu are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hu teaches disclose a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film ([0046] teaches: reflecting mirrors with high-reflecting films).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Hu and provide a module wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film. Doing so would allow for high reflectivity, thereby reducing optical loss and improving overall optical efficiency of the optical imaging module.
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record), as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, in view of Cobb et al. (US 2018/0313981, of record).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure. Lee and Cobb are related because both disclose optical systems.
Cobb teaches a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure ([0048] teaches: anti-reflective surface of nanostructure ridges).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Cobb and provide a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure. Doing so would allow for controlled reflectivity, thereby reducing optical loss and improving overall optical efficiency of the optical imaging module.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 9, wherein a size of the ridge-like protrusion structure of each of the nanostructures is RS, and the following condition is satisfied:
60 nm < RS < 360 nm (Cobb: [0048] teaches: heights of nanostructures 5 nm to 300 nm, which overlaps the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure. Lee and Cobb are related because both disclose optical systems.
Cobb teaches a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure ([0048] teaches: anti-reflective surface of nanostructure ridges).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Cobb and provide a module wherein a structural shape of each of the nanostructures is a ridge-like protrusion structure. Doing so would allow for controlled reflectivity, thereby reducing optical loss and improving overall optical efficiency of the optical imaging module.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 23, wherein a size of the ridge-like protrusion structure of each of the nanostructures is RS, and the following condition is satisfied:
60 nm < RS < 360 nm (Cobb: [0048] teaches: heights of nanostructures 5 nm to 300 nm, which overlaps the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record), as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, in view of Konno et al. (US 2006/0092524, of record).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two. Lee and Konno are related because both disclose optical systems.
Konno teaches a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two ([0010] teaches: two reflecting surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Konno and provide a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two. Doing so would allow for the bending of the optical axis in the preferred degree, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15.
Lee fails to disclose a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two. Lee and Konno are related because both disclose optical systems.
Konno teaches a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two ([0010] teaches: two reflecting surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Konno and provide a module wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two. Doing so would allow for the bending of the optical axis in the preferred degree, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226, of record) in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619, of record) in view of Yarborough et al. (US 5,558,667, of record), as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Zhao et al. (US 2022/0294945, of record).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Lee discloses the optical imaging module of claim 15.
Lee fails to disclose a device wherein the light blocking surface is disposed between the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element. Lee and Zhao are related because both disclose camera modules.
Zhao teaches a device wherein the light blocking surface (Figure 8 depicts: 50, light blocking structure) is disposed between the at least one optical lens element (Figure 8 depicts: 20, optical lens) and the light path folding element (Figure 8 depicts: 30, second reflective element; 50, light blocking structure is disposed between 30, second reflective element and 20, optical lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Zhao and provide disclose a device wherein the light blocking surface is disposed between the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element. Doing so would allow for controlled reflectivity, thereby reducing optical loss and improving overall optical efficiency of the optical imaging module.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights