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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 01/12/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1 and 7, filed 12/29/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 7-8 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Both of the present application and Wu are owned by Largan Precision Co., LTD., that is, the present application and Wu are owned by the same person/entity. Thus, Wu should be disqualified as prior art.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu’s effective filing date is more than a year before the effective filing date of the application and is therefore applicable.
On Page 9 of Remarks, Applicant argues with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 USC § 102 have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/26/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
.
Claims Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu et al., (hereafter Wu) (US 11,604,325 B2) in further view of Lee et al., (Lee hereafter) (US 2021/0173126 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Wu teaches a light blocking structure (right portion of Figure 1B), comprising: a light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) forming a channel (area within 119, Figure 1B) for an incident light passing through the channel (119, Figure 1B), the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B; see also column 4, lines 22-26) observed from an object side or an image side (imaging lens module 100 has an optical axis z, an object side za and an image side zb, column 3, lines 21-26) of the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) comprising: a first portion (first section for one of 177, Figure 1H) comprising a first arc (one of 177, Figure 1H), and the first arc (one of 177, Figure 1H) adjacent to the channel (119, Figure 1B) and having a first curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); a second portion (second section for second of 177, Figure 1H) comprising a second arc (one of 177, Figure 1H), and the second arc (one of 177, Figure 1H) adjacent to the channel (119, Figure 1B) and having a second curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); and a third portion (third section for one of 177, Figure 1H) connected to the first portion (first section for one of 177, Figure 1H) and the second portion (second section for second of 177, Figure 1H), wherein the third portion (third section for one of 177, Figure 1H) comprises at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) extending and shrinking gradually from the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) to the channel (119, Figure 1B) , and the at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) has a third curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); wherein a number of the at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) is more than two and less than twenty two (four, see annotated Figure 1H).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
796
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu fails to teach wherein the third curvature radius is different from each of the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius.
Wu and Lee both teach imaging lenses with light blocking structures.
Lee wherein the third curvature radius (Table 2) is different from each of the first curvature radius (Table 2) and the second curvature radius (Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wu having the imaging assembly with the teachings of Lee having the third curvature radius is different from each of the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius for the purpose of reducing aberrations.
With respect to Claim 2, Wu further teaches wherein the light blocking structure is a light blocking sheet (181 and 182, Figure 1A, are light blocking sheets, column 4, lines 20-26).
With respect to Claim 3, Wu further teaches at least two gate traces (169, Figure 1H); wherein the light blocking structure is a black plastic element (160 may be made of black plastic, column 6, lines 47-51).
With respect to Claim 4, Wu further teaches wherein the number of the protruding arcs is more than six and less than twenty-two (four, see annotated Figure 1H).
With respect to Claim 5, Wu further teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is D, a cross-sectional area of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is A, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.30 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.95 (0.30 <0.323 [3.14159 x (0.35/2)2] < 0.95, Table 1) →(0.30 <0.355 <0.95), wherein π is a ratio of a circumference of a circle to a diameter of the circle.
With respect to Claim 6, Wu in view of Lee disclose the light blocking structure of claim 1, wherein a maximum diameter of the channel (119, Figure 1B, of Wu) is D, a cross-sectional area of the channel (119, Figure 1B, of Wu) is A, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90 (0.30 <0.323 [3.14159 x (0.35/2)2] < 0.95, Table 1, of Wu) →(0.30 <0.355 <0.95), wherein π is a ratio of a circumference of a circle to a diameter of the circle.
Wu in view of Lee disclose the claimed invention except for 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90 for the purpose preventing the excess concentric tolerance between the plastic barrel 110 and the image-side assembled element, column 6, lines 18-20. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to Claim 7, Wu teaches an imaging lens assembly module, comprising: an imaging lens element set (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A) comprising a plurality of lens elements (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A), and having an optical axis (z, annotated Figure 1B); a lens carrier (110, Figure 1A), wherein at least one lens element (141, Figure 1A) of the lens elements (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A) is disposed in the lens carrier (110, Figure 1A); at least one reflecting element (101, Figure 1D; see column 9, lines 49-51) located on at least one side of an object side (za, Figure 1A) and an image side (zb, Figure 1A) of the imaging lens element set (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A); and a light blocking structure (right portion of Figure 1B), comprising: a light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) forming a channel (119, Figure 1B) for an incident light passing through the channel (119, Figure 1B), the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) observed from an object side or an image side (imaging lens module 100 has an optical axis z, an object side za and an image side zb, column 3, lines 21-26) of the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) comprising: a first portion (first section for one of 177, Figure 1H) comprising a first arc (one of 177, Figure 1H), and the first arc (one of 177, Figure 1H) adjacent to the channel (119, Figure 1B) and having a first curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); a second portion (second section for second of 177, Figure 1H) comprising a second arc (second of 177, Figure 1H), and the second arc (one of 177, Figure 1H) adjacent to the channel (119, Figure 1B) and having a second curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); and a third portion (third section for one of 177, Figure 1H) connected to the first portion (first section for one of 177, Figure 1H) and the second portion (second section for second of 177, Figure 1H), wherein the third portion (third section for one of 177, Figure 1H) comprises at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) extending and shrinking gradually from the light blocking portion (171, 181, and 182, Figure 1B) to the channel (119, Figure 1B) , and the at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) has a third curvature radius (column 6, lines 34-36); wherein the light blocking structure is a light blocking sheet (181 and 182, Figure 1A, are light blocking sheets, column 4, lines 20-26).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu fails to teach wherein the third curvature radius is different from each of the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius.
Wu and Lee both teach imaging lenses with light blocking structures.
Lee wherein the third curvature radius (Table 2) is different from each of the first curvature radius (Table 2) and the second curvature radius (Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wu having the imaging assembly with the teachings of Lee having the third curvature radius is different from each of the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius for the purpose of reducing aberrations.
With respect to Claim 8, Wu further teaches wherein a number of the lens elements (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A) of the imaging lens element set is N (N=5 →141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A), and the following condition is satisfied: 3 ≤ N ≤ 8 (5 is between 3 and 8).
With respect to Claim 10, Wu further teaches wherein a number of the at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) is more than two and less than twenty-two (four, see annotated Figure 1H).
With respect to Claim 11, Wu further teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is D, the third curvature radius of the at least one protruding arc (112, Figure 1B) is R, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.01 < R/D < 3 (0.01 < R/D < 3 Table 1).
With respect to Claim 12, Wu further teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is D, a cross-sectional area of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is A, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.30 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.95 (0.30 <0.323 [3.14159 x (0.35/2)2] < 0.95, Table 1) →(0.30 <0.355 <0.95), wherein π is a ratio of a circumference of a circle to a diameter of the circle.
With respect to Claim 14, Wu further teaches wherein the at least one reflecting element (101, Figure 1D; see column 9, lines 49-51) is located on the image side (zb, Figure 1A) of the imaging lens element set (141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, Figure 1A).
With respect to Claim 13, Wu in view of Lee disclose the light blocking structure of claim 12, wherein a maximum diameter of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is D, a cross-sectional area of the channel (119, Figure 1B) is A, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90 (0.30 <0.323 [3.14159 x (0.35/2)2] < 0.95, Table 1) →(0.30 <0.355 <0.95), wherein π is a ratio of a circumference of a circle to a diameter of the circle.
Wu in view of Lee fail to disclose the claimed invention except for 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have 0.50 < A/[π×(D/2)2] < 0.90 for the purpose preventing the excess concentric tolerance between the plastic barrel 110 and the image-side assembled element, column 6, lines 18-20. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 11,604,325 B2) in view of Lee (US 2021/0173126 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chang et al., (hereafter Chang) (US 2020/0366817 A1).
With respect to Claim 9, Wu in view of Lee teach the imaging lens assembly module of claim 7.
Wu in view of Lee fail to teach wherein a maximum field of view of the imaging lens assembly module is FOV, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 degrees ≤ FOV ≤ 40 degrees.
Chang teaches light blocking sheet (Figure 5) wherein a maximum field of view of the imaging lens assembly module is FOV, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 degrees ≤ FOV ≤ 40 degrees (FOV=21.8 degrees, ¶[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wu in view of Lee having the imaging assembly with the teachings of Chang having the FOV range for the purpose of intense imaging focus.
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.
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872