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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2024, 8/13/2024, and 2/25/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/23/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619).
Regarding amended Claim 1, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) discloses
an optical imaging module (Fig. 1, optical system 100, Paragraph 0025), comprising: an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 1, lens group 105) comprising at least one optical lens element (Fig. 1, lens L3);
a light path folding element (Fig. 1, prism 110) having an incident surface (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown), an emitting surface (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown) and at least one optical reflecting surface (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown), and the light path folding element disposed on an image side of the optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. prism 110, or prism 315, is on the same side of the lens group as the image sensor 115, Paragraph 0032); and
a light blocking element disposed on one of the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element (Fig. 3C, aperture mask 325, Paragraph 0032), and the light blocking element comprising:
an opening hole corresponded to one of the incident surface and the emitting surface (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown) of the light path folding element; and …
wherein the light blocking surface is opposite to at least one of the incident surface, the emitting surface (Fig. 3C, aperture mask 325, as shown, Paragraph 0032) and the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) does not specifically disclose
a light blocking surface adjacent to the opening hole
the light blocking surface comprising an anti-reflective structure surrounding the opening hole, the anti-reflective structure having a rugged surface, and an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer disposed on the anti-reflective structure;
However, Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), in the same field of endeavor teaches
a light blocking surface (Fig. 4, light blocking member 470, Paragraph 0103) adjacent to the opening hole (Fig. 4, light blocking member 470, Paragraph 0103), the light blocking surface … surrounding the opening hole (Fig. 4, as shown) for the purpose of reducing stray light into an optical assembly
and Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619), also in the same field of endeavor, further discloses the light blocking surface comprising an anti-reflective structure … the anti-reflective structure having a rugged surface (Paragraph 0106, anti-reflection achieved with a jagged structure), and an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer disposed on the anti-reflective structure (Paragraph 0095, anti-reflective nanotextures are deposited on a lens material), for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflections within an optical assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical imaging module of Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) with a light blocking surface adjacent to the opening hole of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), and the light blocking surface comprising an anti-reflective structure surrounding the opening hole, the anti-reflective structure having a rugged surface, and an anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer disposed on the anti-reflective structure, of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619), for the purpose of reducing stray light into and the amount of reflections within an optical assembly.
Regarding amended Claim 2, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein the light blocking surface is opposite to the incident surface of the light path folding element (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown).
Regarding amended Claim 3, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein the light blocking surface is opposite to the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element (annotated Fig. 3C, as shown).
Regarding amended Claim 4, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by an optical total reflection phenomenon (Paragraphs 0024 and 0027, total internal reflection).
Regarding amended Claim 5, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element reflects an imaging light by a high-reflecting film (Paragraph 0027, a reflective coating or film, lines 1-5).
Regarding amended Claim 6, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) further discloses wherein a cross section of the anti-reflective structure is in a zigzag form (Paragraph 0108, uniform triangle structures), for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflections within an optical assembly.
Regarding amended Claim 9, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) further discloses wherein the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer comprises an optical thin film material (Paragraph 0040, thin film deposition), for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflections within an optical assembly.
Regarding amended Claim 11, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein a number of the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element is greater than or equal to two (two reflective surfaces listed in annotated Fig. 3C, as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding amended Claim 12, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein the opening hole of the light blocking element is a non-circular opening hole (the aperture mask 325 is rectangular, see annotated Fig. 3C, as shown above).
Regarding amended Claim 15, Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein a camera module, comprising: the optical imaging module of claim 1; and an image sensor (Fig. 1, image sensor 115).
Regarding amended Claim 16 Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373), in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0350226), further in view of Greer et al. (US 2018/0194619) discloses as is set forth above and Saiga et al. (US 2022/0091373) further discloses wherein an electronic device, comprising: the camera module of claim 15 (Paragraph 0023, smartphone, tablet, pad, or wearable device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical imaging module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the light blocking element is disposed between the optical lens element and the light path folding element.
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical imaging module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer comprises a carbon black material.
Specifically, with respect to claim 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical imaging module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the anti-reflective light blocking membrane layer comprises an aluminum oxide material.
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical imaging module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein 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<1.8mm.
Specifically, with respect to claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical imaging module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, 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<1.2mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al. (US 2021/0067668), Lin et al. (US 2021/0080706), Fu et al. (US 2023/0121630), Chou (US 2020/0241260), Zhao et al. (US 2022/0294945), and Saiga et al. (US 11,762,174) are cited to show similar optical imaging modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872