Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Cai fails to disclose “the light blocking surface opposite to one of the incident surface, the emitting surface and the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element". Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs attention to Figs. 17 and 23-24. As shown in these figures, the light blocking surface 36b is opposite to a reflecting surface 33b of the light path folding element 30b, where the light reflecting off of 33b is directed towards 36b, indicating that the two surfaces are opposite one another.
Applicant further states that the anti-reflective structures of the folding element 36b of Cai is not a three-dimensional structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that as shown in Figs. 17 and 24, 36b has a thickness along the light travelling path and therefore has dimensions in three axes, thus making the anti-reflective structures three-dimensional structures.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (CN217404597U, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses an optical imaging module (Figs. 16-24), comprising:
an optical imaging lens assembly (20b) comprising at least one optical lens element (as shown in Fig. 17, 20b has multiple lens elements), and an optical axis passing through the at least one optical lens element (as shown in Fig. 17, an optical axis passes through 20b);
a light path folding element (30b) having an incident surface (31b), an emitting surface (39b) and at least one optical reflecting surface (32b), and the light path folding element disposed on an image side of the optical imaging lens assembly (30b is located at an image side of 20b); and
a light blocking element (36b) disposed on at least one of the at least one optical lens element and the light path folding element (as shown in Fig. 22, 36b is on the folding element), and the light blocking element comprising:
an opening hole (as shown in Fig. 22, 36b as an opening) corresponded to one of the incident surface and the emitting surface of the light path folding element (as shown in Fig. 22, and 24, 36b is sandwiched between the two prism elements to correspond to the incident and emitting surfaces); and
a light blocking surface (36b) adjacent to the opening hole (the outer perimeter of 36b blocks incident light), and the light blocking surface opposite to one of the incident surface, the emitting surface and the at least one optical reflecting surface of the light path folding element (as shown in Figs. 17 and 22, 36b is opposite the reflecting surface of the folding element);
wherein the light blocking surface has a plurality of first anti-reflective structures (VCS), and the first anti-reflective structures ([0150], “The annular light shielding layer 36b has a concave-convex structure VCS, and the concave-convex structure VCS makes the contour of the annular light-shielding layer 36b undulate”) are disposed on the light blocking surface (36b) and surround the opening hole (as shown in Figs. 22-23, vcs surround the opening hole);
wherein the first anti-reflective structures are a three-dimensional structure (as shown in Figs. 17 and 24, 36b has a thickness along the light travelling path and therefore has dimensions in three axes, thus making the anti-reflective structures three-dimensional structures).
Regarding claim 2, Cai further discloses wherein the first anti-reflective structures are integrally formed with the light blocking element (as shown in Figs. 22-24, VCS is integral to the blocking element 36b).
Regarding claim 3, Cai further discloses wherein the first anti-reflective structures extend toward a first direction, and the first direction is orthogonal to the optical axis (as shown in Figs. 17 and 22, VCS of 36b are orthogonal to the optical path).
Regarding claim 4, Cai further discloses wherein a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, and the following condition is satisfied:
2≤N1≤246 (as shown in Figs. 22 and 24, there are a total of 60 VCS structures).
Regarding claim 12, Cai further discloses an electronic device, comprising:
the optical imaging module ([0008], “the imaging lens module and electronic device disclosed in this utility model”).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN217404597U, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Chang (US 2021/0364731).
Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, and the following condition is satisfied: 2≤N1≤52.
However Chang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein the number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, and the following condition is satisfied: 2≤N1≤52 (Fig. 3C, element 330 has a total of 10 anti-reflective structures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai with the wherein the number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, and the following condition is satisfied: 2≤N1≤52 as taught by Chang, for the purpose of increasing an efficiency of eliminating stray light ([0094]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN217404597U, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Tsai (US 2022/0365254).
Regarding claim 6, Cai discloses as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein on a cross-sectional plane vertical to the first direction, the first anti-reflective structures have a bottom end and two top ends, and distances from the bottom end to the two top ends are different, respectively.
However Tsai, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein on a cross-sectional plane vertical to the first direction (examiner interprets the cross-sectional plane to be perpendicular to the optical axis in Figs. 3-4), the first anti-reflective structures (1122) have a bottom end and two top ends, and distances from the bottom end to the two top ends are different, respectively (as shown in Fig. 4, element 112 has plurality of anti-reflective structures 1122 that have two top ends with different distances to the bottom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai with the wherein on a cross-sectional plane vertical to the first direction, the first anti-reflective structures have a bottom end and two top ends, and distances from the bottom end to the two top ends are different, respectively as taught by Tsai, for the purpose of reducing flare and improv image quality ([0102]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN217404597U, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Song (CN 216118328 U, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Cai discloses as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the light blocking surface has a plurality of second anti-reflective structures, and the second anti-reflective structures are arranged along a direction of a circumference surrounding the opening hole.
However Song, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein the light blocking surface (Figs. 5-7, element 40) has a plurality of second anti-reflective structures (43, [0051], “third surface segment 43 can absorb stray light with a large included angle to the optical axis, thereby reducing the generation of stray light”), and the second anti-reflective structures are arranged along a direction of a circumference surrounding the opening hole (as shown in Figs. 5-6, 43 are arranged along a circumference of the opening hole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai with the wherein the light blocking surface has a plurality of second anti-reflective structures, and the second anti-reflective structures are arranged along a direction of a circumference surrounding the opening hole as taught by Song, for the purpose of reducing reflection of light by the groove structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cai teaches as is set forth in claim 7 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second anti-reflective structures are integrally formed with the light blocking element.
However Song, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein the second anti-reflective structures (Figs. 1-7, element 50) are integrally formed with the light blocking element (as shown in Figs. 5-7, 50 is integrally formed with 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai in view of Song with the wherein the second anti-reflective structures are integrally formed with the light blocking element as taught by Song, for the purpose of reducing reflection of light by the groove structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cai teaches as is set forth in claim 7 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second anti-reflective structures are arranged along an extension path in the first direction.
However Song, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein the second anti-reflective structures (Figs. 5-7, element 43) are arranged along an extension path in the first direction (as shown in Fig. 5, element 43 extends in a first direction same as first anti-reflective structures 41 perpendicular to an optical axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai in view of Song with the wherein the second anti-reflective structures are arranged along an extension path in the first direction as taught by Song, for the purpose of reducing reflection of light by the groove structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cai teaches as is set forth in claim 7 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T, and the following condition is satisfied: N1<N2T.
However Song, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1 (as shown in Figs. 1-7, there are three first anti-reflective structures 41-43), a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T ([0040], “Specifically, the number of tooth structures 51 is greater than or equal to 300 and less than or equal to 1000”), and the following condition is satisfied: N1<N2T (as disclosed by [0040], there are more second anti-reflective structures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai in view of Song with the wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T, and the following condition is satisfied: N1<N2T as taught by Song, for the purpose of reducing reflection of light by the groove structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cai teaches as is set forth in claim 7 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T, and the following condition is satisfied: 570≤N1+N2T≤3620.
However Song, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging module, teaches wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1 (as shown in Figs. 1-7, there are three first anti-reflective structures 41-43), a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T ([0040], “Specifically, the number of tooth structures 51 is greater than or equal to 300 and less than or equal to 1000”), and the following condition is satisfied: 570≤N1+N2T≤3620 (as disclosed by [0040] and the Figs. 1-7, the range of Song would be 903 to 3003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical imaging module of Cai in view of Song with the wherein on the light blocking element, a number of the first anti-reflective structures is N1, a number of the second anti-reflective structures is N2T, and the following condition is satisfied: 570≤N1+N2T≤3620 as taught by Song, for the purpose of reducing reflection of light by the groove structure ([0022]).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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 at (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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8 July 2026
Prosecution Insights