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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 8/18/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/15/2024, 11/19/2024, 1/13/2025, and 9/5/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia (US 2010/0214664 A1) in view of Hsu et al (US 2021/0018725 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chia discloses a camera module comprising: a lens module (page 2, section [0030] – page 3, section [0040], Figures 1-3, “L2-L6”); and a first optical path folding unit (Figures 1-3, “P”) disposed on an object side of the lens module (Figures 1-3, “L2-L6”) and configured to refract or reflect incident light in an optical axis direction of the lens module (Figures 1-3, “G2, L2-L6”), wherein 1.0 < PRh/LES1 < 1.10 → 3.52/3.51 = 1.002 (page 3, DATA TABLE 1), where PRh is a maximum effective radius of an exit surface of the first optical path folding unit and LES1 is a maximum effective radius of a lens closest to the object side in the lens module, but does not specifically disclose wherein 2.6 < f-number.
However, Hsu et al teaches that it is desirable in a camera module comprising an optical path folding unit in front of a lens module to have a large aperture configuration (i.e. f-number > 2.6) for the purpose of increasing the amount of incident light against the brightness decay caused by the reflector (page 4, section [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the camera module of Chia to satisfy 2.6 < f-number since Hsu et al teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of increasing the amount of incident light against the brightness decay caused by the reflector.
Regarding claim 8, Chia discloses wherein at least one or more of lenses constituting the lens module are configured to have different sizes in a first direction and a second direction intersecting an optical axis (Figures 1-3, “L2-L6”).
Regarding claim 9, Chia discloses wherein the lens module comprises a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially disposed from the object side of the lens module (Figures 1-3, “L2-L6”).
Regarding claim 15, Chia discloses a portable terminal comprising said camera module (page 4, section [0048]).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia in view of Hsu et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (US 2018/0246256 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chia discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the first optical path folding unit comprises an antireflection layer disposed thereon.
Within the same field of endeavor, Abe teaches that it is desirable in cameras for prisms to comprise an antireflection layer disposed thereon for the purpose of preventing unwanted light other than focused light flux from being incident upon the image plane (page 1, section [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first optical path folding unit of modified Chia to comprise an antireflection layer disposed thereon since Abe teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of preventing unwanted light other than focused light flux from being incident upon the image plane.
Regarding claim 3, Abe further teaches wherein the antireflection layer is disposed on one or both of an incident surface of the first optical path folding unit and the exit surface of the first optical path folding unit (page 1, section [0002], re: input/output surface).
Regarding claim 4, Abe teaches wherein the antireflection layer comprises a plurality of protrusions (page 2, section [0020], Figure 2, “3”).
Regarding claim 5, Abe teaches wherein the antireflection layer comprises: a first antireflection layer disposed on an incident surface of the first optical path folding unit and including a first protrusion; and a second antireflection forming layer disposed on the exit surface of the first optical path folding unit and including a second protrusion (page 1, section [0002], re: input/output surface of optical element (i.e. prism) & page 2, section [0020], Figure 2, “3,” re: antireflection film having irregularity structure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10-14 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: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 6: a camera module as claimed, specifically wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion have different sizes.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 7: a camera module as claimed, specifically wherein a formation gap of the first protrusion is different from a formation gap of the second protrusion.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 10: a camera module as claimed, specifically wherein the first lens, the third lens and the fifth lens have a positive refractive power, and the second lens and the fourth lens have a negative refractive power.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 11: a camera module as claimed, specifically wherein at least four of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens have a convex object-side surface.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 12: a camera module as claimed, specifically wherein at least three of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, and fifth lens have a concave image-side surface.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 13 and 14: a camera module as claimed, specifically comprising a second optical path folding unit disposed between the lens module and an image plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights