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 priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) and 120.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/20/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0057179 A1).
Yang et al. discloses an imaging lens assembly (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-10), having an optical axis (In the instant case, an optical axis can be defined as an axis normal to the center of the optical surface 110 of 100 in Figures 1-5), and comprising a radial reduction lens element (See for example 100 in Figures 1-5), comprising an effective optical portion (See for example 110 in Figure 2), the optical axis passing through the effective optical portion, and comprising a reduction part (See for example portion of lens at 114, 113 in Figure 2) shrinking from a portion of the effective optical portion towards the optical axis so that the effective optical portion being non-circular (See Figure 2); and a peripheral portion (See for example 130, 131, 132 in Figure 2) extending from the effective optical portion towards a direction away from the optical axis, and the peripheral portion and the reduction part disposed at interval along a circumferential direction surrounding the optical axis (See Figure 2); and a light blocking element (See for example 200 in Figures 1, 3-9) having a central opening (See for example 210 in Figure 7), the optical axis passing through the central opening, and comprising a receiving structure (See for example 211, 212 in Figure 7) extending along the optical axis and towards one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens assembly; and an extending light blocking structure (See for example 213, 214 in Figure 7) connected to the receiving structure; wherein the receiving structure is directly contacted with the peripheral portion of the radial reduction lens element (See for -example 211, 212, 130, 131, 132 in Figures 2-7; Paragraphs 0081-0083); wherein the extending light blocking structure and the radial reduction lens element are correspondingly disposed (See for example 113, 213 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0083-0084); wherein a location parallel to the optical axis of an end part of the extending light blocking structure is different from a location parallel to the optical axis of a middle part of the extending light blocking structure (See for example 213, 214 in Figures 6-7, 9); wherein a distance of a long side of the extending light blocking structure defined via the central opening is DL (See for example L1 in Figure 7), a distance of a short side of the receiving structure defined via the central opening is DS (See for example L2 in Figure 7), and the following condition is satisfied: DS/DL < 1.0 (In the instant case, L2 is smaller than L1 in Figures 5, 7, and hence DS/DL=L2/L1<1). Yang et al. further discloses the peripheral portion of the radial reduction lens element comprises a receiving surface directly contacted with the receiving structure of the light blocking element (See for example 211, 212, 130, 131, 132 in Figures 2-7; Paragraphs 0081-0083); an air gap is located between the extending light blocking structure and the radial reduction lens element (See for example 113, 213 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0083-0084); a camera module, comprising the above imaging lens assembly (See for example Figures 1-10); and an electronic device, comprising the above camera module; and an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the camera module (See for example Figures 1-10).
Yang et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose DS/DL>0.3 or 0.5 < DS/DL < 0.9. However, as shown in Figures 5, 7, this ratio will necessarily lie between 0 and 1, i.e. 0.1 < DS/DL=L2/L1 < 1. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have DS/DL>0.3 or 0.5 < DS/DL < 0.9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have DS/DL>0.3 or 0.5 < DS/DL < 0.9, to adjust the amount of lens surface needed to focus/defocus the available cross-sectional shape of the incident light beam. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12210137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12210137 similarly claims and discloses an imaging lens assembly (See for example Claims 1, 11), having an optical axis (See for example Claim 1, line 1), and comprising a radial reduction lens element (See for example Claim 1, line 3), comprising an effective optical portion, the optical axis passing through the effective optical portion, and comprising a reduction part shrinking from a portion of the effective optical portion towards the optical axis so that the effective optical portion being non-circular (See for example Claim 1, lines 3-10); and a peripheral portion extending from the effective optical portion towards a direction away from the optical axis, and the peripheral portion and the reduction part disposed at interval along a circumferential direction surrounding the optical axis (See for example Claim 1, lines 11-15); and a light blocking element having a central opening, the optical axis passing through the central opening, and comprising a receiving structure extending along the optical axis and towards one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens assembly (See for example Claim 1, lines 16-21); and an extending light blocking structure connected to the receiving structure (See for example Claim 1, lines 22-27); wherein the receiving structure is directly contacted with the peripheral portion of the radial reduction lens element (See for example Claim 1, lines 28-30); wherein the extending light blocking structure and the radial reduction lens element are correspondingly disposed (See for example Claim 1, lines 31-33); wherein a location parallel to the optical axis of an end part of the extending light blocking structure is different from a location parallel to the optical axis of a middle part of the extending light blocking structure (See for example Claim 1, lines 34-37); wherein a distance of a long side of the extending light blocking structure defined via the central opening is DL, a distance of a short side of the receiving structure defined via the central opening is DS, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.3 < DS/DL < 1.0 (See for example Claim 11). Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12210137 further similarly claims and discloses wherein the distance of the long side of the extending light blocking structure defined via the central opening is DL, the distance of the short side of the receiving structure defined via the central opening is DS, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.5 < DS/DL < 0.9 (See for example Claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 12-14, 16 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:
Claim 3 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an imaging lens assembly as generally set forth in Claim 1, 3, the assembly including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 3, wherein a maximum distance parallel to the optical axis between the end part and the middle part is D1, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.01 mm ≤ D1 ≤ 3.0 mm. Claims 4-8 are dependent on Claim 3, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 3 is allowable.
Claim 9 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an imaging lens assembly as generally set forth in Claim 1, 9, the assembly including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 9, wherein a cross-sectional area of the middle part is A0, a cross-sectional area of the end part is A1, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.05 < A0/A1 < 2. Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 9, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 9 is allowable.
Claim 12 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an imaging lens assembly as generally set forth in Claim 1, 12, the assembly including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 12, wherein the light blocking element further comprises a coplanar structure formed by connecting the receiving structure and the extending light blocking structure. Claims 13-14 are dependent on Claim 12 and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 12 is allowable.
Claim 16 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an imaging lens assembly as generally set forth in Claim 1, 16, the assembly including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 16, wherein the light blocking element is a black plastic product, and the light blocking element comprises at least one gate trace.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
9/15/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights