DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/001,173 filed on December 24, 2024, is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant' s drawings submitted on December 24, 2024, are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 1224/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Although no copy of TW202020504 was provided, the examiner has included a copy thereof, herewith and listed it on the attached PTO-892.
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 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,257 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the table below:
Instant Application
US 12,216,257 B2
Explanation as needed
1. A plastic light-folding element, comprising:
an incident surface configured to let an imaging light enter the plastic light-folding element;
an exit surface configured to let the imaging light exit the plastic light-folding element;
at least one reflective surface configured to fold the imaging light;
at least one connecting surface connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface;
and at least one gate vestige structure disposed on the at least one connecting surface;
wherein at least one of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises an optical portion and an arc step structure,
the arc step structure is disposed on a periphery of the optical portion, and at least one arc is formed by the arc step structure;
wherein a step height of the arc step structure is h,
and the following condition is satisfied:
0.003 mm < h ≤ 0.17 mm.
1. A plastic light-folding element, comprising:
an incident surface configured to let an imaging light enter the plastic light-folding element;
an exit surface configured to let the imaging light exit the plastic light-folding element;
at least one reflective surface configured to fold the imaging light;
at least one connecting surface connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface; and at least one gate vestige structure disposed on the at least one connecting surface;
wherein each of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises an optical portion and an arc step structure,
each of the arc step structures is disposed on a periphery of each of the optical portions, and an arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions;
wherein… a step height of each of the arc step structures is h, and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.003 mm ≤ h ≤ 0.17 mm.
The patented claims require the claimed arc step structures to be present on all of the incident surface the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface. This anticipates the present claim that at least one of them has the claimed arc step structure.
The patented claims recite an infinitesimally wider range that includes the endpoint of 0.003 mm. The degree of overlap between the two ranges is more than sufficient state that the patented range anticipates the claimed range, although they are not identical.
2. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein each of at least two of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure,
each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions,
and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions.
1. wherein each of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises an optical portion and an arc step structure,
each of the arc step structures is disposed on a periphery of each of the optical portions,
and an arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions;
The patented claims require that all three of the incident surface the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface have the arc step structure. This anticipates at least two of them having this structure.
3. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,
wherein an area of the at least one gate vestige structure on the at least one connecting surface is Ag, a total area of the at least one connecting surface is At, and the following condition is satisfied:
33% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 90%.
1.
wherein an area of the at least one gate vestige structure on the at least one connecting surface is Ag, a total area of the at least one connecting surface is At… and the following conditions are satisfied:
33%≤Ag/At≤90%;
4. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one connecting surface is two, both of the two connecting surfaces are connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface, and the two connecting surfaces are correspondingly disposed.
2. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one connecting surface is two, both of the two connecting surfaces are connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface, and the two connecting surfaces are correspondingly disposed.
5. The plastic light-folding element of claim 4, wherein a number of the at least one gate vestige structure is two, and the two gate vestige structures are disposed on the two connecting surfaces, respectively.
3. The plastic light-folding element of claim 2, wherein a number of the at least one gate vestige structure is two, and the two gate vestige structures are disposed on the two connecting surfaces, respectively.
6. The plastic light-folding element of claim 4, wherein the two connecting surfaces are essentially parallel to each other.
4. The plastic light-folding element of claim 2, wherein the two connecting surfaces are essentially parallel to each other.
7. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the at least one connecting surface is essentially orthogonal to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface, respectively.
5. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the at least one connecting surface is essentially orthogonal to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface, respectively.
8. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the optical portion comprises a smooth surface.
6. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the optical portion comprises a smooth surface.
9. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the optical portion comprises an optical aspheric surface located on a center of the optical portion.
7. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the optical portion comprises an optical aspheric surface located on a center of the optical portion.
10. The plastic light-folding element of claim 3, wherein the area of the at least one gate vestige structure on the at least one connecting surface is Ag, the total area of the at least one connecting surface is At, and the following condition is satisfied:
35% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 80%.
8. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the area of the at least one gate vestige structure on the at least one connecting surface is Ag, the total area of the at least one connecting surface is At, and the following condition is satisfied:
35%≤Ag/At≤80%.
11. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein an abbe number of the plastic light-folding element is V, and the following condition is satisfied:
40 ≤ V ≤ 72.
9. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein an abbe number of the plastic light-folding element is V, and the following condition is satisfied:
40≤V≤72.
12. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one reflective surface is two, and both of the two reflective surfaces are configured to fold the imaging light.
10. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one reflective surface is two, and both of the two reflective surfaces are configured to fold the imaging light.
13. The plastic light-folding element of claim 12, wherein the two reflective surfaces are essentially orthogonal to each other.
11. The plastic light-folding element of claim 10, wherein the two reflective surfaces are essentially orthogonal to each other.
14. The plastic light-folding element of claim 12, wherein each of the incident surface, the exit surface and the two reflective surfaces comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure, each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions, and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions.
12. The plastic light-folding element of claim 10, wherein each of the incident surface, the exit surface and the two reflective surfaces comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure, each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions, and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions.
15. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the at least one gate vestige structure comprises an arc rim extending from a center of the at least one gate vestige structure towards an outer side of the at least one gate vestige structure.
13. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the at least one gate vestige structure comprises an arc rim extending from a center of the at least one gate vestige structure towards an outer side of the at least one gate vestige structure.
16. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the step height of the arc step structure is h, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.005 mm ≤ h ≤ 0.07 mm.
14. The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the step height of each of the arc step structures is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.005 mm≤h≤0.07 mm.
17. An imaging lens assembly module, comprising:
the plastic light-folding element of claim 1; and
an imaging lens element set, wherein the plastic light-folding element is disposed on one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens element set.
15. An imaging lens assembly module, comprising:
the plastic light-folding element of claim 1; and
an imaging lens element set, wherein the plastic light-folding element is disposed on one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens element set.
18. An electronic device, comprising:
the imaging lens assembly module of claim 17; and
an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly module.
16. An electronic device, comprising:
the imaging lens assembly module of claim 15; and
an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, The term “smooth” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification as filed repeats the description “includes a smooth surface. Therefore, the better flatness… can be provided” or equivalent language 10 times. However, this does not provide any guidance on how smooth the surface must be to be considered smooth for at least the following reasons. Firstly smooth and flat are different things entirely. The term “flat” with regard to optical elements, refers to a planar surface with zero curvature to the overall shape, whereas “smooth” would typically be about having a small surface roughness to some numerical value thereof, however, no such numerical limits are disclosed. In the context of being related to a surface being flat it is conceivable that the Applicant is referring to such features as (1) the absence of any gate-vestige structure thereon (2) the absence of any moth-eye type antireflection structures thereon and/or (3) the absence of any Fresnel-type pseudo-prismatic structures thereon. However, merely repeating the same description 10 times without any clarification thereof is insufficient to disambiguate the intended scope or meaning.
The following amendment is recommended if the examiner has correctly guessed the intended meaning:
8. (proposed amendment) The plastic light-folding element of claim 1, wherein the optical portion comprises a flat surface with no gate vestige structures thereon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga US 2002/0030900 A1 (hereafter Tominaga) in view of Chou US 2018/0059379 A1 (hereafter Chou) and Sugihara et al. US 2015/0260988 A1 (hereafter Sugihara).
Regarding claim 1, Tominaga teaches “A plastic… element (triangular prism 10, which is a resin-molded prism see paragraph [0001]), comprising:
an [first] surface (optical surface 13)…
an [second] surface (optical surface 12)…
at least one [third] surface (optical surface 11)…
at least one connecting surface (side end faces 14 and 15) connected to the [first] surface, the [second] surface and the at least one [third] surface (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0028]: “a pair of side end faces 14 and 15 opposing each other to be perpendicular to the optical surfaces 11, 12, and 13 so as to sandwich them.”); and
at least one gate… structure (gates 22 and reference blocks 17 through which molten resin is supplied, see paragraph [0032] are both gate structures) disposed on the at least one connecting surface (there are two blocks 17 one on each of 14 and 15);
However, Tominaga fails to explicitly teach “A plastic light-folding element, comprising:
an incident surface configured to lead an imaging light enter the plastic light-folding element;
an exit surface configured to lead the imaging light exit the plastic light-folding element;
at least one reflective surface configured to fold the imaging light;
at least one connecting surface connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface…
wherein at least one of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises an optical portion and an arc step structure, the arc step structure is disposed on a periphery of the optical portion, and an arc is formed by the arc step structure centered on the optical portion, and at least one arc is formed by the arc step structure;
wherein a step height of the arc step structure is h, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.003 mm < h ≤ 0.17 mm.”
Chou teaches “A plastic light-folding element (paragraph [0086]: “According to FIG. 8, the structure of the optical path folding element 8000 of the 8th example is approximately the same with the 4th example.” See optical path folding element 4000, paragraph [0036]: “the optical path folding element can be made of a plastic material”), comprising:
an incident surface (incident surface 8100, 4100) configured to let an imaging light enter the plastic light-folding element (see imaging lens module 300 of Fig. 8, [paragraph [0086]: “According to FIG. 8, the structure of the optical path folding element 8000 of the 8th example is approximately the same with the 4th example.”);
an exit surface (exiting surface 8300, 4300) configured to let the imaging light exit the plastic light-folding element (see Figs. 4B and 8);
at least one reflective surface (path folding surface 8200, 4200) configured to fold the imaging light (see light path reflected from 8200 in Fig. 8);
at least one connecting surface (see connecting side surface in Fig. 4A, that is not one of 4100, 4200 or 4300) connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface (see Fig. 4A); and …
wherein at least one of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises an optical portion (the exit surface has optical effective surface 8400, 4400) and an arc step structure (8501, 8502, 4501 and 4502 that are stepped down from 8400, 8400 and are arc shaped in that they form a complete circle see also paragraph [0086]: “The engaging structure 8500 includes an annular surface portion 8501 and a conical surface 8502.”, which is considered to be an arc, see instant application paragraph [0045] “The arc step structure can be an entire circle or include a plurality of arcs.”), the arc step structure is disposed on a periphery of the optical portion (see Fig. 4A and 8), and at least one arc is formed by the arc step structure (a full circle is formed by 4501/4502, 8501 is annular, and described as approximately the same as that of 4000);
wherein a step height of the arc step structure is h (h can be calculated from L2 and θ2 in Fig. 8. L2 is not the vertical height, but rather the height at an angle θ2, thus the vertical height would be h=sin(180-θ2)xL2.), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.003 mm < h ≤ 0.17 mm (paragraph [0041]: “when a width of the conical surface is L2, the following condition is satisfied: 0.07 mm<L2<0.35 mm.” paragraph [0089]: “In particular, an angle θ2 between the annular surface portion 8501 and the conical surface 8502 is 105 degrees, and a width L2 of the conical surface 8502 is 0.11 mm.” thus L2=0.11 mm for a vertical height h=sin(180-θ2)xL2=sin(75)x0.11=0.106 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Chou further teaches (paragraphs [0003]-[0004]): “Due to the popularity of personal electronic products and mobile communication products having camera functionalities, such as smart phones and tablet personal computers, the demand for compact imaging lens modules has been increasing. However, conventional telephoto lens assembly is limited by surface shapes or materials of lens elements so that the volume cannot be reduced easily… One of current solutions is favorable to utilize an optical path folding element, such as a prism, to fold and tilt an incident light ray for reducing the volume of the mechanism and an attenuation amount of the light ray efficiently.”(paragraph [0042]): “the imaging lens module can be applied to 3D (three-dimensional) image capturing applications, in products such as digital cameras, mobile devices, digital tablets, smart TVs, surveillance systems, motion sensing input devices, driving recording systems, rearview camera systems, and wearable devices.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first, second and third surfaces of the optical element of Tominaga as the incident surface, exit surface and reflective surface of a prism within an imaging lens module as taught by Chou for the purpose of reducing the volume of the imaging lens module in order to incorporate it into products such as digital cameras, mobile devices, digital tablets, smart TVs, surveillance systems, motion sensing input devices, driving recording systems, rearview camera systems, and wearable devices as taught by Chou (paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0042]).
Chou further teaches (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]): “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the engaging structure can include an annular surface portion and an inclined surface portion…. Thus, the engagement effect of the engaging structure and the alignment effect of the optical path folding element can be improved… there is a step between the annular surface portion and the optical effective portion due to the configuration of the inclined surface portion. Thus, the optical path folding element can be engaged with other elements in the imaging lens module by the step for increasing the stability of the whole structure.”
(paragraph [0089]): “the optical path folding element 8000 leans against two sides of the concave surface of the first lens element 321 by the step, which is between the optical effective 8400 and the annular surface portion 8501, for fixing. In particular, an angle θ2 between the annular surface portion 8501 and the conical surface 8502 is 105 degrees, and a width L2 of the conical surface 8502 is 0.11 mm. Thus, the stability of the whole structure can be improved.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arc step structure of Chou with a height of 0.106 mm which in the claimed range of 0.003 mm to 0.17 mm into the device of the Tominaga – Chou combination for the purpose of proper alignment and increased stability as taught by Chou (paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and [0089]).
However, Tominga is also silent regarding that the gate structure is a gate vestige structure.
Sugihara teaches “A plastic (paragraph [0008] “resin molding”) light-folding element (prism 30 with reflection surface 30b), comprising:
an incident surface (incident surface 30a) configured to lead an imaging light enter the plastic light-folding element (see Fig. 2);
an exit surface (exit surface 30g) configured to lead the imaging light exit the plastic light-folding element (see Fig. 2);
at least one reflective surface (reflection surface 30b) configured to fold the imaging light (see Fig. 2);
at least one connecting surface (30c and 30e) connected to the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface (see Figs. 2 and 7); and
at least one gate vestige structure (paragraph [0048]: “The gate 37 is cut off when removed from the mold after injection molding. The cut surface is rougher than the other surfaces.”) disposed on the at least one connecting surface (see Fig. 7).”
Thus the Tominaga – Chou combination teaches the device of claim 1, except for explicitly removing the gate structure prior to use in an optical system, and thereby leaving behind a gate vestige structure.
Sugihara teaches that the gate should be cut off prior to use of the prism in an optical system.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut off the gate structure of Tominaga, leaving behind a gate vestige structure as taught by Sugihara because Sugihara teaches that the gate is removed prior to use.
Regarding claim 2, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” however, Tominaga fails to teach “wherein each of at least two of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure, each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions, and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions.”
Chou teaches “wherein each of at least two of the incident surface, the exit surface and the at least one reflective surface comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure (paragraph [0035]: “the engaging structure is not limited to be disposed on the incident surface or the exiting surface. That is, the engaging structure can be disposed on both of the two surfaces according to the needs of the following application.”), each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions (see Fig. 4A,4B and 8), and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions (see Figs. 4A and 4B and paragraph [0005]: “At least one of the incident surface and the exiting surface includes an optical effective portion and at least one engaging structure symmetrically disposed around the optical effective portion.” Emphasis added).”
Chou further teaches (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]): “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the engaging structure can include an annular surface portion and an inclined surface portion…. Thus, the engagement effect of the engaging structure and the alignment effect of the optical path folding element can be improved… there is a step between the annular surface portion and the optical effective portion due to the configuration of the inclined surface portion. Thus, the optical path folding element can be engaged with other elements in the imaging lens module by the step for increasing the stability of the whole structure.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arc step structure of Chou into the device of the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination for the purpose of proper alignment and increased stability as taught by Chou (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 4, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein a number of the at least one connecting surface is two (side end faces 14 and 15), both of the two connecting surfaces are connected to the [first] surface, the [second] surface and the at least one [third] surface (see Fig. 1, 14 and 15 are each connected to 11, 12 and 13), and the two connecting surfaces are correspondingly disposed (14 and 15 are correspondingly disposed).”
Although Tominaga does not explicitly teach that the first, second and third optical surfaces are the incident, exit and reflective surfaces, this configuration was rendered obvious in view of Chou as explained in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 4,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein a number of the at least one gate… structure is two (see two structures 17/22 one on each of 14 and 15 in Fig. 1), and the two gate… structures are disposed on the two connecting surfaces, respectively (see Fig. 1).”
Although Tominaga does not explicitly teach that the gate structures are gate vestige structures, this configuration was rendered obvious in view of Sugihara as explained in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 4,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein the two connecting surfaces are essentially parallel to each other (paragraph [0028]: “a pair of side end faces 14 and 15 opposing each other to be perpendicular to the optical surfaces 11, 12, and 13”. Since they are both perpendicular to 11, 12 and 13, they are parallel to each other).”
Regarding claim 7, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein the at least one connecting surface is essentially orthogonal to the [first] surface, the [second] surface and the at least one [third] surface, respectively (paragraph [0028]: “a pair of side end faces 14 and 15 opposing each other to be perpendicular to the optical surfaces 11, 12, and 13”).”
Although Tominaga does not explicitly teach that the first, second and third optical surfaces are the incident, exit and reflective surfaces, this configuration was rendered obvious in view of Chou as explained in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein the optical portion comprises a smooth surface (the first, second and third surfaces of Tominaga are smooth surfaces at least in that no gates are formed thereon.).”
Regarding claim 15, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein the at least one gate… structure comprises an arc rim (see the three arc-shaped rims of end face 16 disposed across from the vertices of the triangular side end faces 14 and 15) extending from a center of the at least one gate… structure towards an outer side of the at least one gate… structure (these three arc-shaped rims are at the other extent of the gate structure as it interfaces with surfaces 14 and 15).”
Although Tominaga does not explicitly teach that the gate structures are gate vestige structures, this configuration was rendered obvious in view of Sugihara as explained in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, the Tominaga combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” however, Tominaga is silent regarding “wherein the step height of the arc step structure is h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.005 mm < h < 0.07 mm”
Chou teaches “wherein a step height of the arc step structure is h (h can be calculated from L2 and θ2 in Fig. 8. L2 is not the vertical height, but rather the height at an angle θ2, thus the vertical height would be h=sin(180-θ2)xL2.), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.005 mm ≤ h …(paragraph [0041]: “when a width of the conical surface is L2, the following condition is satisfied: 0.07 mm<L2<0.35 mm.” paragraph [0089]: “In particular, an angle θ2 between the annular surface portion 8501 and the conical surface 8502 is 105 degrees, and a width L2 of the conical surface 8502 is 0.11 mm.” thus L2=0.11 mm for a vertical height h=sin(180-θ2)xL2=sin(75)x0.11=0.106 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Chou further teaches (paragraph [0041]) “when a width of the conical surface is L2, the following condition is satisfied: 0.07 mm<L2<0.35 mm.” and (claim 16): “wherein the angle between the annular surface portion and the conical surface is θ2, and the following condition is satisfied: 100 degrees<θ2<120 degrees.”
Taken together these ranges on L2 and θ2 correspond to a broadest range of h between 0.07xsin(60°)=0.06 mm to 0.35xsin(80°)=0.34 mm, which has an overlapping portion of 0.06 mm to 0.07 mm, that constitutes 15.4% of the claimed range.
Chou further teaches (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]): “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the engaging structure can include an annular surface portion and an inclined surface portion…. Thus, the engagement effect of the engaging structure and the alignment effect of the optical path folding element can be improved… there is a step between the annular surface portion and the optical effective portion due to the configuration of the inclined surface portion. Thus, the optical path folding element can be engaged with other elements in the imaging lens module by the step for increasing the stability of the whole structure.”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose L2 and θ2 such that 0.005 mm ≤ h ≤ 0.07 mm, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.06 mm < h < 0.34 mm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, L2 and θ2 are art recognized results effective variables in that appropriate choices thereof improve alignment and structural stability as taught by Chou paragraphs [0033]-[0035]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize L2 and θ2 because they are art-recognized result-effective variables and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Chou teaches that the stability of the engagement between the optical path folding element and other elements of the imaging lens module can be enhanced while compact size of the optical path folding element is maintained when 0.07 mm<L2<0.35 mm, and an ordinary skilled artisan would know that using the minimum value of L2 will avoid any unnecessary increase in size.
Regarding claim 17, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “the plastic light-folding element of claim 1” however, Tominaga fails to teach “An imaging lens assembly module, comprising:…
an imaging lens element set, wherein the plastic light-folding element is disposed on one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens element set.”
Chou teaches “An imaging lens assembly module (Fig. 8 imaging lens module 300), comprising:
the plastic light-folding element (optical folding element 8000, paragraph [0086]: “the optical path folding element 8000 of the 8th example is approximately the same with the 4th example”, see claim 1 above)… and
an imaging lens element set (lens elements 321, 322, 323 and 324), wherein the plastic light-folding element is disposed on one of an object side and an image side of the imaging lens element set (8000 is disposed on the object side of lens elements 321, 322, 323 and 324).”
Chou further teaches (paragraph [0087]): “the folded light ray departs from the optical path folding element 8000 through the exiting surface 8300 and then enters into the optical lens assembly 320. Finally, the light ray departs from the optical lens assembly 320 to image on the image surface P..”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plastic light-folding element of the Tominaga combination into a camera with lenses disposed on the image side of the light-folding element as taught by Chou for the purpose of imaging the incident light onto the image surface of the imaging lens module 300 as taught by Chou paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 18, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “the imaging lens assembly module of claim 17”, however, Tominaga fails to teach “An electronic device, comprising:… an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly module.”
Chou teaches “An electronic device (paragraph [0003] “personal electronic products and mobile communication products having camera functionalities, such as smart phones and tablet personal computers” paragraph [0095] “Please refer to FIG. 10, which is a schematic view of an electronic device 10 according to a 10th example of the present disclosure. The electronic device 10 of the 10th embodiment is a smart phone and includes an imaging lens module 500. The imaging lens module 500 can be the abovementioned imaging lens module according to any of the 6th example, the 7th example, the 8th example and the 9th example.”), comprising:
the imaging lens assembly module of claim 18 (see claim 18 above); and
an image sensor (paragraph [0095]: “an image sensor (not shown herein)”) disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly module (image surface P, paragraph [0095]: “the image sensor is disposed on an image surface (not shown herein) of the imaging lens module 500.”).”
Chou further teaches (paragraph [0095]): “The imaging lens module 500 includes an optical path folding element (not shown herein) according to the present disclosure. Therefore, it is favorable for enhancing the image quality so as to satisfy the requirements of high-end optical systems with camera functionalities. Furthermore, the electronic device 10 can further include an image sensor (not shown herein), in which the image sensor is disposed on an image surface (not shown herein) of the imaging lens module 500. Preferably, the electronic device 10 can further include but not limited to a display, a control unit, a storage unit, a random access memory unit (RAM), a read-only memory unit (ROM) or a combination thereof.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a photosensor as taught by Chou and incorporate the camera of the Tominaga combination into an electronic device as taught by Chou because Chou teaches that the imaging module including the object-side optical path folding element is favorable for enhancing the image quality so as to satisfy the requirements of high-end optical systems with camera functionalities (Chou paragraph [0095]) and the image sensor enables the camera to convert the image into an electronical signal that can be displayed on the display and stored in memory (see Chou paragraph [0095]).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga US 2002/0030900 A1 (hereafter Tominaga) in view of Chou US 2018/0059379 A1 (hereafter Chou) and Sugihara et al. US 2015/0260988 A1 (hereafter Sugihara) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tohara et al. US 2020/0158953 A1 (hereafter Tohara).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” and Tominaga further teaches “wherein an area of the at least one gate vestige structure on the at least one connecting surface is Ag (the area of the region on 14 or 15 on which 17 resides), a total area of the at least one connecting surface is At (the total area of 14 or 15).”
However, Tominaga fails to explicitly teach (claim 3) “and the following condition is satisfied: 33% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 90%” or claim 10 “and the following condition is satisfied: 35% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 80%.” In Fig. 1, block 17 appears to take up about 25% of the area of each side surface 14 and 15.
Tohara teaches (paragraph [0038]): “As a method of reducing birefringence near the forming gate, a method of increasing a cross-sectional area of the forming gate is considered.”
Thus the Tominaga combination discloses the claimed invention except for the relative areas of the gate vestige structure and side surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the area of the gate structure such that 33% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 90%, or 35% ≤ Ag/At ≤ 80% 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the area of the gate structure is an art recognized results effective variable in that increasing the area of the gate can reduce birefringence as taught by Tohara (paragraph [0038]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Ag/At because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Tominaga discloses a gate structure that occupies a large proportion of the area of the side surface, and Tohara teaches that increasing the area of the gate can improve optical performance by reducing birefringence.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga US 2002/0030900 A1 (hereafter Tominaga) in view of Chou US 2018/0059379 A1 (hereafter Chou) and Sugihara et al. US 2015/0260988 A1 (hereafter Sugihara) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konno et al. US 2007/0024739 (hereafter Konno).
Regarding claim 9, the Tominaga combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” however, Tominaga is silent regarding “wherein the optical portion comprises an optical aspheric surface located on a center of the optical portion.”
Konno teaches a plastic light-folding element (paragraph [0088] “a plastic material or a glass material as the material of the incidence-side prism 101 according to the required accuracy.”). Konno further teaches (first embodiment Fig. 15 image pickup optical system 51A) “wherein the optical portion comprises an optical aspheric surface located on a center of the optical portion (see example 1 Table 3, the incident and exit surfaces r1 and r4 of the incidence-side prism are both aspheric, see paragraph [0159]: “wherein a mark of * attached to the numbers ri indicates aspherical surfaces” and Aspheric coefficients thereof in Table 4).”
Konno further teaches (paragraph [0070]): “may be a spherical surface, but it is preferably an aspherical surface. By forming… an aspherical surface, it is possible to increase the degree of flexibility in the optical design, which enables compacting the image pickup optical system and also enables sufficient correction of astigmatisms and distortion aberrations.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical portions of the incidence and exit surfaces of the light-folding element to be aspheric as taught by Konno for the purpose of enabling compacting the image pickup optical system and sufficient correction of astigmatisms and distortion aberrations as taught by Konno (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, the Tominaga combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” however, Tominaga is silent regarding “wherein an abbe number of the plastic light-folding element is V, and the following condition is satisfied: 40 ≤ V ≤ 72.”
Konno teaches (first embodiment Fig. 15 image pickup optical system 51A) “wherein an abbe number of the plastic light-folding element is V, and the following condition is satisfied: 40 ≤ V ≤ 72 (Table 3 ABBE of surfaces r1-r3 is 55.72 which is in the claimed range).”
Konno further teaches many of the considerations present when choosing an appropriate plastic material for the prism see paragraphs [0087]-[0094].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
The Tominaga combination differs from claim 11, by the choice of the plastic material being one with 40 ≤ V ≤ 72. Konno teaches a prism material with V=55.72 is an appropriate choice when the considerations of paragraphs [0087]-[0097] are taken into account.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a material of the prism with 40 ≤ V ≤ 72 as taught by Konno since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga US 2002/0030900 A1 (hereafter Tominaga) in view of Chou US 2018/0059379 A1 (hereafter Chou) and Sugihara et al. US 2015/0260988 A1 (hereafter Sugihara) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. US 2022/0294945 A1 (hereafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 12, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 1,” however, Tominaga fails to teach “wherein a number of the at least one reflective surface is two, and both of the two reflective surfaces are configured to fold the imaging light.”
Zhao teaches (Figs. 18 and 19) “wherein a number of the at least one reflective surface is two (two second reflective surfaces 39a, 39b), and both of the two reflective surfaces are configured to fold the imaging light (see Figs. 18 and 19 and paragraph [0113]: “The two second reflective surfaces 39a, 39b can respectively turn the incident imageable light beam (the light beam from an optical lens 20) into the lateral turning A and the lateral turning B”).”
Zhao further teaches (paragraph [0113]): “In this way, the length of the periscopic camera module can be reduced, thereby making the structure of the camera module more compact.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second reflective surface as taught by Zhao in the light-folding element of the Tominaga combination for the purpose of turning the light twice such that the length of the periscopic camera module can be reduced, thereby making the structure of the camera module more compact as taught by Zhao (paragraph [0113]).
Furthermore, note that Zhao also teaches a second reflective element 30 that is a triangular prism with one reflective surface (see Fig. 10).
The Tominaga combination discloses the claimed invention except that a prism with one reflective surface is used instead of a prism with two reflective surfaces. Zhao shows that these two reflective elements are equivalent structures in the art. Therefore, because these two light-folding prisms were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a prism with two reflective surfaces for a prism with one reflecting surface, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 13, the Tominaga – Chou – Sugihara – Zhao combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 12,” however, Tominaga fails to teach “wherein the two reflective surfaces are essentially orthogonal to each other.”
Zhao (Figs. 18-19) teaches “wherein the two reflective surfaces are essentially orthogonal to each other (see Figs. 18-19 and paragraph [0113]: “two mutually perpendicular side surfaces serve as the two second reflective surfaces 39a and 39b”).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two reflective surfaces be orthogonal to one another as taught by Zhao, for the purpose of turning the light path 180° back on itself to compact the length of the optical system as taught by Zhao paragraph [0113].
Regarding claim 14, the Tominaga – Chou -Sugihara – Zhao combination teaches “The plastic light-folding element of claim 12,” and as introduced for claim 1 above, Chou further teaches “wherein each of the incident surface, the exit surface… comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure (paragraph [0035]: “the engaging structure is not limited to be disposed on the incident surface or the exiting surface. That is, the engaging structure can be disposed on both of the two surfaces according to the needs of the following application.”), each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions (see Fig. 4A,4B and 8), and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions (see Figs. 4A and 4B and paragraph [0005]: “At least one of the incident surface and the exiting surface includes an optical effective portion and at least one engaging structure symmetrically disposed around the optical effective portion.” Emphasis added).”
However, the Tominaga combination fails to teach “wherein… the two reflective surfaces comprises the optical portion and the arc step structure, each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions, and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions.”
Zhao teaches (Fig. 14) a light-folding element (paragraph [0097]: “the second reflective element 30 adopts a special-shaped prism”), wherein… the two reflective surface (second reflective surface 32 and 35) comprises the optical portion (paragraph [0088]: “the central region of the surface of the reflective element can form a light-passing hole”) and the arc step structure (light-blocking structures 51 and 52 which are step structures in that they may have a thickness or be embedded in an annular groove see paragraph [0032], and which are arc structures, see circular or oval shapes on surfaces 33 and 32), each of the arc step structures is disposed on the periphery of each of the optical portions (see Fig. 14), and the arc is formed by each of the arc step structures centered on each of the optical portions (see Fig. 14).”
Zhao further teaches (paragraph [0091]): “the light-blocking structure is provided at an edge region of the at least one optical surface, that is, to a certain extent, the stray light caused by the turning of the optical path is suppressed, thereby improving the imaging quality and reducing the volume of the module.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally include an arc step structure on the reflective surfaces as taught by Zhao in the light-folding element of the Tominaga combination for the purpose of suppressing stray light and thereby improving the imaging quality and reducing the volume of the module as taught by Zhao (paragraph [0091]).
It should be noted that Zhao Fig. 14 teaches that the step structure on reflective surface 35 is rectangular, not arc shaped. However, in Fig. 13 there is an oval shaped light-blocking structure on reflective surface 31 which is the first reflective surface within prism 30, and in Fig. 14 there is an oval shaped light-blocking structure on reflective surface 32 which is the second reflective surface within prism 30.
Zhao further teaches (paragraph [0093]): a clear aperture of the lens of the optical lens is usually circular, or is cut from a circle (after cutting, at least a part of an outline of the clear aperture of the lens is in an arc shape). Therefore, arranging a light-shielding structure having a circular or oval light-passing hole at a front or rear of the optical lens is conductive to matching with the optical lens and avoids the problem of uneven light receiving amount between the edge region and the central region of the captured image; in addition, because an imaging shape of the optical lens is roughly circular, the shape of the light-passing hole matches the imaging shape, so that the imaging light can pass through the reflective element, while some stray light (such as stray light formed by light reflected by the internal structure of the camera module) is blocked by the light-blocking structure outside the light-passing hole, so as to prevent these stray light from affecting the imaging quality.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light-blocking structures on two reflective surfaces of the light-folding element in oval or circular shapes so as to correspond to the shape of the lens to avoid the problem of uneven light receiving amount between the edge region and the central region of the captured image and to prevent stray light from affecting the imaging quality as taught by Zhao (paragraph [0093]).
Note that neither claim 1, nor claim 14 recite that each of the arc step structures have a step height h, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.003 mm < h ≤ 0.17 mm. Thus claim 14 is interpreted as requiring the presence of arc step structures on the reflective surfaces, but not that those particular arc step structures meet the claimed range of heights.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached on 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights