Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 2/20/2026 in which no claims have been amended. Currently claims 1-29 are pending for examination in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a first mounting element (interpreted as a screw connection, a clamping connection, a snap-fit connection or the like [00113])
-a second mounting element (element 43 in figure 9)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5- 7, 9, 13-20, 24, 25, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2).
Regarding claim 1,
Leuschner discloses: A display arrangement for a diving apparatus (figures 8a-9a), the display arrangement comprising:
a first communication partner device (400, first data communications system; see figure 9a) having a first mounting element (where 400 mounts to 200; [0058]) to be mounted at a first position of the diving apparatus (at 252):
a second communication partner device (250, second data communications system; see figure 8a) configured as a head-up display for visually displaying data to a user (figure 8a) (using 293a-d 294a-c; [0059], figure 8b; as set forth in [0067] the light guides project data/information onto a surface such as the lens 50) and having a second mounting element (figure 8b, where 294a’-c’ and 293a’-c’ are mounted) to be mounted at a second position of the diving apparatus so that the head-up display is in a field of view of the user (see figure 8B; on lens 50 as set forth in [0067]);
a wireless communication link configured for transmitting the data via a light [0056]-[0057] signal indicative of the data from the first communication partner device to the second communication partner device [0062]-[0067]. (1) The examiner notes that “wireless communication” is the transfer of information between two or more points that do not use an electrical conductor as a medium for the transfer. The light guides or tubes are made from a material such as polycarbonate [0060], and the tubes transfer light, not electricity and thus the communication link is wireless.
(2) If the optical light guides or tubes are for some reason not considered wireless, as shown in fig. 8a, it appears there is a gap between the light emitter on 400 to the light guides or tubes. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a gap between the light emitter on 400 to the light guides or tubes since it is reasonably taught based off the drawings.
Leuschner does not explicitly disclose the first communication partner is configured for visually displaying data via a light signal indicative of the data.
However, Parker teaches it is known wherein a first communication partner device (10, similar to 400 of Leuschner) is configured for visually displaying data (via 24) for a diving apparatus (col. 4, lines 29-32) via a light signal indicative of the data (col. 4, lines 45-48).
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Leuschner wherein the first communication partner is configured for visually displaying data via a light signal indicative of the data as taught by Parker for the benefit of providing information to the user at a different distance than the information presented to the user at the second head up display, and for the added benefit of redundant displays in case one of the displays fails to work correctly.
(3) In the alternative to the rejections (1) and (2) set forth above, if Leuschner does not explicitly disclose the light transmission through the optical light tubes is not considered wireless, Fucile teaches an underwater communication device [0004], and thus is analogous art, wherein the wireless communication link is via light (light emitting diode [0006]) (optical receiver [0006]).
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 modified Leuschner wherein the data transmission is the wireless communication as taught by Fucile for the benefit of not requiring a perfect seal between the ports as set forth in Leuschner [0061] since Fucile is a known method of communicating through water. In summary, the wireless communication of Fucile is replacing the optical light tubes of Leuschner.
Regarding claim 2, Leuschner as modified discloses the device as claimed as set forth for claim 1. Leuschner as modified by Parker further discloses wherein the first communication partner device (Parker: 10) is configured as a further head-up display (Parker: 24) for a diving apparatus (Parker: col. 4, lines 29-32) for visually displaying further data to the user (Parker: col. 4, lines 46-48), wherein a first mounting element (Parker: 20) to be mounted at a first position of the diving apparatus so that the further head-up display is in the field of view of the user (Parker: col. 4, lines 46-48). The examiner notes that “further data” is being interpreted as data that is visually available at a different time than the data in claim 1, or is considered further data as it is data presented in a different location. If applicant intends the “further data” to be different data, the examiner recommends adding this language to the claim. Further, Parker teaches a multitude of data being presented vie the LEDs (col. 6, lines 9-50).
Regarding claim 3, Leuschner as modified discloses the device as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above. Leuschner as modified by Parker discloses a mouthpiece (Parker: 10; similar to 400 of Leuschner) having a first mounting provision (Parker: see figure 1 and 2, 10 includes an element wherein 24 is mounted) at which the first mounting element of the first communication partner device is mounted or mountable (Parker: see figures 1-2)
Regarding claim 5, Parker further discloses wherein the further head-up display (Parker: 24) comprises at least one visible light source (Parker: col. 4, lines 45-61).
Regarding claim 6, Leuschner further discloses wherein the head-up display (figure 8a) (using 293a-d 294a-c; [0059], figure 8b) comprises a 2-d display area (see figure 8b) for visually displaying the data [0059] [0067].
Regarding claim 7, Leuschner further discloses wherein the wireless communication link is configured for transmitting the light signal as infrared light or visible light [0031]. Fucile also discloses wherein the wireless communication link is configured for transmitting the light signal as infrared light or visible light ([0006] 400-700nm which is the visible light bandwidth).
Regarding claims 9, 24 and 25, Fucile further discloses wherein the wireless communication link comprising: a light emitting element (light emitting diode [0006]), the light emitting element is an infrared emitter, configured for emitting the light and being located at the first communication partner device [0006]; and a light sensitive element (optical receiver [0006]), the light sensitive element is an infrared sensor, configured for sensing the emitted light and being located at the head-up display (Leuschner discloses communication from 400 to 200 and as such the receiver would be located at the head up display at 200).
Regarding claim 13, Leuschner further discloses wherein the wireless communication link is unidirectional (col. 3, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 14, Leuschner further discloses wherein at least one of the data and a further data is diving operation relevant data [0062].
Regarding claims 15-17, Leuschner discloses a system for supplying a user with a breathing gas (abstract; [0003]), wherein the system comprises a display arrangement of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Leuschner does not explicitly state that the system is a rebreather (diving or firefighting), however Parker teaches that it is known for underwater divers and firefighters to use rebreathers (col. 1, lines 3-13).
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 modified Leuschner wherein the system for supplying gas to a user is a rebreather such that the user only has to carry two to three lungfuls of breathable gas (col. 1, lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 18, Leuschner discloses the display arrangement of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), but does not explicitly state the diving apparatus is a rebreather.
However Parker teaches that it is known for underwater divers and firefighters to use rebreathers (col. 1, lines 3-13).
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 modified Leuschner wherein the system for supplying gas to a user is a rebreather such that the user only has to carry two to three lungfuls of breathable gas (col. 1, lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 19, Leuschner further discloses wherein the first position of the diving apparatus is on a mouthpiece of a breathing hose of the diving apparatus (at 252 which delivers air and thus is part of a breathing hose). As modified by Parker, on mouthpiece (10).
Regarding claim 20, Parker further discloses wherein the at least one visible light source is at least one light emitting diode (col. 5, line 54-col 6, line 3).
Regarding claims 28-29, Leuschner or Leuschner as modified discloses the device as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above but does not explicitly disclose the diving operation relevant data is rebreather operation relevant data; wherein diving operation relevant data is at least one of the group consisting of data indicative of a status of the rebreather, data indicative of readings of partial oxygen pressure sensors, data indicative of readings of tank pressure sensors, data indicative of readings of a carbon dioxide sensor, data indicative of a status of a breathing gas filter cartridge, and data indicative of a quantity of the transmitted second data.
However, Parker teaches it is known for underwater divers and firefighters to use rebreathers (col. 1, lines 3-13) and teaches a further head-up display (24) which displays further data (col. 3, lines 12-28) being diving operation relevant data (col. 3, lines 12-28), wherein diving operation relevant data is at least one of the group consisting of data indicative of a status of the rebreather, data indicative of readings of partial oxygen pressure sensors (col. 3, lines 12-28), data indicative of readings of tank pressure sensors, data indicative of readings of a carbon dioxide sensor, data indicative of a status of a breathing gas filter cartridge, and data indicative of a quantity of the transmitted second data.
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 modified Leuschner wherein the system for supplying gas to a user is a rebreather such that the user only has to carry two to three lungfuls of breathable gas (col. 1, lines 39-41) and to display diving operation relevant data is rebreather operation relevant data; wherein diving operation relevant data is at least one of the group consisting of data indicative of a status of the rebreather, data indicative of readings of partial oxygen pressure sensors, data indicative of readings of tank pressure sensors, data indicative of readings of a carbon dioxide sensor, data indicative of a status of a breathing gas filter cartridge, and data indicative of a quantity of the transmitted second data as taught by Parker for the benefit of alerting the user when oxygen is outside of a predetermined acceptable range, ensuring their safety.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Brooks (US 4,257,691) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Brooks (US 4,257,691).
Regarding claim 4, Leuschner as modified discloses a user mask and the head-up display is mounted within the mask (see figure 8b of Leuschner) but does not explicitly disclose a second mounting provision at which the second mounting element is mounted or mountable. As set forth above: Leuschner contemplates other displays [0067].
However, Brooks teaches a mask (see figure 1) wherein a heads up display (8, 9) is mounted via a mounting element (6). The display type and connection of the display to the mask is being modified by Brooks.
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified Leuschner to include a second mounting provision/element as taught by Brooks for the benefit of a removable connection (claim 6).
Claim(s) 8 and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Eichin et al. (US 2002/0081991 A1) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Eichin et al. (US 2002/0081991 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Leuschner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1 above. Leuschner does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communication link is configured for transmitting a pulsed light signal, the pulsed light signal having a carrier frequency in a range between 25 kHz and 500 kHz.
However Eichin teaches that it is known wherein the wireless communication link (infrared pulse) is configured for transmitting a pulsed light signal, the pulsed light signal having a carrier frequency in a range between 25 kHz and 500 kHz [0020].
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Leuschner wherein the wireless communication link is configured for transmitting a pulsed light signal, the pulsed light signal having a carrier frequency in a range between 25 kHz and 500 kHz as taught by Eichen for the benefit of saving power and filtering out noise from other light sources.
Claim(s) 10 and 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Koss et al. (Development of a graphical head-up display (HUD) for rebreather diving) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Koss et al. (Development of a graphical head-up display (HUD) for rebreather diving).
Regarding claims 10 and 26, Leuschner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above. Leuschner does not explicitly state, wherein the head-up display comprises a plano- convex lens having a planar surface being exposed to an environment, the environment is water, of the display arrangement and having a convex surface being sealed against the environment.
However Koss teaches that it is known wherein the head-up display comprises a plano- convex lens having a planar surface being exposed to an environment, the environment is water, of the display arrangement and having a convex surface being sealed against the environment (figure 2, page 3, col. 2, paragraph 2). In summary, Koss’s head up display is replacing Leuschner’s head up display.
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Leuschner wherein the head-up display comprises a piano- convex lens having a planar surface being exposed to an environment, the environment is water, of the display arrangement and having a convex surface being sealed against the environment as taught by Koss for the benefit provide good readability on the display and having a planar side in contact with the water side for the benefit of not contributing to the focal length of the lens (figure 2, page 3, col. 2, paragraph 2).
Claims 11-12, and 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Koss et al. (Development of a graphical head-up display (HUD) for rebreather diving) in further view of Beamon, III (US 5,091,719) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Koss et al. (Development of a graphical head-up display (HUD) for rebreather diving) in further view of Beamon, III (US 5,091,719).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 27, Leuschner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 10 above. Leuschner as modified does not explicitly disclose, wherein the head- up display comprises a concave lens arranged in an optical path upstream of the plano-convex lens, wherein the head-up display comprises a reflective member, the reflective member is exactly one reflective member, arranged between the concave lens and the piano-convex lens.
However, Beamon teaches that it is known to utilize a combination of optical elements including lenses, mirrors in order to provide the desired gain and optical path stearing. Beamon discloses a concave lens (16) arranged in an optical path upstream (interpreted as downstream) of the plano-convex lens (14), wherein the head-up display comprises a reflective member (19), the reflective member is exactly one reflective member, arranged between the concave lens and the piano-convex lens (see figure 1) (col. 2, lines 48-58 indicate 14 and 16 can be plano-convex, concave lenses).
The it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified Leuschner wherein the head- up display comprises a concave lens arranged in an optical path upstream of the plano-convex lens, wherein the head-up display comprises a reflective member, the reflective member is exactly one reflective member, arranged between the concave lens and the piano-convex lens for the benefit of providing the desired gain and optical path stearing.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Olstad et al. (US 7,038,639 B1) or alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Leuschner et al. (US 2012/0152253 A1) in further view of Fucile et al. (US 2005/0232638 A1) in view of Parker (US 7,571,726 B2) in view of Olstad et al. (US 7,038,639 B1).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Leuschner as modified discloses the device of claim 6 as set forth above but does not explicitly state the two-dimensional display area is a two-dimensional array of display pixels, the two-dimensional array of display pixels is an OLED array or a liquid crystal display, for visually displaying the data.
However Olstad teaches a head-up display comprises a two- dimensional display area, the two-dimensional display area is a two-dimensional array of display pixels, the two-dimensional array of display pixels is an OLED array or a liquid crystal display, for visually displaying the data (col. 4, lines 34-55).
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 modified Leuschner wherein the two-dimensional display area is a two-dimensional array of display pixels, the two-dimensional array of display pixels is an OLED array or a liquid crystal display, for visually displaying the data as taught by Olstad for the purpose of an alternative known method of displaying data to the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
On 11/03/2025 PTAB provided a definition of a “head-up display”. The definition provided is “the projection of readings from instruments onto a windscreen, enabling an aircraft pilot or car driver to see them without looking down”. In light of this definition applicant no longer has support for the first communication partner device configured as a first head-up display, as required by claim 2. The display at issue is display 47.
The examiner points to [0201] of applicant’s disclosure:
[00201] Figure 9 shows the primary head-up display 47 which is typically located on the mouthpiece 1 and the secondary head-up display 41 which is mounted with support or mounting section 43 on a corresponding mounting provision 72 of a frame 42 of a diving mask. The frame 42 holds a visor 45 of the diving mask.
As per [00161] and [00205], the primary display 47 is mounted at 21 of the mouthpiece:
From [00161]: A support 21 for mounting a primary head-up display 47 (see Figure 9) is part of the left half housing 3 and serves as a mounting provision at which a corresponding mounting element of the head-up display 47 is mountable
[00205] The primary head-up display 47 is hence mounted on top of the mouthpiece 1. It consists of two diodes 49,56, one bicolor emitting red or green diode 56 and another one emitting infrared (diode 49).
Below are figures showing secondary head-up display 41 and the primary head-up display 47 from applicant’s disclosure. As shown in the figures, display 47 is mounted on mouthpiece at 21.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
668
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the applicant’s disclosure and the positioning of display 47, applicant’s display 47 would require the user to look down and therefore cannot be a head-up display as defined by PTAB.
Applicant’s representative asserts that the mounting element 21 is not within the field of view of view of the user but allows the display 47 to be within the field of view of the user without looking down. There is no description of how 47 is attached to 21 such that 47 is within the field of view, but 21 is not.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
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.
Claims 2, 5 and 20 are 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.
Claim 2 requires two head-up displays, however as set forth above, applicant has support for only one head-up display in view of PTAB’s newly established definition of head-up display. PTAB provided a narrow definition which applicant does not have support for (specifically for display 47) and therefore claim 2 now has issues with claim construction, making the claim indefinite.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As set forth above, display 47 no longer meets the definition of a head-up display and thus should not be labeled a head-up display in applicant’s disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been considered. The examiner notes that the action is a Non-final rejection upon finding [0067] in Leuschner.
(1) Applicant’s representative asserts that the mounting element 21 is not within the field of view of view of the user but allows the display 47 to be within the field of view of the user without looking down. As set forth above, there is no description of how his is accomplished in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. According to [0161] of applicant’s disclosure: A support 21 for mounting a primary head-up display 47 (see Figure 9) is part of the left half housing 3 and serves as a mounting provision at which a corresponding mounting element of the head-up display 47 is mountable. [00113]: (for instance, the mounting may involve forming a screw connection, a clamping connection, a snap-fit connection or the like between the mounting provision and the mounting element). There is no description of how 47 is attached to 21 such that 47 is within the field of view, but 21 is not. Further, the examiner notes that applicant agrees that 21 is out of the field of view of the user (see paragraph 1 on page 8 and paragraph 1 on page 9). Applicant states that figures 12-19 show a head-up display connection 180 which positions LED 56 to be in the field of view of the user. However, according to applicant’s disclosure [00113], the corresponding mounting element of the head-up display 47 is a screw connection, a clamping connection, a snap-fit connection or the like between the mounting provision and the mounting element (not a head up display connection 180 as shown in figures 12-14). How does 180 position and hold head-up display 47 at the lens as applicant asserts? In fact, in figures 12-14, 180 appears to be extending to the side and down making it even more unclear as to how 180 is allegedly positioning LED 56.
(2) Applicant’s representative asserts that the examiner failed to consider the written description of [0029] [00113] [00135] and [00199]. As set forth above, the examiner has taken into account the entire disclosure. Field of view is defined as the angular extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment. It is the examiner’s position that 47 can always be in a field of view (that view being the user looking down).
(3) Applicant’s representative asserts that the examiner failed to consider that claim 2 is an originally filed claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While claim 2 is original, in the decision of 11/03/2025, PTAB provided a definition for “head up display” being “the projection of readings from instruments onto a windscreen enabling an aircraft pilot or car driver to see them without looking down”. The examiner first notes that there is no support for 47 projecting on to a screen. Second, it appears “looking down” is defined as being done with the user’s eyes. Applicant’s representative asserts that the user can see display 47 through lens 45. Based on the applicant’s disclosure and the positioning of display 47, applicant’s display 47 would require the user to look down and therefore cannot be a head-up display as defined by PTAB. PTAB provided a narrow definition which applicant does not have support for (specifically for display 47) and therefore claim 2 now has issues with claim construction, making the claim indefinite. The examiner maintains the 112(a) rejections and thus maintains the 112(b) rejections as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights