Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form together with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to the applicant’s arguments
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The applicant argues that no reference in the prior art discloses or suggested the claimed reflection surface is shaped such that the light rays of the real image intersect in the vehicle height direction and do not intersect in the vehicle width direction. This is identified by the applicant as the north south direction shown as element W in FIG. 3.
The applicant also argues that no reference in the prior art discloses or suggests a surface of the outer wall where the slit is formed is an upper surface of the instrument panel and the vehicle has a reflector above the upper surface. This is identified as the reflector being outside of the housing to reflect the light to the eye of the user. See paragraph 34.
Fjukikawa teaches “...the slit extends along a vehicle width direction, and (see Fig. 1 where there is a slit for the image to be provided to the aperture that extends along the width of the vehicle)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the reflection surface is shaped such that the light rays of the real image intersect in a vehicle height direction and do not intersect in the vehicle width direction, wherein (see reflector 30 where it receives the light from element 10 but does not intersect the width and instead is reflected downward to element 41 and then to windshield element 90 and then to the image 70). As seen this light does not intersect with the vehicle width direction and is moved down from element 30 and then to element 41 and then to element 90. Applicant’s arguments are not understood. The hole or slit for the light to move out is tilted and does not intersect with the width axis of the vehicle and instead moves away from it. This is not an intersection with the width direction. Also functionally, there is no different in intersecting the width direction or not intersecting the width direction and this is all really functionally the same.
a surface of the outer wall where the slit is formed constitutes an upper surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, and (see Fig 1 where the slit is formed in the instrument panel of the vehicle)
the reflector is disposed above the upper surface”.. (see reflector element 41 and 90 being above the upper surface of the instrument panel in Fig .2 and see paragraph 43 and see FIG. 1 where it is below the panel and FIG. 2 where it is above the instrument panel and in paragraph 68 can be attached to the windshield or in a passenger compartment ) Moving this reflector above or in or below the instrument panel all is functionally the same relative to the image being directed to the eye and this is functionally the same.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the disclosure of Lapstun with the combination of FUJIKAWA with a reasonable expectation of success since FUJIKAWA teaches that a reflection surface 41 can be curved and concaved and recessed in a direction away from the image surface 31 and the projection surface. This can provide a concaved and magnified image on the windshield from the slit in the dashboard. See paragraph 43.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20180084245A1 to Paul Lapstun that was filed on 11-18-2017 (hereinafter “Lapstun”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub., No.: US 20130021224 A1 to Fujiwala filed in 2011.
PNG
media_image2.png
512
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayamatsu discloses “...1. A vehicle display device comprising: (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13)
a housing mounted in a vehicle and having a light- shielding outer wall that forms an accommodation space, a slit being formed in the outer wall; (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13)
a three-dimensional display surface disposed in the accommodation space and on which a real image is formed by display light; (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13)
a projector disposed in the housing and configured to project the display light onto the display surface; and (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13 and the device has as projector on the dash for providing an image to the 11, 12, 13 surfaces and then to the user’s eye)
a reflector disposed outside the housing and having a reflection surface configured to reflect the real image toward an eyepoint in the vehicle, wherein.... such that light rays of the real image intersect in an optical path extending from the display surface to the reflection surface through the slit”. (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13 and the device has as projector on the dash for providing an image to the 11, 12, 13 surfaces and then to the user’s eye)
The primary reference is silent as to but the 194 publication to Evert teaches “...a shape of the reflection surface is a recessed shape.” (See col. 3, lines 1-14 and col. 1, line 45 to Col. 2, line 15 where the projection wafer surface can be non standard and have a recessed shape to it)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of the 194 publication with the disclosure of Hayamatsu since the 194 publication teaches that a non standard substrate can be used for projection purposes. This can include a recessed shaped substrate for projection. The substrate can be polished for receiving the patterned image. See paragraph 1-10 of the 194 publication.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Lapstun teaches “...wherein the slit is narrower at an outside of the housing than at an inside of the housing”. (see paragraph 826-829 and where the opening can correspond to an index matching liquid crystal that can be sandwiched between electrodes 832 and where the shutter can open or close to in the inactive state can provided to move through at FIG. 47b and to the opposite direction of the ray 642 in FIG. 47c. and in FIG. 47a to 47c where a second grating 630 may be transmissive or reflective. A transmissive grating has a relatively wide spectral bandwidth but a relatively narrow angular bandwidth, while a reflective grating has a relatively wide angular bandwidth but a relatively narrow spectral bandwidth to allow more light or less light)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the disclosure of Lapstun since Lapstun teaches that an opening can be covered with a grating that can provide a wide angular bandwidth or a narrow bandwidth to allow in more or less light and also a shutter can control the size of the opening as desired. See abstract. The waveguide configured to transmit the set of beams along its length via internal reflection, each shutter operable to be switched between a closed state and an open state, the closed state of the shutter configured to prevent the beams from escaping the waveguide, the open state of the shutter configured to allow the beams to escape the waveguide, the module operable to generate, over time, the set of beams from a different one of the set of view images, and to open, over time, a different subset of the set of shutters, thereby to allow the set of beams escaping from the subset to correspond to a different one of the set of view images. See abstract.
PNG
media_image3.png
652
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Fjukikawa teaches “...the slit extends along a vehicle width direction, and (see Fig. 1 where there is a slit for the image to be provided to the aperture that extends along the width of the vehicle)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the reflection surface is shaped such that the light rays of the real image intersect in a vehicle height direction and do not intersect in the vehicle width direction, wherein (see reflector 30 where it receives the light from element 10 but does not intersect the width and instead is reflected downward to element 41 and then to windshield element 90 and then to the image 70)
a surface of the outer wall where the slit is formed constitutes an upper surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, and (see Fig 1 where the slit is formed in the instrument panel of the vehicle)
the reflector is disposed above the upper surface”.. (see reflector element 41 and 90 being above the upper surface of the instrument panel in Fig .2 and see paragraph 43 and see FIG. 1 where it is below the panel and FIG. 2 where it is above the instrument panel and in paragraph 68 can be attached to the windshield or in a passenger compartment )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the disclosure of Lapstun with the combination of FUJIKAWA with a reasonable expectation of success since FUJIKAWA teaches that a reflection surface 41 can be curved and concaved and recessed in a direction away from the image surface 31 and the projection surface. This can provide a concaved and magnified image on the windshield from the slit in the dashboard. See paragraph 43.
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in view of Lapstun and Fujikawa.
Haymatsu discloses “...5. The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the reflector has a light shielding property, and is located between a windshield of the vehicle and the slit to shield the slit from external light transmitted through the windshield. (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13 and the device has as projector on the dash for providing an image to the 11, 12, 13 surfaces and then to the user’s eye)
Claim 6-10 are cancelled.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in view of Lapstun and Fujikawa.
Haymatsu discloses “...11. The vehicle display device according to claim 5, wherein
a surface of the outer wall where the slit is formed constitutes an upper surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, and
the reflector is disposed above the upper surface. (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto the member (11, 12, 13 where there is a slot for the member 12 to fit inside) that is translucent 13 that includes a laminated glass 11 and a lcd 12 and a translucent reflective member 13 and the device has as projector on the dash for providing an image to the 11, 12, 13 surfaces and then to the user’s eye)”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in further in view of U.S. Patent No.: US8606430B2 to Seder and in view of Lapstun and Fujikawa.
Seder teaches “...12. The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the projector generates an image representing a traveling speed of the vehicle, and
the reflector reflects the image representing the traveling speed toward the eyepoint”. (see col. 8, lines 5-55 where the projection can indicate a vehicle status parameter and displayed on the windows; see claims 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SEDER of GM™ with the disclosure of Hayamatsu since SEDER teaches that a projector can project vehicle status information on the windows such as vehicle, speed, fuel information and gauges. This can provide an improved display for receiver alerts on the windows. See Seder at paragraph 1-14 and claims 1-11.
Claim 13-14 are cancelled.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in further in view of U.S. Patent No.: US8606430B2 to Seder and in view of Lapstun and Fujikawa.
Seder teaches “...15. The vehicle display device according to claim 5, wherein
the projector generates an image representing a traveling speed of the vehicle, and
the reflector reflects the image representing the traveling speed toward the eyepoint. ”. (see col. 8, lines 5-55 where the projection can indicate a vehicle status parameter and displayed on the windows; see claims 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SEDER of GM™ with the disclosure of Hayamatsu since SEDER teaches that a projector can project vehicle status information on the windows such as vehicle, speed, fuel information and gauges. This can provide an improved display for receiver alerts on the windows. See Seder at paragraph 1-14 and claims 1-11.
Claim 16 is cancelled.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in further in view of U.S. Patent No.: US8606430B2 to Seder and in view of Lapstun and in view of Fujikawa.
Seder teaches “..17. The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the display surface is a screen. (see abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SEDER of GM™ with the disclosure of Hayamatsu since SEDER teaches that a projector can project vehicle status information on the windows such as vehicle, speed, fuel information and gauges. This can provide an improved display for receiver alerts on the windows. See Seder at paragraph 1-14 and claims 1-11.
Claims 18-19 are cancelled.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: 2002-104017 A to Hayamatsu that was filed in 9-4-2002 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP4459194B2 filed in 2005 (US Patent No.: US7408624B2) to Evert and in further in view of U.S. Patent No.: US8606430B2 to Seder and in view of Lapstun and Fujikawa.
Seder teaches “...20. The vehicle display device according to claim 5, wherein the display surface is a screen(see abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SEDER of GM™ with the disclosure of Hayamatsu since SEDER teaches that a projector can project vehicle status information on the windows such as vehicle, speed, fuel information and gauges. This can provide an improved display for receiver alerts on the windows. See Seder at paragraph 1-14 and claims 1-11.
Alternatively, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Chinese Patent Pub. CN 109073892A to Nambara that was filed on 4-28-2006 and in view of Lapstun and Fukikawa.
NAMBARA et al. discloses “...1. A vehicle display device comprising: (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided on a head’s up display or dash and then it projects an image onto element 2d and then to the dash 40 member)
a housing mounted in a vehicle and having a light- shielding outer wall that forms an accommodation space, a slit being formed in the outer wall; (see FIG. 1 where there is a projector and a member 30 and 2d and to the element 40 )
a three-dimensional display surface disposed in the accommodation space and on which a real image is formed by display light; (see FIG. 1 where the image is on element 40 and see abstract)
a projector disposed in the housing and configured to project the display light onto the display surface; and (see FIG. 1 where the projector is provided as element 10, 10a and to the element 30 and 2d to the screen 40)
a reflector disposed outside the housing and having a reflection surface configured to reflect the real image toward an eyepoint in the vehicle, wherein.... such that light rays of the real image intersect in an optical path extending from the display surface to the reflection surface through the slit”. (see FIG. 1-4 and the abstract and combiner 40 and guide mirror and the light guide 32 that provide the image to the user for the heads up display via an opening in the housing)
“...a shape of the reflection surface is a recessed shape.” (See abstract and FIG. 1 where the reflection surface is curved and has a convex shape)”.
Lapstun teaches “...wherein the slit is narrower at an outside of the housing than at an inside of the housing”. (see paragraph 826-829 and where the opening can correspond to an index matching liquid crystal that can be sandwiched between electrodes 832 and where the shutter can open or close to in the inactive state can provided to move through at FIG. 47b and to the opposite direction of the ray 642 in FIG. 47c. and in FIG. 47a to 47c where a second grating 630 may be transmissive or reflective. A transmissive grating has a relatively wide spectral bandwidth but a relatively narrow angular bandwidth, while a reflective grating has a relatively wide angular bandwidth but a relatively narrow spectral bandwidth to allow more light or less light)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the disclosure of Lapstun since Lapstun teaches that an opening can be covered with a grating that can provide a wide angular bandwidth or a narrow bandwidth to allow in more or less light and also a shutter can control the size of the opening as desired. See abstract. The waveguide configured to transmit the set of beams along its length via internal reflection, each shutter operable to be switched between a closed state and an open state, the closed state of the shutter configured to prevent the beams from escaping the waveguide, the open state of the shutter configured to allow the beams to escape the waveguide, the module operable to generate, over time, the set of beams from a different one of the set of view images, and to open, over time, a different subset of the set of shutters, thereby to allow the set of beams escaping from the subset to correspond to a different one of the set of view images. See abstract.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Fjukikawa teaches “...the slit extends along a vehicle width direction, and (see Fig. 1 where there is a slit for the image to be provided to the aperture that extends along the width of the vehicle)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the reflection surface is shaped such that the light rays of the real image intersect in a vehicle height direction and do not intersect in the vehicle width direction, wherein (see reflector 30 where it receives the light from element 10 but does not intersect the width and instead is reflected downward to element 41 and then to windshield element 90 and then to the image 70)
a surface of the outer wall where the slit is formed constitutes an upper surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, and (see Fig 1 where the slit is formed in the instrument panel of the vehicle)
the reflector is disposed above the upper surface”.. (see reflector element 41 and 90 being above the upper surface of the instrument panel in Fig .2 and see paragraph 43 and see FIG. 1 where it is below the panel and FIG. 2 where it is above the instrument panel and in paragraph 68 can be attached to the windshield or in a passenger compartment )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the disclosure of NAMBARA with the combination of FUJIKAWA with a reasonable expectation of success since FUJIKAWA teaches that a reflection surface 41 can be curved and concaved and recessed in a direction away from the image surface 31 and the projection surface. This can provide a concaved and magnified image on the windshield from the slit in the dashboard. See paragraph 43.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668