DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 14 are pending. Claim 1 stands amended. Claims 2-9, 12, and 13 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the present amendment. In particular, Nambara (JP 2015225236 A, of record) is detailed below for its teachings concerning the setting of the blocking axis of the polarization light control unit in accordance with design needs, e.g. disposition of the half wave plate.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2022/0050289 A1)(FIG. 1) in view of Lambert (US 2017/0045659 A1, cited by Applicant, FIG. 1a), as evident by Basic Polarization Techniques and Devices, 2003, pp. 1-6 [online], [retrieved 2024-09-23], (hereinafter “Meadowlark Optics,” of record), and as evident by Michael C. Fink, The Polarization of Light by Reflection, 2008, pp. 1-9 [online], [retrieved 2024-09-21], (hereinafter “Fink,” of record), further in view of Nambara (JP 2015225236 A, of record).
With respect to independent claim 1, Mori discloses an image display system (3 + 4),” (FIG. 1, projection section 4 and image projector 3, ¶¶ [0034], and [0077]), comprising:
(A) an optical laminate (4, projection section) including (a-1) an optical layer (44, half-wave plate) that changes a polarization direction of incident light by 90°” (while Mori does not explicitly teach that its half-wave plate changes polarization direction of incident light by 90°, this is an inherent feature of Mori’s half-wave plate as evidenced by Meadowlark Optics, page 3, lines 20-23), (a-2) at least one transparent resin substrate (431, interlayer film, which may be made of thermoplastic clear polymer, ¶ [0073]), and (a-3) glass plates (41, 42),” (¶¶ [0034], and [0035]);
(B) display-image projection device (3, image projector 3, ¶ [0037]) for emitting S polarized light to the optical laminate (4), (¶¶ [0041], [0042], and [0043]); and
the optical layer (44) is a ½ wavelength plate, (¶ [0034]),
the optical layer (44) and the at least one resin substrate (431) are sandwiched between the glass plates (41, 42) (FIG. 1, and ¶ [0034]).
Mori does not explicitly disclose a polarized-light control unit including (c-1) a P-polarized-light control unit that transmits S polarized light and blocks P polarized light, wherein S polarized light reflected on the optical laminate is incident on the polarized- light control unit, or that the S polarized light contained in light from the outside that is incident on the outer side of the optical laminate is converted to P polarized light by the optical layer, and the polarized light control unit prevents the S polarized light contained in the light from outside from reach an observer of the image display system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heads up display, Lambert discloses an image display system (10), (FIG. 1a, HUD image enhancement lens arrangement, ¶ [0009]), comprising an HUD optics module (12) and a polarized-light control unit (16 + 18) including an S-polarized light control unit (16) that changes the polarization direction of incident light by 90° and blocks S polarized light, (¶¶ [0012], [0013], and [0014]). As would be known by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the polarized sunglasses (18) also inherently absorb light with s-polarization (evidenced by Fink, page 4, last paragraph). It is thus considered that polarization rotation and polarization discrimination in the field of vehicular HUDs is known in the art. Variation of the rotations and filter axes are standard design decisions when routing polarized light. For example, Nambara explicitly shows an analogous image display system (Figs. 12 and 13) and teaches, when implementing the use of such display system including a half wave plate (246) with polarizing sunglasses (270), blocking ambient light whether the light p-polarized or s-polarized (“Further, even when wearing polarized sunglasses that is mounted on the vehicle 1 and generally has a blocking axis fixed in the horizontal direction … Here, in the polarized sunglasses 270 of the second embodiment in which the blocking axis 274d is set according to the retardation value R of the retardation film 246, dazzling outside light such as sunlight reflected on the water surface or snow surface is sufficiently blocked … Further, according to the second embodiment, the blocking shaft 274d is set along the vertical direction. Since dazzling outside light such as reflected sunlight can be sufficiently blocked, the contrast of the virtual image 3 is increased and visibility can be improved … As a modification 8 related to the second embodiment, the blocking shaft 274d may not be set along the vertical direction as long as it is set according to the retardation value R of the retardation film 246.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image display system of Mori with the polarized light control unit Lambert because the combination advantageously causes light from a HUD to be preferentially passed to the driver relative to light from the outside scene as taught by Lambert (¶14), e.g. to have set the blocking axis corresponding the claimed (c-1) configuration in accordance with the teachings of Nambara thus blocking dazzling outside light.
Regarding claim 10, which depends upon claim 1, the modified Mori further discloses wherein the polarized-light control unit is included in eyewear (see Lambert, Fig. 1a, and Nambara, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 14, which depends upon claim 1, Mori further discloses a head-up display system comprising the image display system according to claim 1 (Title, ¶1, Claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2022/0050289 A1)(FIG. 1) in view of Lambert (US 2017/0045659 A1, cited by Applicant, FIG. 1a), as evident by Basic Polarization Techniques and Devices, 2003, pp. 1-6 [online], [retrieved 2024-09-23], (hereinafter “Meadowlark Optics,” of record), and as evident by Michael C. Fink, The Polarization of Light by Reflection, 2008, pp. 1-9 [online], [retrieved 2024-09-21], (hereinafter “Fink,” of record), as applied against independent claim 1, and further in view of JP 2018-095158 A (hereinafter “JP’158,” of record, and a Machine English Translation (MET) obtained from Patent Translate that is also of record1).
Regarding claim 11, which depends upon claim 1, the modified Mori does not explicitly show that the polarized-light control unit is included in a visor in an automobile.
Lambert discloses a polarized-light control unit (16 + 18) including polarized sunglasses (18) and an S-polarized light unit (16) clipped to the polarized sunglasses (18); thus, the polarized-light control unit (16 + 18) is included in eyewear (polarized sunglasses), (¶¶ [0012], [0013], and [014]). Lambert’s FIG. 1a shows the clip on lens (16) and the polarized sunglasses (18) as separate structures, suggesting that the clip on lens (16) and the polarized sunglasses (18) are separate and separable structures.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heads up display, JP’158 discloses an image display system (22 + 28 + 30 + 1), (FIGs. 2(a), 2(b) and 6, and MET ¶¶ [0038], [0039], and [0040]), in which a polarized-light control unit (light control film 101, which includes linear polarizers 2, 3, and phase different film 4, FIG. 6, and MET ¶¶ [0069], and [0074]) is included in a visor (22) in an automobile (20, vehicle such as a car), (FIGs. 2(a) and 6, and MET ¶¶ [0032], [0069], and 0072])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image display system of Mori with the polarized-light control unit that is included in part in eyewear, of Lambert, because the combination advantageously provides at least a portion of the HUD adapted to fit onto a driver’s head when the HUD is installed in the dashboard of a vehicle, (Lambert, ¶ [0017], and FIGs. 1a and 2), and so that the waveplate containing portion (16) of the polarized light control unit (16 + 18) is included (clipped) in a visor in an automobile, of JP’158, because this modification advantageously positions a portion of the polarized-light control unit in the visor in a car with a simple configuration that obstructs visibility of the occupant as little as possible, (JP’158, MET ¶ [0017]).
In other words, the modified Mori teaches that “the polarized-light control unit is included in a visor in an automobile.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WESLEY S ASHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730 until 1730, with alternate Fridays off.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Citations to JP’158 will be made with respect to the MET provided unless otherwise indicated.