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 .
Acknowledgement made of amendment filed 2/04/2026.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims 1-5 and 11-15, specifically claim 1 and 11 recite the limitation ‘an optical means for reducing a divergence angle of light from the light source’. This limitation appears to refer to the collimation elements 15 or 18, in figures 8 and 11, see for example paragraphs 0059, 0062 and 0097 of the PGPub of this application. Therefore, examiner will restrict the interpretation of this limitation to a collimation lens or equivalent collimation optical element such as a parabolic mirror or combination catadioptric collimation optical element. Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are given this interpretation inasmuch as they depend from claims 1 and 11 without further specifying the optical means.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (JP 2018-084596), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Cammenga et al. (US 2017/0045737 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Hirata teaches a light source device (14a-b, 15, 21, 16, 18a, 171, figure 23; 17, figure 22) that supplies light to an information display device (402, figure 23, element 402 is a liquid crystal panel),
Wherein the light source device includes:
A point shaped or planar light source (paragraph 0104);
An optical means (15, figure 23) for reducing a divergence angle of the light from the light source (paragraph 0089, describes a collimation function, i.e. ‘parallel light’); and
A light guide (17, figure 22; 171-172, figure 23) having a reflections surface (172, figure 23) that reflects light form the light source to propagate to the information display device (402, figure 23),
Wherein the reflection surface of the light guide is disposed so as to face the information display device (172 has to face 402, in figure 23 in order to reflect light through the LCD panel),
Wherein light in a specific polarization direction is emitted from the information display device is arranged below a window glass (figure 5) as image light (paragraph 0044).
Hirata does not specify the image light emitted in the specific polarization direction allows image information to be visually recognizable through the window glass by folding back an optical path to reflect upward by a reflection mirror that is provided on the window glass with a reflective polarizing plate, and polarized light other than light in the specific polarization direction is transmitted through the reflective polarizing plate so that an inside of a vehicle can be visually recognized in an information non-display state.
Cammenga teaches light in a specific polarization direction is emitted from the information display device as image light (paragraph 0043); and
the image light emitted in the specific polarization direction allows image information to be visually recognizable through the window glass by folding back an optical path to reflect upward by a reflection mirror that is provided on the window glass (paragraph 0022, see also figure 1B) with a reflective polarizing plate (paragraph 0032), and polarized light other than light in the specific polarization direction is transmitted through the reflective polarizing plate so that an inside of a vehicle can be visually recognized in an information non-display state (see figure 4A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display system of Hirata to include a reflective polarizer on the windscreen such as taught in Cammenga because the reflective polarizer improves the reflectance of the windscreen for the display light thus reducing reflection losses and making the image easier to see (paragraph 0043 and 0044).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Hirata teaches wherein a divergence angle of the image light form the information display device is within + 30 degrees and further within + 10 degrees (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Hirata teaches the horizontal diffusion angle and a vertical diffusion angle of image light form the information display device are different (paragraph 0042; the contrast performance with respect to the divergence angle of the image is more pronounced in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Hirata teaches wherein the information display device has a liquid crystal display panel element (paragraph 0044), and has a contrast performance obtained by multiplying a contrast, which is obtained according to characteristic of polarizing plates provided on a light incidence surface and an emission surface (see paragraph 0044 which states that polarization plates are arranged on light incident and exit surfaces and that high contrast is obtained thereby), by a reciprocal of cross transmittance of the reflective polarizing plate (since Hirata has the same structure it follows that the contrast performance can be obtained in the same manner as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 15) that the projector HUD in Cammenga vs the display based HUD in Hirata are so fundamentally different that the combination is not obvious, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that aside from the image source, display of an image on a windscreen or a combiner is the same in both references, and they both form virtual images directly reflected from the combiner to the eyes of the user (see paragraph 0023 of Cammenga). In this specific modification, the type of combiner in Cammenga (i.e. the windshield) has a reflective polarizer layer attached to the windshield to reduce reflection losses in at the windshield and increase visibility of the displayed image (0043-0044), which benefit would apply to the display of Hirata inasmuch as both systems could benefit from an improved reflection of the display image and decrease transmission of sunlight. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights