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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/27/2026.
Amendments to claims 1 and 5 filed 2/27/2026, is/are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 12-14, filed 2/27/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 3-4 and 7-11, filed 11/10/2025, remains in effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pgs. 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that Morohashi fails to disclose newly amended features of claims 1 and 5. Examiner disagrees and finds that the claimed/argued light source inclination and traveling directions all to be present. Applicant is referred to the updated rejection of claim 1 below, now accompanied by an annotated FIG. 1 of Morohashi that should address the newly amended limitations – at least as they are best understood (see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 12-14 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 12, lines 26-30 of claim 1 recite
“[…] a traveling direction of the output light from the image output part toward the concave mirror, and
the traveling direction of the output light from the image output part is opposite to a traveling direction of the output light that is from the concave mirror and projected to be seen as a virtual image”,
while lines 25-26 of claim 5 and lines 15-16 of claim 12 similarly recite
“the traveling direction of the output light from the image output part is opposite to a traveling direction of the output light that is to be seen as a virtual image”.
First, it is noted that Examiner understands that light is “output” from the image output part before subsequent reflection and formation of a virtual image – i.e. as shown for output light Lc in FIG. 1 of the application. Thus, it is not sufficiently clear how the “output light from the image output part” and “output light that is to be seen as a virtual image”, as recited in claim 5 and 12 excerpted above, should be distinguished from each other.
While claim 1 is similarly unclear, Examiner notes that claim 1 does at least appear to distinguish the two instances of “output light” in a slightly more definite manner – with the claim language more strongly suggesting that the two instances of “output light” are associated with either (1) light prior to reflection by the concave mirror or (2) light following the reflection. Thus, for examination purposes below, this association shall be made in interpreting each limitation that is at issue and is quoted above from claims 1, 5, and 12.
Examiner notes further that – even with the above interpretation – the “traveling direction [of light prior to reflection]” and “traveling direction [of light after reflection]” do not appear to be “opposite” each other as recited in each of the claims. This configuration does not appear to be illustrated in any of the drawings or described anywhere in the specification. For examination purposes below, the relevant limitations shall be treated as a mischaracterizations, and they will be reinterpreted to mean that the “traveling direction [of at least one light ray after reflection]” only has some finite negative (e.g. x-, y-, z-)component along an axis defined by the “traveling direction [of the light ray prior to reflection]”.
Further regarding claim 12, line 15 recites “the traveling direction of the output light” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “a traveling direction of the output light”.
Further regarding claim 12, line 15 recites “the image output part” despite having never defined this feature in this independent claim 12 (though it was defined in independent claims 1 and 5). For examination purposes, “the image output part” shall be read as “an image output part” which is further understood to include the liquid crystal panel and optical member introduced in lines 3 and 5 of the claim (mirroring the definition provided in claim 5, lines 3-7).
Further regarding claim 12, lines 4-5 recite
“a diffusion plate provided between the liquid crystal panel on the liquid crystal panel; and
an optical member provided on the diffusion plate”.
which is incoherent and thus indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as
“a diffusion plate provided on the liquid crystal panel; and
an optical member provided on the diffusion plate”
such that the diffusion plate will be “provided between the liquid crystal panel” and the optical member (i.e. as similarly recited in claims 2 and 6).
Further regarding claim 12, lines 13-14 recite
“the light source is disposed to incline with the liquid crystal panel, the diffusion plate, and the optical member”
which is unclear and thus indefinite. No reference has been established for the inclination, and the geometric relationship the limitation is attempting to establish remains ambiguous. I.e. it is not understood whether the light source is inclined relative to, or with respect to, the {liquid crystal panel, diffusion plate, optical member} – or whether the light source is inclined together with the {liquid crystal panel, diffusion plate, optical member}, and what the inclination would be relative to in this case. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be interpreted to mean that the light source is inclined relative to the {liquid crystal panel, diffusion plate, optical member}.
Regarding claim 14, line 2 reintroduces “[the optical axis of] output light” after “[an optical axis of] output light” was already introduced in line 8 of claim 12 – overloading it with multiple introductions and causing antecedence issues/ambiguity. For examination purposes, “output light” shall be read as “the output light”
Further regarding claim 14, line 2 recites “substantially parallel” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” 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. It is therefore unclear what degree of alignment between “the optical axis of [the] output light” and “an axis of the virtual image” qualifies as being “substantially parallel.”
Further regarding claim 14, line 2 recites “the optical axis of the output light is substantially parallel to an axis of the virtual image”. However, it is not clear how this limits the invention, as “an axis of the virtual image” is an excessively broad/vague recitation (with no elaboration provided elsewhere in the application) that fails to provide clear and definite bounds to the claim. For examination purposes, it is understood that any arbitrary axis in ℝ3 can always be assigned to the virtual image – including those which are “substantially parallel” to “the optical axis of [the] output light”, as required by the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi and Hamada (JP 2019174582 A, hereinafter “Morohashi”) in view of Ma and Shen (CN 107515467 A, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 1, Morohashi discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 25-30) a head-up display (display device 10) comprising:
a light source (31) configured to emit light;
an image output part including:
a liquid crystal panel (“display element 32 is, for example, … liquid crystal panel”) configured to transmit light from the light source (31) to project an image (I2), and
an optical member (prism 33) configured to refract light that has passed through the liquid crystal panel (display element 32); and
a concave mirror (13),
wherein
a light output surface of the light source (31) intersects with an optical axis of output light (L2) at a first acute angle, the output light (L2) having passed through the optical member (prism 33),
a plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32) intersects with the optical axis of the output light (L2) at a second acute angle,
the second acute angle is smaller than the first acute angle,
the optical member (prism 33) is provided with a plurality of protruding portions having inclined surfaces inclined with respect to the plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), on a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to a side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32),
(Regarding above items A-G, see also the top panel of annotated FIG. 2 below)
each of the protruding portions has a cross section of a triangle shape having a first side, a second side, and a third side,
the first side is parallel to a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), and
in the cross section of each of the protruding portions that are disposed on the side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), a first angle is between the first side and the second side, and a second angle is between the first side and the third side
PNG
media_image1.png
790
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ((Top panel) FIG. 2 of Morohashi is annotated to highlight various structural features/relationships. Note that the 1st acute angle is shown to be greater than the 2nd acute angle. (Bottom panel) FIG. 2 is zoomed in to show the geometry of protruding portions)]
PNG
media_image2.png
451
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector](Regarding items H-J above, see the bottom panel of annotated FIG. 2 below, which zooms in on Morohashi’s protruding portions to show their geometry more clearly)
the light output surface of the light source (31) is inclined with respect to a traveling direction of the output light (L2) from the image output part (display element 32 + prism 33) toward the concave mirror (13), and
the traveling direction of the output light (L2) from the image output part (display element 32 + prism 33) is opposite to a traveling direction of the output light (L2) that is from the concave mirror (13) and projected to be seen as a virtual image (I2).
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Morohashi is annotated to highlight various features.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
1075
941
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Regarding items K-L above, see annotated FIG. 1 below.)
Morohashi does not explicitly disclose that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
Morohashi and Ma commonly relate to head-up displays.
PNG
media_image7.png
505
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 14 of Ma is annotated to show the obtuse second angle)]Ma explicitly discloses (see FIG. 14, annotated below, and ¶ 62) that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morohashi with Ma’s teachings, in order to improve contrast in the head-up display (Ma ¶s 13-15, 63).
Regarding claim 5, Morohashi discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 25-30) discloses a display device (10) comprising:
a light source (31) configured to emit light; and
an image output part including:
a liquid crystal panel (“display element 32 is, for example, … liquid crystal panel”) configured to transmit light from the light source (31) to project an image (I2); and
an optical member (prism 33) configured to refract light that has passed through the liquid crystal panel (display element 32),
wherein
a light output surface of the light source (31) and a plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32) are inclined at different angles (see top panel of annotated FIG. 2 above, with incongruent 1st and 2nd angles) with respect to an optical axis of output light (L2) that has passed through the optical member (prism 33),
the optical member (prism 33) is provided with a plurality of protruding portions having inclined surfaces inclined with respect to the plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), on a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to a side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32),
(Regarding above items A-D, see the top panel of annotated FIG. 2 shown previously)
each of the protruding portions has a cross section of a triangle shape having a first side, a second side, and a third side,
the first side is parallel to a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32),
in the cross section of each of the protruding portions that are disposed on the side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), a first angle is between the first side and the second side, and a second angle is between the first side and the third side,
(Regarding items E-G above, see the bottom panel of annotated FIG. 2 shown previously, which zooms in on Morohashi’s protruding portions to show their geometry more clearly)
the light output surface of the light source (31) is inclined with respect to a traveling direction of the output light (L2) from the image output part (display element 32 + prism 33), and
the traveling direction of the output light (L2) from the image output part (display element 32 + prism 33) is opposite to a traveling direction of the output light (L2) that is to be seen as a virtual image (I2).
(Regarding items H-I above, see annotated FIG. 1 shown previously.)
Morohashi does not explicitly disclose that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
Morohashi and Ma commonly relate to head-up displays.
Ma explicitly discloses (see annotated FIG. 14 shown previously, and ¶ 62) that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morohashi with Ma’s teachings, in order to improve contrast in the head-up display (Ma ¶s 13-15, 63).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi in view of Ma, as applied respectively to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Ito (JP 5184707 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, modified Morohashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 5.
Modified Morohashi does not disclose the display further comprising a diffusion plate provided between the liquid crystal panel and the optical member and configured to diffuse light.
Morohashi and Ito commonly relate to liquid crystal displays such as those incorporated in head-up displays.
Ito discloses (see FIGs. 7-8) a display further comprising a diffusion plate (3) provided between the liquid crystal panel (2) and the optical member (light-guiding material 13) and configured to diffuse light.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morohashi by including a diffusion plate between the liquid crystal panel and optical member – as taught by Ito – in order to diffuse and homogenize light, to reduce moire, and to block out undesired/background light (Ito ¶s 9, 40).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi and Hamada (JP 2019174582 A, hereinafter “Morohashi”) in view of Ito (JP 5184707 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Morohashi discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 25-30) a head-up display (display device 10) comprising:
a light source (31);
a liquid crystal panel (“display element 32 is, for example, … liquid crystal panel”) configured to transmit light from the light source (31);
an optical member (prism 33),
wherein
a light output surface of the light source (31) and a plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32) are inclined at different angles (see top panel of annotated FIG. 2 above, with incongruent 1st and 2nd angles) with respect to an optical axis of output light (L2) that has passed through the optical member (prism 33),
the optical member (prism 33) is provided with a plurality of protruding portions having inclined surfaces inclined with respect to the plate surface of the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), on a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to a side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32),
the light source (31) is disposed to incline with the liquid crystal panel (display element 32) and the optical member (prism 33), and
(Regarding above items A-F, see the top panel of annotated FIG. 2 shown previously)
the traveling direction of the output light (L2) from the image output part (display element 32 + prism 33) is opposite to a traveling direction of the output light (L2) that is to be seen as a virtual image (I2).
(Regarding item G above, see annotated FIG. 1 shown previously.)
Morohashi does not disclose:
a diffusion plate provided between the liquid crystal panel on the liquid crystal panel; and
the optical member provided on the diffusion plate,
the light source is disposed to incline with the diffusion plate
Morohashi and Ito commonly relate to liquid crystal displays such as those incorporated in head-up displays.
Ito discloses (see FIGs. 7-8):
a diffusion plate (3) provided between the liquid crystal panel (2) on the liquid crystal panel (2); and
the optical member (light-guiding material 13) provided on the diffusion plate (3)
the light source is disposed to incline with the diffusion plate (3)
(As noted above, Morohashi already established the light source inclined relative to the liquid crystal panel and optical member. Since Ito further discloses the diffusion plate between the liquid crystal panel and optical member (which addresses items A-B above), the combination of Morohashi and Ito further satisfies the limitation of item C above.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morohashi by including a diffusion plate between the liquid crystal panel and optical member – as taught by Ito – in order to diffuse and homogenize light, to reduce moire, and to block out undesired/background light (Ito ¶s 9, 40).
Regarding claim 14, Morohashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 12.
Morohashi further discloses wherein the optical axis of output light (L2) is substantially parallel to an axis of the virtual image (I2). (One can select any arbitrary axis in ℝ3 that is substantially parallel to the optical axis and simply assign it to the virtual image; see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi in view of Ito, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Ma and Shen (CN 107515467 A, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Morohashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 12.
Morohashi further discloses (see bottom panel of annotated FIG. 2 above)
wherein each of the protruding portions has a cross section of a triangle shape having a first side, a second side, and a third side,
the first side is parallel to a side of the optical member (prism 33), the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), and
in the cross section of each of the protruding portions that are disposed on the side of the optical member (prism 33), the side opposite to the side facing the liquid crystal panel (display element 32), a first angle is between the first side and the second side, and a second angle is between the first side and the third side
Modified Morohashi does not explicitly disclose that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
Morohashi and Ma commonly relate to head-up displays.
Ma explicitly discloses (see annotated FIG. 14 above, ¶ 62) that one of the first angle and the second angle is an obtuse angle.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morohashi with Ma’s teachings, in order to improve contrast in the head-up display (Ma ¶s 13-15, 63).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights