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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 7 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 16 that Asakura does not remedy the deficiencies of Wagner to reject claim 1.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Asakura to disclose the limitations of claim 1, “a high-refractive-index coating having (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) a refractive index of at least 1.7 (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 having a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48) on a main interior-side surface (1B inside as shown below in fig. 1) of the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) facing away from (1B inside faces away from intermediate layer 4 as shown below in fig. 1) the thermoplastic (taught above by Wagner) intermediate layer (intermediate layer 4 fig. 1) such that the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) is arranged between (the glass plate 1B is between the reflection layer 9 9 and the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) the HUD reflection layer (reflection layer 9 fig. 1) and the high refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1)”, and Chen to disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (a high refractive index layer can be coated on the optical film facing the observer and may be a hard coating paragraph [0054]) is a solgel coating (Examples of hard coatings that may be suitable include sol gel coatings paragraph [0073]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 Al) in view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A) and Chen (US 20170363863 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses in at least figures 1 and 3A, a projection assembly for a
head-up display (display system 10 fig. 1), comprising:
a composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1), comprising an outer pane (first ply 22 fig. 1) and an inner
pane (second ply 28 fig. 1) that are joined to one another (the interlayer 34 may be of a suitable material
so as to hold the plies 22, 28 together paragraph [0112]) via a thermoplastic intermediate layer (inter
layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph [0112]), the composite pane
having a HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042] as show in fig. 2 of the current application);
a HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) suitable for reflecting p-polarized radiation
(p-polarized radiation reflects off of the enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 paragraph [0122]),
on a surface (the reflective coating 36 is on the third surface 30 of ply 28 fig. 1) of the outer pane or of
the inner pane (ply 28 fig. 1) facing (the third surface 30 faces the inter layer 34 fig. 1) the thermoplastic
intermediate layer (inter layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph
[0112]) or within the thermoplastic intermediate layer;
a HUD projector (radiation source 14 fig. 1) that
is directed (the radiation source 14 emits radiation 16 directed to at least one point on laminate 12
paragraph [0042]) at the HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042]) and that is
adapted to emit p-polarized radiation (the radiation 16 may be p-polarized paragraph [0042]).
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, a high-refractive-index coating having a refractive index of
at least 1.7 on a main interior-side surface of the inner pane facing away from the thermoplastic
intermediate layer such that the inner pane is arranged between the HUD reflection layer and the high refractive-index coating,
wherein the high-refractive-index coating is a solgel coating.
However Asakura discloses in at least figure 1, a high-refractive-index coating having (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) a refractive index of at least 1.7 (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 having a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48) on a main interior-side surface (1B inside as shown below in fig. 1) of the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) facing away from (1B inside faces away from intermediate layer 4 as shown below in fig. 1) the thermoplastic (taught above by Wagner) intermediate layer (intermediate layer 4 fig. 1) such that the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) is arranged between (the glass plate 1B is between the reflection layer 9 9 and the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) the HUD reflection layer (reflection layer 9 fig. 1) and the high refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Additionally Chen discloses in at least figure 8a , wherein the high-refractive-index coating (a high refractive index layer can be coated on the optical film facing the observer and may be a hard coating paragraph [0054]) is a solgel coating (Examples of hard coatings that may be suitable include sol gel coatings paragraph [0073]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a sol gel coating as taught by Chen in the display system of Wagner. The refractive indices may be different and it may be appropriate and desirable to have different coatings on each side of the optical film (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the radiation (radiation 16 fig. 1) of the HUD projector
(radiation source 14 fig. 1) strikes the composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1) with an angle of incidence of
(the angle the radiation strikes the laminate 12 is 60° fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index
coating is at least 1.8.
However Asakura further discloses, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index
coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) is at least 1.8 (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 having a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating contains silicon
nitride, a mixed silicon-metal nitride, aluminum nitride, tin oxide, manganese oxide, tungsten oxide,
niobium oxide, bismuth oxide, titanium oxide, mixed tin-zinc oxide, zirconium oxide, scandium oxide,
yttrium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, or cerium oxide.
However Asakura further discloses, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) contains silicon nitride (not required by claim), a mixed silicon-metal nitride (not required by claim), aluminum nitride (not required by claim), tin oxide (not required by claim), manganese oxide (not required by claim), tungsten oxide (not required by claim), niobium oxide (not required by claim), bismuth oxide (not required by claim), titanium oxide (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 col. 7 lines 46-47), mixed tin-zinc oxide (not required by claim), zirconium oxide (not required by claim), scandium oxide (not required by claim), yttrium oxide (not required by claim), tantalum oxide (not required by claim), lanthanum oxide (not required by claim), or cerium oxide (not required by claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating contains titanium oxide or
zirconium oxide.
However Asakura further discloses, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) contains titanium oxide (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 col. 7 lines 46-47) or zirconium oxide (not required by claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating is not applied over the
entire surface of the inner pane, but at least on a region of the surface that contains the HUD region.
However Asakura discloses in figure 1, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster angle
adjustment film 3 fig. 1 has a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48) is not applied over the entire
surface (the Brewster angle adjustment film 3 is only on the HUD region area of the of the inner pane 1B
fig. 1) of the inner pane (inboard-side glass plate 1B fig. 3), but at least on a region of the surface that
contains the HUD region (the HUD region is the area the where the light from display 6 strikes the
laminated glass 5 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to only apply the high refractive index coating on the HUD region as taught by
Asakura in the display of Wagner. The reflection is negligible resulting in a clear image of the driving
information top the driver (col. 3 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) is
an HUD reflection coating (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) that is implemented as a thin-film stack that
includes at least one electrically conductive layer (the enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 may be
a double metal functional layer enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 paragraph [0052] the metal
functional layer can be made of metallic silver which is electrically conductive paragraph [0074] the first
metal functional layer 46 may have a thickness in the range of 50-150 angstroms and the second metal
functional layer 52 may be a continuous layer having a thickness in the range of 10-150 angstroms
paragraph [0076-0078] as shown in fig. 3A which is less than 100nm as specified in application pg.9 line
10-20).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the composite pane is equipped with a further high refractive-index coating on the surface of the outer pane facing away from the thermoplastic
intermediate layer (the composite pane laminate 12 may also include an enhanced p-polarized reflective
high index coating 36 positioned over at least a portion of one of the surfaces 24, 26, 30, 32 of the plies
22, 28 paragraph [0050] the reflective coating 36 can be placed on a surface of the outer pane 24 facing
away from intermediate layer 34 fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the outer pane and the inner pane are made of soda
lime glass (the plies 22, 28 may include conventional soda-lime-silicate glass paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1) is a windshield
of a passenger car (laminate 12 can be a windshield of a vehicle paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 2 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the angle of incidence (the angle the radiation strikes
the laminate 12 is 60° fig. 7).
Wagener does not disclose, wherein the angle of incidence is from 62° to 68°.
However, the angle of incidence corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which
achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the angle of incidence directly impacts the e.g.
reflectance of the p-polarized light. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where
the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable
ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In
the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of incidence for the purpose of e.g. optimizing
reflectance of the p-polarized light.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 3.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index
coating is at least 2.0.
However Asakura further discloses, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index
coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) is at least 2.0 (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 having a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 10 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the at least one electrically conductive layer is based
on silver (the metal functional layer can be made of metallic silver which is electrically conductive
paragraph [0074]).
Claims 5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 Al) in view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A) and Chen (US 20170363863 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Reymond et al. (US 20140022630).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein a thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most
100 nm.
However Reymond discloses, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at
most 100 nm (the physical thickness of the high refractive index layers of at least 2.2 is from 10 to 40 nm
paragraph [0022] ).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the reflective layer as taught by Reymond in the display of Wagner. The high
refractive index layer is part of a dielectric coating (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wagner, Asakura, Chen and Reymond discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is
at most 50 nm.
However Reymond discloses, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at
most 50 nm (the physical thickness of the high refractive index layers of at least 2.2 is from 10 to 40 nm
paragraph [0022]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the reflective layer as taught by Reymond in the display of Wagner. The high
refractive index layer is part of a dielectric coating (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wagner, Asakura, Chen and Reymond discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most
However Reymond further discloses, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating
is at most 50 nm (the physical thickness of the high refractive index layers of at least 2.2 is from 10 to 40
nm paragraph [0022)).
Additionally, the thickness corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which
achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the thickness directly impacts the e.g. the refractive index of the coating. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such
things involves only routine skill in the art, ln re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the thickness to at most 10nm for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the
refractive index.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US
20190064516 Al) in view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A), Chen (US 20170363863 A1) and Weber et al. (US 20040135742 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner discloses in at least figures 1 and 3A, a projection assembly for a head-up display (display system 10 fig. 1), comprising:
a composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1), comprising an outer pane (first ply 22 fig. 1) and an inner
pane (second ply 28 fig. 1) that are joined to one another (the interlayer 34 may be of a suitable material
so as to hold the plies 22, 28 together paragraph [0112]) via a thermoplastic intermediate layer (inter
layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph [0112]), the composite pane
having a HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042] as show in fig. 2 of the current application);
a HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) suitable for reflecting p-polarized radiation
(p-polarized radiation reflects off of the enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 paragraph [0122]),
on a surface (the reflective coating 36 is on the third surface 30 of ply 28 fig. 1) of the outer pane or of
the inner pane (ply 28 fig. 1) facing (the third surface 30 faces the inter layer 34 fig. 1) the thermoplastic
intermediate layer (inter layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph
[0112]) or within the thermoplastic intermediate layer;
a HUD projector (radiation source 14 fig. 1) that
is directed (the radiation source 14 emits radiation 16 directed to at least one point on laminate 12
paragraph [0042]) at the HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042]) and that is
adapted to emit p-polarized radiation (the radiation 16 may be p-polarized paragraph [0042]).
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, a high-refractive-index coating having a refractive index of
at least 1.7 on a main interior-side surface of the inner pane facing away from the thermoplastic
intermediate layer such that the inner pane is arranged between the HUD reflection layer and the high refractive-index coating,
wherein the high-refractive-index coating is a solgel coating,
wherein a reflection quotient R20/RIV is at least 50:1,
wherein R2o is the reflectance of the HUD reflection layer and RIV is the reflectance of the surface provided with the high-refractive-index coating, in each case with respect top-polarized radiation.
However Asakura discloses in at least figure 1, a high-refractive-index coating having (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) a refractive index of at least 1.7 (the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 has been shown and described as being formed of TiO.sub.2 having a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48) on a main interior-side surface (1B inside as shown below in fig. 1) of the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) facing away from (1B inside faces away from intermediate layer 4 as shown below in fig. 1) the thermoplastic (taught above by Wagner) intermediate layer (intermediate layer 4 fig. 1) such that the inner pane (glass plate 1B fig. 1) is arranged between (the glass plate 1B is between the reflection layer 9 9 and the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1) the HUD reflection layer (reflection layer 9 fig. 1) and the high refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1),
RIV is the reflectance of the surface provided with (the interface between the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 and the inboard-side glass plate 1B is about 0.75% col. 5 lines 1-5) the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster's angle regulating film 3 fig. 1), in each case with respect to p-polarized radiation (col. 4 lines 52-54).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. Since the outgoing of the light is made at the Brewster's angle of the Brewster's angle regulating film 3, no reflection is made at the inboard surface of the single glass plate 1 so that the whole amount of the display light or driving information can be clearly observed by eyes 8 of the driver or the like (col. 6 lines 56-61).
Additionally Chen discloses in at least figure 8a , wherein the high-refractive-index coating (a high refractive index layer can be coated on the optical film facing the observer and may be a hard coating paragraph [0054]) is a solgel coating (Examples of hard coatings that may be suitable include sol gel coatings paragraph [0073]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a sol gel coating as taught by Chen in the display system of Wagner. The refractive indices may be different and it may be appropriate and desirable to have different coatings on each side of the optical film (paragraph [0072]).
Additionally Weber discloses in at least figure 2, wherein a reflection quotient R20/RIV is at least 50:1 (as a result of the values below R20/RIV is 53.33),
wherein R20 is the reflectance (the reflectance of reflective polarizer is more desirably at least about 40% paragraph [0011]) of the HUD reflection layer (reflective polarizer 20 fig. 2) and RIV is the reflectance of (reflectance of Brewster's angle regulating film 3 is about 0.75% as taught above by Asakura) the surface provided with the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster angle regulating films as discussed in '314 Asakura et al. can also if desired be provided on the exposed window surfaces to make modest adjustments to .theta..sub.B in order to maintain low reflectivity at surfaces 18a, 18B paragraph [0032]), in each case with respect to p-polarized radiation (reflectivity for p-polarized light paragraph [0011]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a reflective polarizer as taught by Weber with the Brewster's angle regulating film 3 as taught by Asakura in the display system of Wagner. In some embodiments it may be desirable or necessary to provide an antireflection coating on surface 18a and/or surface 18b (paragraph [0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US
20190064516 Al) in view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A) and Chen (US 20170363863 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bellman (TW 202011051 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating has
a gradient, wherein the refractive index decreases in a direction from a lower edge to an upper edge of
the composite pane.
Bellman discloses wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating has a
gradient, wherein the refractive index decreases in a direction from a lower edge to an upper edge of
the composite pane (the partial coating design of Example 1 as a graph of refractive index versus
position shows the refractive index of the coating decreases from 2 to 1.5 from a lower thickness of
1900 nm to a higher thickness of 2100 nm fig.19).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to apply a high index coating using the gradient method as taught by Bellman to the
display of Wagner. The presence of one or more gradient portions may provide improved resistance to
scratches and damage (pg.9 para. 2).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US
20190064516 Al) in view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A) and Chen (US 20170363863 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Dizio et al. (US 20080079903 Al).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) is
an HUD reflection coating (reflective coating 36 fig. 1).
Wagner does not disclose, that is implemented as a thin-film that contains only dielectric layers.
However Dizio discloses in at least fig. 3, that is implemented as a thin-film stack (multilayer
reflective polarizing film 12 fig. 3) that contains only dielectric layers (first layer 22 and second layer 24
may be a polyethylene naphtha late (PEN) film and a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film paragraph
[0026] which are dielectric and the layers 22 and 24 repeat without other layers in reflective polarizing
film 12 fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use dielectric film as taught by Dizio in the HUD reflection layer of Wagner. The
composition of the multilayer film can be given the optical properties desired for a particular system
paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wagner, Asakura and Chen discloses all the limitations
of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the HUD reflection layer is a polymer film that includes a
plurality of polymeric plies, the plurality of polymeric plies including one or more polymeric plies with a
refractive index greater than 1.8 and one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8,
and wherein the one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index greater than 1.8 and the one or
more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8 are arranged alternatingly.
However, Dizio discloses in at least fig. 3 wherein the HUD reflection layer is a polymer film that
includes a plurality of polymeric plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3), the plurality of polymeric
plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3) including one or more polymeric plies with a refractive
index (first layer 22 may be a relatively high index layer polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film paragraph
[0026] PEN films are known to have a refractive index of around 1. 76) and one or more polymeric plies
with a refractive index lower than 1.8 (second layer 24 may be a low index layer a polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) film paragraph [0026] PET film is known to have a refractive index of around 1.64), and
wherein the one or more polymeric plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3) with a
refractive index (first layer 22 may be a relatively high index layer polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film
paragraph [0026] PEN films are known to have a refractive index of around 1.76) and the one or more
polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8 (second layer 24 may be a low index layer a
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film paragraph [0026] PET film is known to have a refractive index of
around 1.64) are arranged alternatingly (the layers 22 and 24 alternate fig. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to apply the polymer reflection layer as taught by Dizio to the display of Wagner. The
multilayer polymer film is designed for use in in an optical system [0025]). than 1.8.
Dizio does not explicitly disclose, one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index greater
However, the refractive index corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which
achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the refractive index directly impacts the e.g. the
refractive properties of the film. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges
of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the
instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the refractive index for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the refractive
properties of the film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lambert et al. (US 20180101009 A1) discloses a windshield HUD with p polarized reflectance increased with a coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights