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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025, 01/23/2026 and 02/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01/12/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses a device for generating a virtual image (Figures: 3, 9), comprising: a display element ([0111] discloses: 42A, HUD) for generating an image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen); an optical waveguide ([0111] discloses: 421, transparent screen; [0084] discloses: 421, transparent screen, may be configured as a transparent combiner; therefore considered a waveguide); and an anti-glare element ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter, transmittance can be lowered, by adjusting voltage, the occupant can be prevented from viewing the reflected light of the light pattern radiated on the road surface; therefore considered to be an anti-glare element) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in a beam path (Figure 9 depicts: field of view of occupant, beam path traveling from the eye to the road, first passing through 421, transparent scree, that is considered the waveguide, then through 63, shutter, considered the anti-glare element), wherein the anti-glare element is a shutter ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter).
Shibata fails to disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions. Shibata and Thakur are related because both disclose waveguides.
Thakur teaches a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions ([0023] teaches: waveguide may expand the exit pupil in either one or two dimensions depending on the waveguide structure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Thakur and provide a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil. Doing so would allow for allow for better viewing experience and optical efficiency in two dimensions, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 8, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide has an output coupling hologram (Mills: [0030] teaches: image projection apparatus; therefore considered a hologram, projects it output into a waveguide for coupling to an output pupil of the display) which couples out light at an angle deviating from the normal on the exit surface of the optical waveguide (Mills: Figure 9 depicts: a paraxial projection system with asymmetric illumination; therefore considered coupling light at an angle deviating from the normal; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Vasylyev (US 9,194,552, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to disclose a device wherein the shutter comprises slats whose height is at least n times their thickness, where n is a first factor with n>10. However, choosing an optimal height ration for a shutter is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design a shutter that comprises slats whose height is at least n times their thickness since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Vasylyev (US 9,194,552) discloses in Col. 8 lines 14-16 that the aspect ratio is preferably greater than at least ten or more, to improve directional control of light and suppress unwanted scattering. Accordingly, adopting a comparable height/thickness ration in the shutter slats of the present invention would have been a predictable design choice. Therefore, the claimed use of a shutter comprising slats whose height is at least n times their thickness represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bellwood et al. (US 2009/0242142, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to discloses device wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices.
Bellwood teaches a device wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame (Figure 2 depicts: shutters arranges in a fixed frame) in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another ([0011] discloses: 46, micro-louver, defining 60, vertical fixed reference point, 46 micro-louver is positioned so as to extend parallel to a plane defined by first and second opposing side members 6 and 7, the remaining micro-louvers…are positioned at variable angles relative to 60, vertical fixed reference point; Examiner notes that each louver is considered to be mounted in a defined angular position relative to the fixed reference; therefore considered fixed at a fixed distance from one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Bellwood and provide wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another. Doing so would allow for a stable, uniform and durable light blocking structure for display devices (Bellwood: 0011-0013).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 10,857,946, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to disclose wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers. Shibata and Taniguchi are related because both disclose shutters.
Taniguchi teaches wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers (Col. 3 lines 50-55 teaches: continuous fiber carbon fiber reinforced pre-preg material; Examiner notes that this is considered to be fabric of individual carbon fibers consistent with the disclosure specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Taniguchi and provide wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers. Doing so would allow for high stiffness, low weight and dimensional stability, thereby improving the overall durability and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the fabric is fixed at both ends (Taniguchi: Figure 3 depicts: shutters will be fixed at both ends by 15, pair of side plates; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 4, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the fabric is fixed by stabilizers (Taniguchi: Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 9, retaining rings) arranged at both ends of the fabric and held in position by guide elements (Taniguchi: Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 43, shaft portions; Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 43, shaft portions and 9, retaining members are fixed to 6, shutter base via 9, retaining rings; therefore considered the carbon fiber is fixed by stabilizers arranged at both ends of the fabric held in position by the guide elements; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 4, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515) in view of Vasylyev (US 9,194,552, of record), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Bellwood et al. (US 2009/0242142, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 2.
Shibata fails to disclose a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices.
Bellwood teaches a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element ([0011] discloses: 46, micro-louver, defining 60, vertical fixed reference point, 46 micro-louver is positioned so as to extend parallel to a plane defined by first and second opposing side members 6 and 7, the remaining micro-louvers…are positioned at variable angles relative to 60, vertical fixed reference point; therefore considered aligned by an alignment element 60, vertical fixed reference point).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Bellwood and provide a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices. Doing so would allow for better optical uniformity, mechanical stability and manufacturability, thereby improving the overall functionality and durability of the optical system.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515) in view of Lacoste et al. (US 2012/0002256, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Shibata discloses a head-up display ([0111] discloses: 42A, HUD), comprising: a device for generating a virtual image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen; therefore considered a virtual image), comprising: a display element for generating an image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen); an optical waveguide ([0111] discloses: 421, transparent screen; [0084] discloses: 421, transparent screen, may be configured as a transparent combiner; therefore considered a waveguide); and an anti-glare element ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter, transmittance can be lowered, by adjusting voltage, the occupant can be prevented from viewing the reflected light of the light pattern radiated on the road surface; therefore considered to be an anti-glare element) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in a beam path (Figure 9 depicts: field of view of occupant, beam path traveling from the eye to the road, first passing through 421, transparent scree, that is considered the waveguide, then through 63, shutter, considered the anti-glare element), wherein the anti-glare element is a shutter ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter); and the shutter is aligned in accordance with the direction of the light emanating from the optical waveguide (Figure 9 depicts: 63, shutter, aligned in accordance with the direction of light from 421, transparent screen, that is considered the optical waveguide; Figure 9 depicts from left to right of Figure, 63, shutter and then 421, transparent screen, therefor considered aligned in accordance with emanating light from waveguide).
Shibata fails to disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil and a and a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Shibata and Mills are related because both disclose waveguides.
Shibata fails to disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions and a and a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Shibata and Thakur are related because both disclose waveguides.
Thakur teaches a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions ([0023] teaches: waveguide may expand the exit pupil in either one or two dimensions depending on the waveguide structure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Thakur and provide a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil. Doing so would allow for allow for better viewing experience and optical efficiency in two dimensions, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
The modified Shibata fails to disclose a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Shibata and Lacoste are related because both disclose optical systems.
Lacoste teaches a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 3 of Lacoste).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Lacoste and provide a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Doing so would allow for improved optical control and light manipulation, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 11, Shibata discloses the head-up display as claimed in claim 10, wherein the head-up display generates the virtual image for a driver of the vehicle (Figure 9 depicts: the head-up display generates the virtual image for a driver of the vehicle).
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872