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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 21st, 2025, October 20th, 2025, November 18th, 2025, November 25th, 2025, and February 26th, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 5th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior art rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (US 2018/0259770) in view of Harada (US 2019/0162960), further in view of Yatsu (US 2019/0225083) and Watanabe (US 2008/0192358).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kuzuhara discloses a head-up display (Figs. 1-7, element 100), comprising:
an image generator with a light source ([0047], “Examples of display device 110 that can be used include a backlit liquid crystal display, an organic light-emitting diode (electroluminescence)”);
a tilted display (111, as shown in Fig. 5, 111 is tilted along the main axis);
an aspheric mirror ([0071], “Mirror 122 is shaped to have a free-form surface”);
an optical system (121);
a transmissive screen (220); and
an aspheric lens ([0058], “Drive lens 121A is such a free-form surface lens”), wherein the aspheric lens is arranged between the tilted display and the aspheric mirror (as shown in Figs. 4-5, 121A is between 111 and 122).
Kuzuhara does not specifically disclose having a wedge shaped display glass that is spaced apart from the tilted display.
However Harada, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches having a wedge shaped display glass (Figs. 4-5, element 52) that is spaced apart from the tilted display (as shown in Fig. 5, 52 is spaced apart from the display 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara with the wedge shaped display glass that is spaced apart from the tilted display as taught by Harada, for the purpose of reducing glare and improving display quality ([0049]).
Modified Kuzuhara does not specifically disclose such that a virtual image formed by the head up display has an upper part of the virtual image that has a greater focal distance than a lower part of the virtual image due to an effective tilt angle of the display.
However Yatsu, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches such that a virtual image ([0076], “The virtual image plane 7”) formed by the head up display has an upper part of the virtual image (Fig. 1A and 19, “Far”) that has a greater focal distance than a lower part of the virtual image (“Near”, as shown in Fig. 19 and examiner labeled Fig. 1A, the upper part of the virtual image has a greater focal length compared to the lower part of the image) due to an effective tilt angle of the display ([0076], “tilting the liquid crystal display panel 2 can tilt the virtual image plane 7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada with the such that a virtual image formed by the head up display has an upper part of the virtual image that has a greater focal distance than a lower part of the virtual image due to an effective tilt angle of the display as taught by Yatsu, for the purpose of tilting the virtual image while reducing distortion ([0076], [0082]).
Modified Kuzuhara does not specifically disclose the aspheric lens reflects a first portion of incident sunlight towards a light trap, and refracts a second portion of incident sunlight towards the wedge shaped display glass.
However Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches the aspheric lens (Fig. 3, element 13) reflects a first portion of incident sunlight towards a light trap (23, [0049], “the curved upper surface 13c of the prism 13, which condenses the external light F toward the light shield wall 23 in the instrument panel 2, functions as an external light reflecting surface”), and refracts a second portion of incident sunlight towards the wedge shaped display glass ([0049], “the prism 13 is formed in such a shape that the external light F goes to the light shield wall 23 when the external light F entered the inside from the upper surface 13c is reflected in the inside of the prism 13 and comes out from the upper surface 13c”, as disclosed in [0049], light is refracted as it enters 13 through surface 13c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu with the aspheric lens reflects a first portion of incident sunlight towards a light trap, and refracts a second portion of incident sunlight towards the wedge shaped display glass as taught by Watanabe, for the purpose of preventing ghost images and dazzling of the driver ([0050]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Kuzuhara further discloses wherein the aspheric lens has a wedge component ([0068], “This means that drive lens 121A is of wedge shape along its Y-axis”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and further discloses wherein the tilted display (111) is tilted with regard to a main optical axis of the head-up display by a first angle (as shown in Fig. 5, 111 is tilted with respect to Lc) and the wedge-shaped display glass or the wedge-shaped aspheric lens has a wedge angle with regard to the main optical axis (as shown in Fig. 5, 121A is angled with respect to axis Lc), and wherein first angle and wedge angle add to the effective tilt angle (as shown in Fig. 5, the lens and display together form an optical system with an effective tilt angle, [0067], “it is preferable that each of the lens elements of lens group 121 be inclined at such an angle”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first angle is in the range of 10° to 20° and the wedge angle is in the range of 10° to 15°.
However, Kuzuhara teaches, as is shown in Figs. 5, 7 and [0067], “the angle is such that external light that enters lens group 121 from mirror 122 and reflects off the incident surface or the emission surface of each of the lens elements of lens group 121 is not incident on mirror 122”, the angle, which examiner interprets to be the first and wedge angles, is a result effective variable as it confers to reflecting sunlight away from the mirror. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kuzuhara to have the first angle is in the range of 10° to 20° and the wedge angle is in the range of 10° to 15°, since 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 a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe by making the first angle to be in a range of 10° to 20° and the wedge angle to be in a range of 10° to 15° since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is affixed to the tilted display.
However Harada, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the wedge-shaped display glass (Figs. 4-5, element 52) is affixed to the tilted display (as shown in Fig. 5, 52 is held by 60 which is also holding display 12, thus 52 is affixed to 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe with the wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is affixed to the tilted display as taught by Harada, for the purpose of reducing glare and improving display quality ([0049]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the virtual image appears parallel to a road surface.
However Yatsu, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the virtual image (Fig. 1A, element 7) appears parallel to a road surface ([0089], “As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the virtual image plane 7 is tilted approximately 80 degrees against the line of sight”, as is shown in examiner labeled Fig. 1A, the virtual image appears parallel to a road surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe with the wherein the virtual image appears parallel to a road surface as taught by Yatsu, for the purpose of tilting the virtual image while reducing distortion ([0076], [0082]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (US 2018/0259770) in view of Harada (US 2019/0162960), further in view of Yatsu (US 2019/0225083), Watanabe (US 2008/0192358), and Herzog (WO 2015/150229, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is a cooling glass.
However Herzog, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is a cooling glass ([0111], “Cooling is achieved by a transparent, highly thermally conductive element 106, which is thermally conductively coupled to the LCD 104”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe with the wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is a cooling glass as taught by Herzog, for the purpose of improving performance by drawing heat away from the LCD panel ([0079]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is the layer of the tilted display that is next to an optically active layer of the tilted display.
However Herzog, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the wedge-shaped display glass (Fig. 2, 106) is the layer of the tilted display (104) that is next to an optically active layer ([0067], “a liquid crystal display 104 for providing image information”) of the tilted display ([0067], “the heat sink 106 is thermally coupled to the liquid crystal display 104”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe with the wherein the wedge-shaped display glass is the layer of the tilted display that is next to an optically active layer of the tilted display as taught by Herzog, for the purpose of improving performance by drawing heat away from the LCD panel ([0079]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (US 2018/0259770) in view of Harada (US 2019/0162960), further in view of Yatsu (US 2019/0225083), Watanabe (US 2008/0192358), and Okumura (US 2011/0051029).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kuzuhara teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the wedge-shaped display glass and/or the aspheric lens is made of BK7 glass or is made of plastic.
However Okumura, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the wedge-shaped display glass and/or the aspheric lens is made of BK7 glass or is made of plastic ([0124], “when the influence of the wavelength dispersion of the prism 110 and the refractive index n (about 1.5) of an easily available prism material (e.g., BK7) are considered”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Kuzuhara in view of Harada further in view of Yatsu and Watanabe with the wherein the wedge-shaped display glass and/or the aspheric lens is made of BK7 glass or is made of plastic as taught by Okumura, due to BK7 being an easily available prism material ([0124]).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 (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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5 March 2026