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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-15 are currently pending, of which claims 12-15 are withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 9 and 16-20 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “the polymer layer” however claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites “at least one polymer” and it is unclear if “the polymer layer” is referring to a single layer or all of the layers.
For sake of further examination, “the polymer layer” will be viewed as referring to one polymer or all of the polymer layers. It is suggested to recite e.g., where “the at least one polymer layer…”
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, 3-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler et al. (US 2017/0285339) in view of Arndt et al. (US 2016/0291324).
Regarding claim 1,
Regarding claim 1, Spangler discloses a polymeric interlayer (0037) defining a wedged profile HUD region (0038-0040, Fig. 1) having a target vertical wedge angle, actual vertical wedge angle and an absolute wedge angle rate of change (0010-0011, 0060, Fig. 3-10). Where the absolute wedge angle rate of change is less than 3.0 µrad/mm throughout the entire HUD region (Fig. 15, 0144), overlapping the claimed rate of change (MPEP 2144.05). Spangler teaches that the actual vertical wedge angle profile varies from the target vertical wedge angle profiled by no more than 0.10 mrad (0089).
Spangler does not teach the eyebox extending at least 50 mm above and below, at least 100 mm to the left and right and at least 75 mm in front of and behind the center point of a drivers eyes.
Arndt, in the analogous field of interlayers for laminated glass panes (0001) teaches a thermoplastic film for a laminated glass pane which produces minimized ghost images when used in a head-up display (0001-0003 and 0015-0016). Arndt notes its glass pane as having a region HUDB (i.e., an active region) which produces an image 3', and is positioned away from eye positions 2 and 2a (i.e., a display region including an eyebox, as the eye positions 2 and 2a can be considered to constitute an 'eyebox') (Fig. 5, 0056). Arndt teaches that the virtual display is situated in different places depending on the eye position, and wedge angle is optimized depending on the desired eye position (0056). Arndt teaches that its heads up display should be designed for use in "a large number of eye positions" (0078). It is noted that, essentially, the dimensions of the claimed eyebox (i.e., extension above and below, to the left and right, and in front and behind of the center point of a driver's eyes) correspond to the range of possible eye positions of Arndt. The claim is not positively reciting a specific structure within a layer or element (i.e., the claimed eyebox is not a physical "box"), but rather, the claim language amounts to a range of view (i.e., the region in which the head-up display can be viewed relative to a driver's eyes). Though Arndt does not use the term "eyebox," Arndt expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the degree of potential of head-up display viewing positions (i.e., the "eyebox"), and Arndt suggests the head-up display as accommodating a large number of eye positions (i.e., the "eyebox" should be made as large as possible) (0078).
Based upon the disclosure of Arndt as discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the degree of extension of the eyebox in Spangler above and below, to the left and right, and in front of and behind the center point of a driver's eyes for the purpose of enabling a produced image to be viewed from multiple positions without ghost imaging (see above discussion).
Regarding claim 2, Spangler teaches the interlayer comprising poly(vinyl acetal) and plasticizer (0077 and 0078).
Regarding claim 4, Spangler teaches the interlayer comprising a second polymer layer (0076).
Regarding claim 5, Spangler teaches the interlayer comprising a third polymer layer where the second polymer layer is between the first and third polymer layers (0076).
Regarding claim 6, Spangler teaches the second and third layer comprising poly(vinyl acetal) and a plasticizer (0077-0078).
Regarding claim 7, Spangler teaches each layer of the interlayer may comprise a different type of polymer (0077).
Regarding claim 8, Spangler teaches the interlayer(s) may include an additive including UV absorbers (0083).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Spangler teaches a windscreen for a head-up display comprising first and second glass layers and an interlayer (Fig. 2b, 0040-0042). The polymeric interlayer (0037) defining a wedged profile HUD region (0038-0040, Fig. 1) having a target vertical wedge angle, actual vertical wedge angle and an absolute wedge angle rate of change (0010-0011, 0060, Fig. 3-10). Where the absolute wedge angle rate of change is less than 3.0 µrad/mm throughout the entire HUD region (Fig. 15, 0144), overlapping the claimed rate of change (MPEP 2144.05). Spangler teaches that the actual vertical wedge angle profile varies from the target vertical wedge angle profiled by no more than 0.10 mrad (0089).
Spangler does not teach the eyebox extending at least 50 mm above and below, at least 100 mm to the left and right and at least 75 mm in front of and behind the center point of a drivers eyes.
Arndt, in the analogous field of interlayers for laminated glass panes (0001) teaches a thermoplastic film for a laminated glass pane which produces minimized ghost images when used in a head-up display (0001-0003 and 0015-0016). Arndt notes its glass pane as having a region HUDB (i.e., an active region) which produces an image 3', and is positioned away from eye positions 2 and 2a (i.e., a display region including an eyebox, as the eye positions 2 and 2a can be considered to constitute an 'eyebox') (Fig. 5, 0056). Arndt teaches that the virtual display is situated in different places depending on the eye position, and wedge angle is optimized depending on the desired eye position (0056). Arndt teaches that its heads up display should be designed for use in "a large number of eye positions" (0078). It is noted that, essentially, the dimensions of the claimed eyebox (i.e., extension above and below, to the left and right, and in front and behind of the center point of a driver's eyes) correspond to the range of possible eye positions of Arndt. The claim is not positively reciting a specific structure within a layer or element (i.e., the claimed eyebox is not a physical "box"), but rather, the claim language amounts to a range of view (i.e., the region in which the head-up display can be viewed relative to a driver's eyes). Though Arndt does not use the term "eyebox," Arndt expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the degree of potential of head-up display viewing positions (i.e., the "eyebox"), and Arndt suggests the head-up display as accommodating a large number of eye positions (i.e., the "eyebox" should be made as large as possible) (0078).
Based upon the disclosure of Arndt as discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the degree of extension of the eyebox in Spangler above and below, to the left and right, and in front of and behind the center point of a driver's eyes for the purpose of enabling a produced image to be viewed from multiple positions without ghost imaging (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781