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
The amendment filed on 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (2022/0206197, of record) in view of Nakatsugawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007079453 A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura discloses an optical structure (at least Figure 2A) that includes a multi-layer film structure (20, infrared light cut-off portion; Figure 5) and is to be used for a light transmitting body (46, window portion), the optical structure comprising: a first layer (24, ultra-violet light cut-off layer) that is an adhesive layer ([0101]) to be attached to the light transmitting body (Figure 2A) and reduces ultraviolet rays ([0099]); a second layer (23, infrared light reduction layer) that has a transmission spectrum in which transmittance is minimized ([0094]); and a transparent substrate layer (22, infrared light cut-off layer; [0063]) comprising a first surface (bottom surface of 22, infrared light cut-off layer) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (top surface of 22, infrared light cut-off layer), wherein: the first layer is placed on the first surface side of the transparent substrate layer (Figure 5), the second layer is placed on the second surface side of the transparent substrate layer (Figure 5), and the first layer, the transparent substrate layer, and the second layer are layered in this order from a light source (Figure 5).
Tamura fails to teach the second layer has a transmission spectrum in which transmittance is minimized at a wavelength from 570 to 605 nm inclusive. Tamura and Nakatsugawa are related because both teach an optical structure.
Nakatsugawa teaches an optical structure wherein a second layer has a transmission spectrum in which transmittance is minimized at a wavelength from 570 to 605 nm inclusive (at least [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Nakatsugawa and provide the second layer has a transmission spectrum in which transmittance is minimized at a wavelength from 570 to 605 nm inclusive. Doing so would allow for suppression of the yellow to orange color wavelength, thereby improving color purity and correcting color balance of the image.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Tamura discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the light transmitting body is a windowpane (46, window portion).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Tamura discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the transparent substrate layer is a PET layer ([0083, 0088]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Tamura discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the first layer contains a benzotriazole ultraviolet absorber ([0102]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (2022/0206197, of record) in view of Nakatsugawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007079453 A, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morozov et al. (2021/0364792, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Tamura discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have not transmitted through the first layer or the second layer. The modified Tamura and Morozov are related because each teach an optical structure.
Morozov teaches an optical structure wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have not transmitted through the first layer or the second layer (Figure 7; [0087] teaches 5, selective dichroic filter, transmits selected wavelengths while reflecting the other wavelengths; [0070] teaches 9, UV/IR filter, absorbs ultraviolet and infrared components of solar radiation; thus 5, selective dichroic filter, provides a color difference, which may be selected between red light and green light, between light that has passed through it compared to light that has not).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Morozov and provide wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have not transmitted through the first layer or the second layer. Doing so would allow for improved desired color transmission without distortion.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Tamura discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer but not through the second layer. The modified Tamura and Morozov are related because each teach an optical structure.
Morozov teaches an optical structure wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer but not through the second layer (Figure 7; [0087] teaches 5, selective dichroic filter, transmits selected wavelengths while reflecting the other wavelengths; [0070] teaches 9, UV/IR filter, absorbs ultraviolet and infrared components of solar radiation; thus 5, selective dichroic filter, provides a color difference, which may be selected between red light and green light, between light that has passed through it compared to light that has not, while 9, UV/IR filter, does not affect the visible spectrum).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Morozov and provide wherein a color difference, in a predetermined color plane or a predetermined color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer and the second layer is greater than a color difference, in the color plane or the color space, between red light and green light that are from the light source and have transmitted through the first layer but not through the second layer. Doing so would allow for improved desired color transmission without distortion.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (2022/0206197, of record) in view of Nakatsugawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007079453 A, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anzai (2022/0221718, of record).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Tamura discloses a head-up display, comprising: the optical structure according to claim 1 (Figure 1; [0050]); an emission opening (46, window portion).
The modified Tamura fails to teach an intermediate screen The modified Tamura and Anzai are related because both teach a head-up display.
Anzai teaches a head-up display comprising: an intermediate screen (14, intermediate image screen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Anzai and provide an intermediate screen. Doing so would allow for light modulation to improve display quality.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Tamura discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the head-up display is mounted on a vehicle (Figure 1, 30, vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Tamura discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the intermediate screen is composed of a microlens array (Anzai: [0100]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Tamura discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the optical structure is placed at the emission opening (Figure 2A, 20, infrared light cut-off portion, is provided at 46, window portion).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Tamura discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the optical structure is placed between the emission opening and the intermediate screen (Figure 2B, 20, infrared light cut-off portion, is provided before 46, window portion).
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights