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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 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, 3, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov et al. (2021/0364792, of record) in view of Nakatsugawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007079453 A, of record) in view of Tamura (2022/0206197, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Morozov discloses an optical structure to be used for a light transmitting body (Figure 3), comprising: a first layer that reduces ultraviolet rays (9, UV/IR filter; [0070] teaches 9, UV/IR filter is configured to absorb ultraviolet and infrared components of solar radiation); a second layer that has a transmission spectrum in which transmittance is minimized at a wavelength (5, selective dichroic filter; Figure 7), and a transparent substrate layer ([0065] teaches 5, selective dichroic filter, may be made on a glass substrate).
Morozov fails to teach the first layer is an adhesive layer to be attached to the light transmitting body, wherein the transmittance is minimized at a wavelength from 570 nm to 605 nm inclusive, and wherein the first layer, the transparent substrate, and the second layer are layered in this order from a light source. Morozov 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 nm 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 Morozov 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.
The modified Morozov fails to explicitly teach the first layer is an adhesive layer to be attached to the light transmitting body, and wherein the first layer, the transparent substrate, and the second layer are layered in this order from a light source. The modified Morozov and Tamura are related because each teach an optical structure.
Tamura teaches an optical structure (Figure 5) wherein the first layer (24, ultra-violet light cut-off layer) is an adhesive layer ([0101]) to be attached to the light transmitting body (at least 21, substrate), and wherein the first layer (24, ultra-violet light cut-off layer), the transparent substrate (22, infrared light cut-off layer; [0063]), and the second layer (23, infrared light reduction layer) are layered in this order from a light source (at least Figures 5, 1, and 2B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Morozov to incorporate the teachings of Tamura and provide the first layer is an adhesive layer to be attached to the light transmitting body, and wherein the first layer, the transparent substrate, and the second layer are layered in this order from a light source. Doing so would allow for improved durability optical structure while maintaining a compact size by utilizing multiple functions in a single layer. Furthermore Examiner notes that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Morozov discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, 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).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Morozov discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, 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).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Morozov discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the light transmitting body is a windowpane ([0065] teaches 5, selective dichroic filter, may be made on a glass substrate, thus interpreted as a windowpane because it is glass and light transmissive).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Morozov discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the transparent substrate layer is a PET layer (Tamura: at least [0083]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Morozov discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the first layer contains a benzotriazole ultraviolet absorber (Nakatsugawa: [0038] teaches using benzotriazole based compounds as the ultraviolet absorber).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov et al. (2021/0364792, of record) in view of Nakatsugawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007079453 A, of record) in view of Tamura (2022/0206197, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anzai (2022/0221718, of record).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Morozov discloses a head-up display, comprising: the optical structure according to claim 1 (Figure 3; [0101]); and an emission opening (Tamura: Figures 2A and 2B, 46, window portion).
The modified Morozov fails to teach an emission opening; and an intermediate screen. The modified Morozov 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 Morozov to incorporate the teachings of Anzai and provide an intermediate screen. Doing so would allow for protection of the display components and additional light modulation to improve display quality.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Morozov discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the head-up display is mounted on a vehicle ([0101]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Morozov 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 Morozov discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the optical structure is placed at the emission opening (Tamura: Figure 2A, 20, infrared light cut-off portion, is provided at 46, window portion).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Morozov discloses the head-up display according to claim 11, wherein the optical structure is placed between the emission opening and the intermediate screen (Tamura: Figure 2B, 20, infrared light cut-off portion, is provided before 46, window portion).
Conclusion
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