DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments (see Remarks dated 09/30/2025) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, applicant alleges that “Hirata, whether considered alone or in proper combination with Bastani and/or Nakamura, fails to disclose or suggest at least the above-noted features of claims 23 and 40.” However, the examiner has not relied upon Bastani or Nakamura for the previous rejections of claims 23 or 40. Further, applicant’s “above-noted features” partially refers to a cylindrical mirror, which is not claimed in claims 23 or 40.
Applicant argues that “Hirata fails to disclose any configuration where magnification along the second axis is the only magnification applied, or that there is no magnification / 1x magnification along the first axis.” However, applicant has not claimed either of the above features.
Lastly, applicant argues that Hirata discloses changes in refractive power rather than magnification, and proceeds to explain the differences between refractive power and magnification. However, [0063] and [0067] of Hirata clearly disclose that concave mirror 1 provides magnification. In the previous and instant rejections of claims 23 and 40, the examiner has only cited Hirata’s concave mirror 1 as the component which provides magnification. In Figure 1 of Hirata, the images along L0 have not been magnified because they are approaching 1’s surface, while the images along L1 have been magnified by 1 because they are incident from 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 23-24, 26-30, 33-35, and 37-42 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata et al. (US 20190196188 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Hirata discloses an image generation system for providing a ghost image free head-up display (Abstract), the image generation system comprising:
a display screen having a front surface and a back surface (Fig. 1, 6 has a front and back);
a picture generation unit for projecting an image (Fig. 1, 4 and 5 taken together) towards the display screen for reflection towards an eye box (Fig. 1, 8);
a field lens (Fig. 1, 2); and
an anisotropic ([0064]) optical component (Fig. 1, 1) having a first optical power along a first axis and second optical power along a second axis ([0063], [0093]-[0096]; Fig. 1, first axis L0, second axis L1), wherein the first and second axis are perpendicular (Fig. 1),
wherein the picture generation unit is configured to project light through the field lens such that light is incident on the front surface of the display screen forming a first virtual image (Fig. 1, light projected through 2 is incident on the front of 6 and forms V1),
wherein a portion of the light is transmitted through the display screen and is incident on the back surface of the display screen forming a second virtual image ([0101]), wherein the first and second virtual images are offset along the first axis (Fig. 1),
wherein the field lens is configured to project the first virtual image at a first projection distance and the second virtual image at a second projection distance (Fig. 1, 2 projects the virtual images of 6 at two distances) such that the offset is below a threshold magnitude ([0014], the virtual images are offset below a threshold, in order to appear overlaid) and the first and second virtual images are substantially overlaid as viewed from the eye box (Fig. 1, from 8),
wherein the anisotropic optical component is configured to magnify the first and second virtual image along the second axis only (Fig. 1, between 1 and 6) configured such that the images along the first axis are substantially unmagnified and that the magnification along the second axis is higher than the magnification along the first axis (Fig. 1, the images along L0 have not been magnified because they are approaching 1’s surface, while the images along L1 have been magnified by 1 because they are incident from 1).
Regarding claim 24, Hirata discloses wherein the field lens is configured to project the first and second virtual images at the first and second projection distances (Fig. 1, 2 projects the virtual images of 6 at two distances) such that the offset between the first and second virtual image is below a threshold angular resolution ([0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 26, Hirata discloses wherein the threshold angular resolution is equal to the angular resolution of the human eye ([0017], image observed by a driver).
Regarding claim 27, Hirata discloses wherein the anisotropic optical component is provided by one of a free form mirror ([0064], mirror 1 has a “free-form surface expressed by Formula 1”; [0126], “free-form surface concave mirror”), free form lens, cylindrical mirror or a cylindrical lens.
Regarding claim 28, Hirata discloses wherein the field lens is provided by one of a concave mirror ([0066], curved mirror), a free-form surface ([0126], “free-form surface optical element [2]”), a Fresnel lens, a waveguide, a diffractive optical element, a holographic optical element or one or more tapered optical fibers.
Regarding claim 29, Hirata discloses wherein the picture generation unit comprises a light source (Fig. 1, 5; [0127]; backlight light source 5) and a spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 4; [0128], liquid crystal panel 4).
Regarding claim 30, Hirata discloses wherein the picture generation unit comprises a projector (Abstract) and a diffuser for realizing a projected image (Fig. 16, 14; [0132], diffusing member 14).
Regarding claim 33, Hirata discloses wherein the picture generation unit comprises one or more of an LCD device ([0060]), an LED device ([0127]), a micro LED device, an OLED device, or a digital light processing digital micromirror device.
Regarding claim 34, Hirata discloses further comprising intervening optics between any of the picture generation unit, the field lens, the display screen and/or the anisotropic optical component ([0066], 2).
Regarding claim 35, Hirata discloses wherein the intervening optics comprise one of a fold mirror, waveguide, diffractive optical element or holographic optical element ([0066], 2 can include a curved mirror for folding the optical path).
Regarding claim 37, Hirata discloses wherein the display screen of the head-up display is a windscreen of a vehicle ([0079]).
Regarding claim 38, Hirata discloses wherein one or more of the field lens, projection unit, anisotropic optical component and/or intervening optical components (if present) are moveable relative to one another ([0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 39, Hirata discloses wherein the image comprises a first region ([0069], light reflected from 2) and a second region ([0069], light transmitted through 2), wherein the system is arranged such that the first and second region are projected through the field lens whilst only the second region is projected through the anisotropic optical component ([0069]).
Regarding claim 40, Hirata discloses a method for providing a ghost image free head-up display (Abstract), the method comprising:
generating an image at a picture generation unit (Fig. 1, 4 and 5 taken together), said image to be rendered on a display screen (Fig. 1, 6) for reflection towards a predetermined eye box (Fig. 1, 8), the display screen having a front surface and a back surface (Fig. 1, 6 has a front and back);
providing a field lens (Fig. 1, 2) between the picture generation unit and the display screen (Fig. 1, 2 is between 4,5 and 6);
providing an anisotropic ([0064]) optical component (Fig. 1, 1) between the picture generation unit and the display screen (Fig. 1, 1 is between 4,5 and 6), the anisotropic optical component having a first optical power along a first axis and second optical power along a second axis ([0063], [0093]-[0096]; Fig. 1, first axis L0, second axis L1), wherein the first and second axis are perpendicular (Fig. 1);
wherein a portion of the light incident on the front surface of the display screen is reflected forming a first virtual image (Fig. 1, light projected through 2 is incident on the front of 6 and forms V1), and a portion of the light is transmitted through the display screen and is incident on the back surface forming a second virtual image ([0101]), wherein the first and second virtual images are offset along the first axis (Fig. 1);
configuring the field lens to project the first virtual image at a first projection distance and the second virtual image at a second projection distance (Fig. 1, 2 projects the virtual images of 6 at two distances) such that the offset is below a threshold magnitude ([0014], “reduced up to a level [of] practically having no problem”; the virtual images are offset below a threshold, in order to appear overlaid) and the first and second virtual images are substantially overlaid as viewed from the eye box (Fig. 1, from 8); and
configuring the anisotropic optical component to magnify the first and second virtual image along the second axis only (Fig. 1, between 1 and 6) configured such that the images along the first axis are substantially unmagnified and that the magnification along the second axis is higher than the magnification along the first axis (Fig. 1, the images along L0 have not been magnified because they are approaching 1’s surface, while the images along L1 have been magnified by 1 because they are incident from 1).
Regarding claim 41, Hirata discloses further comprising projecting the first and second virtual images at the first and second projection distances (Fig. 1, 2 projects the virtual images of 6 at two distances) such that the offset between the first and second virtual image is below a threshold angular resolution ([0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 42, Hirata discloses wherein the threshold angular resolution is equal to the dimensions of a pixel or equal to the angular resolution of the human eye ([0017], image observed by a driver).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Bastani et al. (US 20180275772 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Hirata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold angular resolution is equal to the dimensions of a pixel.
However, Bastani teaches a display device which renders a virtual interface, and discloses wherein a threshold angular resolution is equal to the dimensions of a pixel ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hirata and Bastani such that the threshold angular resolution was equal to the dimensions of a pixel, motivated by helping determine orientation the device ([0047]-[0048], 930 and 935).
7. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Nakamura et al. (US 10437052 B2).
Regarding claim 31, Hirata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the picture generation unit comprises a laser and a 2D scanning mirror.
However, Nakamura teaches a similar image projection display system (Fig. 1A), and discloses wherein a picture generation unit comprises a laser (column 4 lines 13-29) and a 2D scanning mirror (column 5 lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hirata and Nakamura such that the picture generation unit was to comprise a laser and a 2D scanning mirror, motivated by allowing precise control over image quality.
8. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Hegg et al. (US 5907416 A).
Regarding claim 32, Hirata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the picture generation unit comprises a holographic unit to produce computer generated holograms and a diffuser for realizing the holograms.
However, Hegg teaches a similar optical projection display system (Fig. 1), and discloses wherein a picture generation unit comprises a holographic unit to produce computer generated holograms (Abstract) and a diffuser for realizing the holograms (Fig. 1, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hirata and Hegg such that the picture generation unit was to comprise a holographic unit, motivated by enhancing the display of the device.
9. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Wang et al. (CN 109507799 A).
Regarding claim 36, Hirata fails to explicitly disclose an image processor in communication with the picture generation unit, wherein the image processor is configured to account for distortions caused by the optical set up such that the images appear undistorted on the display screen.
However, Wang teaches a similar windshield HUD device, and discloses wherein an image processor is in communication with a picture generation unit, wherein the image processor is configured to account for distortions caused by the optical set up such that the images appear undistorted on the display screen (claims 6 & 13, curvature correction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hirata and Wang such that an image processor was configured to account for distortions caused by an optical setup when projecting an image onto a display screen, motivated by improving optical clarity.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872