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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/034,185 filed on April 27, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted March 5, 2026 in response to the office action mailed December 18, 2025 are under examination. Claims 1-2 are pending. Claims 3-8 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sugiyama et al. US 2019/0212560 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Sugiyama) as evidenced by Nakamura et al. US 2013/0010366 A1 (previously cited, hereafter Nakamura) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sugiyama et al. US 2019/0212560 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Sugiyama) in view of Nakamura et al. US 2013/0010366 A1 (previously cited, hereafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches (e.g. Figs. 1, 6 and 7) “A head-up display (paragraph [0040]: “a head-up display (HUD) apparatus”) for a motor vehicle (vehicle 2), comprising:
a picture generating unit (image display apparatus 30) for generating an image (paragraph [0040]: “image light”);
an optical unit (concave mirror 41) for projecting the image through a mirror unit (windshield 3, see Fig. 1a); and
a folding mirror (light guide 17 with light-reflection portion 172) that macroscopically exhibits an angle of incidence greater than an angle of reflection (see Fig. 7, the angle of incidence and reflection off of each reflection surface 172a are the same, however the reflection surfaces 172a are arranged at a steeper angle than the envelope curve 172c, thus 172 folds the light such that the angle of incidence is greater than the angle of reflection when considered relative to the normal of the folding mirror on which the microstructures are arranged. See examiner’s markup of a small portion of Fig. 7 below. The plane of the surface and the normal to the surface of the mirror are marked with a thin black lines. An incident ray and a reflected ray are marked with thick black lines. The angle of incidence between the incident ray and the normal to the surface is indicated by the sector patterned with diagonal stripes. The angle of reflection between the reflected ray and the normal to the surface is indicated by the solid light gray sector. The angle of incidence is greater than the angle of reflection. That these angles being measured relative to the normal of the folding mirror with envelope curve 172c is the same as shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application. To put it another way, that the angle of the reflection surfaces is different than the envelope is explicitly discussed, see e.g. paragraph [0060]: “many reflection surfaces 172a and connection surfaces 172b are alternately formed in serrate shapes on the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172”. The serrated shape means that 172a, 172b and 172c form a triangle and therefor that the angle of 172a is different than that of 172c. The question of which of 172a and 172c is steeper is a genus with only two species. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably deduce that 172a is in fact steeper than 172c, because given only two possibilities, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both possibilities, including that 172a is steeper than 172c as explicitly depicted in Fig. 7.1) and the folding mirror having Fresnel microstructures (172a and 172b, paragraph [0060]: “many reflection surfaces 172a and connection surfaces 172b are alternately formed in serrate shapes on the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172” and paragraph [0062]: “reflection-surface elevation angles α1, α2, α3, α4 . . . are values which slightly increase as they move from a lower portion of the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172 to its upper portion.” These serrated shapes are a Fresnel structure as evidence by Nakamura who teaches in e.g. paragraph [0018]: “the reflector includes a linear Fresnel lens in which a plurality of slopes which are arranged in parallel with each other and inclined at the same angle are formed, and the slopes become the reflecting surfaces by being mirrored.”) on a reflective surface (the microstructures are arranged on and tilted at an angle with respect to the envelope curve 172c of the folding mirror) that satisfy the known rule that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection (as admitted by the applicant in lines 11-19 of page 6 of 8 of the remarks filed March 5, 2026, each reflective facet of the microstructures obeys the fundamental principle that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection),
wherein the folding mirror is arranged between a light source (LED substrate 12) and a display element (display panel 52) through which light therefrom radiates (see Fig. 7).”
PNG
media_image1.png
498
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative that Sugiyama fails to teach “having Fresnel structures”, this limitation would also have been obvious in view of Nakamura as follows.
Nakamura teaches “A head-up display for a motor vehicle (head-up display of Fig. 1), comprising:
a picture generating unit (indicator 22) for generating an image (see Fig. 2 indicator 22 generates display light L);
an optical unit (enlargement mirror 24) for projecting the image through a mirror unit (windshield 12, see Figs. 1 and 2 24 projects the display light L to 12 which is a mirror because it reflects light to the driver’s eye point EP); and
a folding mirror (reflector 23) that macroscopically exhibits an angle of incidence [different] than an angle of reflection (The angle of incidence is relative to the back surface of 34, whereas the angle of reflectance relative to the back surface is determined by the angle of incidence on slope 32. Thus the angle of reflection is different than it would have been if the light had reflected off the back surface of 34.) and the folding mirror having Fresnel microstructures (linear Fresnel lens 34, which is formed of a plurality of slopes 32) on a reflective surface (reflector 23) that satisfy the known rule that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection (for each individual reflective facet the fundamental principles of optics apply).”
Nakamura further teaches (paragraph [0018]): “the reflector includes a linear Fresnel lens in which a plurality of slopes which are arranged in parallel with each other and inclined at the same angle are formed, and the slopes become the reflecting surfaces by being mirrored.”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Sugiyama, teaches a head-up display which differs from the claimed head-up display by the substitution of the component of an array of angled reflection surfaces with another component of reflective Fresnel microstructures;
(2) the component of reflective Fresnel microstructures and its function were known in the art in view of Nakamura;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted reflective microstructures arranged as a Fresnel structure for reflection surfaces not explicitly arranged as a Fresnel structure, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been to enable a converging or diverging property;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a Fresnel structure as taught by Nakamura for the array of angled reflection surfaces in the device of Sugiyama and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama teaches “The head-up display as claimed in claim 1,” or Sugiyama in view of Nakamura teaches “The head-up display as claimed in claim 1” and Sugiyama further teaches “wherein the difference between the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection over the surface of the folding mirror is position-dependent (paragraph [0062]: “reflection-surface elevation angles α1, α2, α3, α4 . . . are values which slightly increase as they move from a lower portion of the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172 to its upper portion.” Since the elevation angles determine the angle of reflection, the increasing elevation angles with position means that the angle of reflection over the surface of the folding mirror is position-dependent).”
Note that this property can be retained in the above combination because an ordinary skilled artisan would know that such slightly changing angles are one way of introducing converging or diverging functionality, typical for Fresnel structures, to the reflective element. Thus there is no reason why, in the above modification, one would have to replace the reflection surfaces of Sugiyama with reflective surfaces that are strictly parallel and at the same angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant addresses some formality issues that have been considered above.
In the first paragraph under the heading “Prior Art Rejections” on page 3 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first enumerates the prior art rejections of the previous office action and introduces that they will be traversed. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In the second paragraph under the heading “Prior Art Rejections” on page 3 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claim 1 as amended recites “a folding mirror that macroscopically exhibits an angle of incidence greater than an angle of reflection and the folding mirror having Fresnel-microstructures on a reflective surface that satisfy the known rule that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection" No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
From page 4 of 8 through line 2 of page 5 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant explains how the limitations above are supported in the application as filed, and the beneficial effect that they have. No specific argument with respect to the prior art or rejection of record are made in these paragraphs.
In lines 3-4 of page 5 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that Sugiyama is silent with respect to a folding mirror whose angle of incidence and angle of reflection are not the same when viewed macroscopically. This is a conclusory statement not an argument. The arguments underlying this conclusion are addressed below.
In lines 5-11 of page 5 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant quotes from paragraph [0059] of Sugiyama which discloses: “sizes of the reflection surface 172a and the connection surface 172b are relatively increased with respect to the light guide 17 for explanation. A main light beam(s) is deflected by δ on the light-guide light-incident portion (surface) 171 of the light guide 17 in a direction in which an incident angle increases with respect to the reflection surface 172a.” and infers from this that “the mirror in Sugiyama does not have microstructures on a reflective surface that each satisfy the known rule that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection but having an angle of incidence is greater than an angle of reflection.” This conclusion does not follow from the quoted passage, rather the logic underlying this conclusion is presented thereafter.
In lines 12-21 of page 5 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that because Fig. 7 is not drawn to scale, that one cannot deduce anything about the respective orientations of the components, and that the “measurements” in the Office Action are improper. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, Sugiyama unambiguously describes 172a as the reflection surfaces which reflect light and 172b as the connection surfaces that do not reflect light (see paragraph [0058] “the connection surface 17b of the reflection portion is inclined up to an angle which is shadowed with respect to incident light”). That 172a is steeper than the slope of 172 as a whole is independent of scale. As pointed out in MPEP §2125 “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” An ordinary skilled artisan would, in fact, be able to tell the difference between Sugiyama Fig. 7, where the reflective surfaces are steeper than the envelope of the mirror and Nakamura Fig. 4 where the envelope of the mirror is steeper than reflective surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
214
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In both instances, because the angle of the reflective surfaces is different than the angle of the envelope of the overall folding mirror, the angle of incidence on the folding mirror is different than the angle of reflection from the folding mirror, but only in Sugiyama is the angle of incidence on the folding mirror is greater than the angle of reflection from the folding mirror. Thus, although one cannot deduce the specific values for the incident and reflection angles from the drawings, the drawings of Sugiyama do reasonably teach one or ordinary skill in the art that the angle of incidence on the folding mirror is greater than the angle of reflection from the folding mirror. Secondly, the examiner’s markup of Fig. 7 does not “measure” either of the angles to rely on specific values thereof, but rather illustrates the principle of which one is greater than the other to aid in understanding.
In lines 22-23 of page 5 of 8 through line 5 of page 6 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the disclosure accompanying Fig. 7 is silent with respect to the orientation of the depicted components and therefor Sugiyama fails to inherently or explicitly teach the "angle of incidence and angle of reflection are not the same when viewed macroscopically". The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment. That the angle of the reflection surfaces is different than the envelope is explicitly discussed, see e.g. paragraph [0060]: “many reflection surfaces 172a and connection surfaces 172b are alternately formed in serrate shapes on the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172”. The serrated shape means that 172a, 172b and 172c form a triangle and therefor that the angle of 172a is different than that of 172c. The question of which of 172a and 172c is steeper is a genus with only two species. Thus the applicant’s argument that, lacking specific mention thereof, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably deduce that 172a is in fact steeper than 172c, ignores the fact that given only two possibilities, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both possibilities, including the one explicitly depicted in Fig. 7.
As best understood by the examiner, in lines 6-19 of page 6 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points out that the reflective surfaces in Sugiyama obey the fundamental optics principle that the angle of reflection and the angle of incidence are equal to one another when measured with respect to the normal to the reflective surface of 172a. This is not a point of disagreement. The explanation by the applicant merely confirms that Sugiyama teaches “Fresnel microstructures… that satisfy the known rule that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection” as claimed.
From line 20 of page 6 of 8 through line 8 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that Sugiyama teaches a second reflection on a second sloped reflecting surface 172b. The examiner cannot identify any support for this allegation within Sugiyama, nor does the applicant point out where they are finding evidence of this behavior. Rather, 172b are consistently referred to as connection surfaces and paragraph [0058] notes that 172b is shadowed with respect to incident light. Thus any argument that relies on this characterization of Sugiyama cannot be persuasive because it appears to be a misunderstanding of the reference.
In lines 9-11 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “Although the ray paths drawn in Fig. 7 may appear visually asymmetric with respect to the module's outer boundaries, this is due to the angled positions of the reflection surfaces, not any difference between the angles of incidence and reflection.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, the examiner notes with appreciation that the applicant acknowledges that the reflection surfaces have angled positions with respect to the module’s outer boundaries. Second, the examiner further notes with appreciation that the applicant acknowledges that this angled position results in visually asymmetric ray angles. Third, since Sugiyama explicitly teaches (paragraph [0057]): “reflection surfaces 172a and connection surfaces 172b are alternately formed in serrate shapes on the light-guide light-reflection portion (surface) 172 of the light guide 17” this visible asymmetry due to the angled reflective surfaces is not just “visual” but factual.
In lines 11-19 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant appears to argue that the angle of incidence and reflection of the folding mirror should be measured relative to the surface normal of the reflective microstructure, and thus when measured in this manner, Sugiyama teaches that angle of incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, that angle of incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection when measured from the surface normal of the microstructure is (1) a similarity between the instant application and Sugiyama and (2) is a statement of a fundamental principle of optics. Secondly, the limitation that the folding mirror “macroscopically exhibits an angle of incidence greater than an angle of reflection” in the instant application is also relative to a surface that does not itself reflect light (compare Fig. 4 of the instant application and Fig. 7 of Sugiyama below). Thus, in light of the specification of the instant application, when considering the macroscopic behavior of the folding mirror, one cannot follow the typical rule and measure the angles of reflection and incidence from the reflective surface of the Fresnel microstructures. Rather, one must measure it relative to the shape of the overall mirror. Thus applicant’s argument that the Office Action is improperly interpreting the meaning of an angle of reflection and an angle of incidence with respect to the macroscopic behavior is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image4.png
408
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
476
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In lines 20-21 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes that “because Sugiyama is completely silent with respect to having an angle of incidence is greater than an angle of reflection, Sugiyama is unlike the presently disclosed and claimed folding mirror.” This conclusion is predicated on the previous arguments which have been addressed above.
From line 22 of page 7 of 8 through line 3 of page 8 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Nakamura does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Sugiyama because although Nakamura teaches a Fresnel reflector with a plurality of slopes which are arranged in parallel with each other and inclined at an angle, Nakamura likewise is silent with respect to an angle of incidence that is greater than an angle of reflection. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, as explained above, there is no such deficiency in Sugiyama. Secondly, due to the inclination of the reflecting surfaces Nakamura does teach that the macroscopic angle of incidence on the folding mirror is different than the macroscopic angle of reflection from the folding mirror, albeit smaller, not larger.
No further specific arguments are made after this paragraph.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).