DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/26/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2026 and 3/20/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, all references are being considered, except for the NPL document of an Office action of US application 18/026727 in the IDS submitted on 2/5/2026, has been noted but is not being considered because copy of an Office action will not be listed on the face of a patent.
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 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE102018213061) in view of Osaka et al. (US4427048), Bradski et al. (US20150178939) and Streeter (US3342244).
Regarding claim 1, Kreipe teaches an apparatus for generating a virtual image (Kreipe, figs.1-12, abstract, generating a virtual image), having:
a display element for generating an image (Kreipe, figs.1-12, paragraph [0003], Head-up displays generally consist of an image generator);
an optical waveguide (Kreipe, abstract, optical waveguide 5) for expanding an exit pupil (abstract, for widening an exit pupil); and
an anti-glare element (see Kreipe, figs.5-6, slats 971) arranged in a downstream beam path of the optical waveguide (see Kreipe, figs.5-6, slats 971 arranged in a downstream beam path SL of the optical waveguide 5), wherein
the anti-glare element (Kreipe, slats 971) is a shutter that has a plurality of slats (Kreipe, paragraph [0034], This prevents contact surfaces of the lamellae 971 with the boundary surface 501 from having a negative influence on the total reflection in the optical waveguide 5; see fig.8, having a plurality of slats 971) which, in the direction of their longest extent (see Kreipe, fig.8, slats 971 in the direction of their longest extent);
But Kreipe does not explicitly teaches wherein each of the plurality of slats have end regions at their respective longitudinal ends that have flat reinforcing elements which extend from and protrude beyond the slats, and each of the flat reinforcing elements is a leaf spring and extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats.
However, Osaka teaches a shutter that has a plurality of slats (Osaka, figs.1-14, col 1, lines 15-27, a shutter construction comprises a plurality of S-shaped foil louvres---as an anti-glare element---. A bearing is on one end of each louvre and a crank on the other end and aligned with the bearing of that louvre forming a louvre pivot axis. Bearing means which rotatably receive each of the bearing and cranks also restrain the louvres in a direction along the axes. Drive means are coupled to the cranks and offset from the axes for simultaneously rotating the louvres about the axes and includes counter balance means for counter balancing the drive means about the axis during rotation), and further teaches
wherein each of the plurality of slats have end regions at their respective longitudinal ends (see Osaka, fig.5a, each of the plurality of slats 64 have end regions at their respective longitudinal ends; see Figs.1-14, col.2, lines 39-40, typical louvre 20 comprises a louvre slat 64 secured between channel members 28 and 26) that have flat reinforcing elements (Osaka, fig.5a, thermoplastic connectors 92, 72 has been referred to as flat reinforcing elements; col.2, lines 66-37, a thermoplastic connectors 92, 72; Connector 72 at the other end of the slat may be constructed similarly) which extend from and protrude beyond the slats (see Osaka, figs.5a, 8, thermoplastic connectors 92, 72 which extend from and protrude beyond the slats 64), and each of the flat reinforcing elements extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats (see Osaka, figs.5a, 8, each of the flat reinforcing elements 92, 72 extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats 64).
Further, Bradski teaches (paragraph [0195] discloses: “One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window). The MEMS/louvers configuration may be placed upon an optically transparent substrate, with the louvers substantially opaque. Ideally such a configuration would have a louver pitch fine enough to selectably occlude light on a pixel-by-pixel basis. In another embodiment, two or more layers or stacks of louvers may be combined to provide yet further controls. In another embodiment, rather than selectively blocking light, the louvers may be polarizers configured to change the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis.”). Thus, it establishes that MEMs sized louver systems that act similarity to plantation shutters (and thus also venetian blinds) exist, and can be used in augmented or virtual reality displays.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the plurality of slats have end regions at their respective longitudinal ends that have flat reinforcing elements which protrude beyond the slats as taught by Combination Osaka-Bradski (that make each of the plurality of slats to have MEMs sized louver of Bradski) for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Although Kreipe in view of Osaka does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the flat reinforcing elements is a leaf spring and extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats (since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function.).
However, Streeter teaches the Louver (see Streeter, figs. 3-5, louver 11), and further teaches wherein each of the flat reinforcing elements (Streeter, fig. 3, fastener 23 has been referred to as the flat reinforcing elements) is a leaf spring (see annotated image, Streeter, fig. 3, leaf spring, resilient 24) and extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats (fig. 3, louvers 11 has been referred to as the slats; see col. 5, lines 56-59, Each end of each louver 11 is provided with a fastener 23 comprising a resilient C-shaped wire hook 24 and a rectangular backing plate 25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe view of Osaka and Bradski to have the specific shape and material as taught by Streeter to have each of the flat reinforcing elements is a leaf spring and extends beyond respective lateral edges of the slats for the purpose of the enclosed location of the louvers protects them from damage; consequently they can be made of extremely thin material (Streeter, col. 1, lines 67-69).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
1048
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Osaka further teaches wherein the reinforcing elements (the 92, 72) protrude beyond the slats (fig.5a, salts 64) in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the longest extent of the slats (see Osaka, fig.5a, the 92, 72 protrude beyond the slats 64 in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the longest extent of the slats 64).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 2, Osaka further teaches wherein the reinforcing elements (Osaka, fig.5a, the 92, 72) protrude beyond the slats (fig.5a, the 64) in the direction the height of the slats (fig.5a, salts 64).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 4, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Osaka further teaches wherein the reinforcing elements (Osaka, fig.5a, the 92, 72) are resiliently configured (Osaka, col.2, lines 66-37, a thermoplastic connectors 92, 72).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 7, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Osaka further teaches wherein the reinforcing elements (fig.5a, the 92, 72) protrude upward and downward beyond the slats (see Osaka, figs.5a, 8, the 92, 72 protrude upward and downward beyond the slats 64 ), and the upwardly protruding regions of the reinforcing elements are arranged displaceable in relation to the downwardly protruding regions of the reinforcing elements (see Osaka, fig.5a, col.3, lines 57-59, the respective bearing pins 70 and 82 to permit free movement--- thus, the upwardly protruding regions of reinforcing elements 92, 72 are arranged displaceably in relation to the downwardly protruding regions of the reinforcing elements 92, 72).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 8, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and Osaka further teaches wherein spacer platelets (Osaka, fig.6, wedge pins 96 has been referred to as spacer platelets --- wedge pins and associated wedge plates are utilized as spacers in specific engineering applications) arranged respectively between the upwardly or downwardly protruding regions of the reinforcing elements (see Osaka, fig.5a, fig.6, the spacer platelets96 arranged respectively between the upwardly or downwardly protruding regions of the reinforcing elements 92) are fixed by means of fixing elements to an upper or lower row (see Osaka, fig.6, col.2, lines 61-67, In FIG. 6, pin 82 is mounted within a thermoplastic connector 92 which has a slot 94 for receiving slat 64. Wedge pins 96 are inserted in apertures 98 puncturing the slat 64 which is an extremely thin foil---thus the regions are fixed by means of fixing elements to an upper or lower row).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 10, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Osaka further teaches wherein each of the flat reinforcing elements (Osaka, fig.5a, the 92, 72) is coterminous with the respective longitudinal ends of the slats (see Osaka, fig.5a, each of the 92, 72 coterminous with the respective longitudinal ends of the slats 64).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreipe to have each of the flat reinforcing elements as taught by Osaka for the purpose to be relatively maintenance free and has prolonged life in that the louvres are protected from damage and dirt (Osaka, col.2, lines 5-8).
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE102018213061) in view of Osaka (US4427048), Bradski et al. (US20150178939) and Streeter (US3342244), further in view of Harata et al. (US20040263976).
Regarding claim 5, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Kreipe does not explicitly teaches wherein spacer platelets are arranged between the reinforcing elements of neighboring slats.
However, in the analogous antiglare layers, Harata teaches in figs.1-18 (Harata, paragraph [0035], FIG. 3 shows a cross sectional view of angle selective transparent sheet 3 which is constructed by arranging light shielding walls (louver) 42 ;paragraph [0047] in view of the degree of freedom of the antiglare and the design thereof, the upper brightness of the occupant-facing surface of light shielding wall, louver42), and further teaches wherein spacer platelets (Harata, fig.3, louver42) are arranged between the reinforcing elements (Harata, fig.3, reinforcement films 43; paragraph [0035], reinforcement films 43) of neighboring slats (Harata, fig.3, films 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski to have spacer platelets as taught by Harata for the purpose of suppressing a windshield reflection of the material while maintaining the visible light reflection characteristic (Harata, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter-Harata discloses the invention as described in Claim 5 and Harata further teaches wherein the spacer platelets (Harata, louver 42) have a different material thickness at different locations of the shutter (Harata, paragraph [0042] louver 42 by varying a thickness of a transparent sheet and a thickness of a non-transparent sheet, of controlling a height of light shielding walls, louver 42 by controlling a slicing thickness of sheet from the laminated block).(--- it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07; further the materials are well known in the art (Harata, paragraphs [0005-0006], It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a material which is capable of effectively reflecting solar energy including visible light so as to suppress the temperature rise of the interiors when applied to surface members of vehicle interiors.[0006] Another object of the present invention is to provide a material which is capable of suppressing a windshield reflection of the material while maintaining the visible light reflection characteristic), and a skilled person in the art may ascertain claimed the reinforcing elements of material without any difficulty; it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.)
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski to have spacer platelets as taught by Harata for the purpose of suppressing a windshield reflection of the material while maintaining the visible light reflection characteristic (Harata, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski-Streeter-Harata discloses the invention as described in Claim 5 and Harata further teaches wherein the spacer platelets (Harata, fig.9, louver 42) have a slant (see Harata, fig.9, louver 42 have a slant) which corresponds to a preferred direction of the slats (Harata the films 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of combination Kreipe-Osaka-Bradski to have spacer platelets as taught by Harata for the purpose of suppressing a windshield reflection of the material while maintaining the visible light reflection characteristic (Harata, paragraph [0006]).
Response to argument/amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
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 extension fee 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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights