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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated September 29th, 2025, January 8th, 2026, February 20th, 2026, and March 3rd, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
Claim(s) 11-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2009/0153962 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Okada teaches a head-up display device comprising:
a. a transparent support comprising an input optical interface and an output optical interface, each optical interface having an external face and an internal face opposite the external face (See, e.g., transparent plate 740 in Fig. 6),
b. a reflector element arranged on at least a part of the external face of the input optical interface (See, e.g., layer 770 in Fig. 6),
c. an information projection source able to emit, towards the reflector element, a light beam polarized along a main polarization, called incident beam, the incident beam arriving on the reflector element at an angle of incidence and defining with the reflector element, a plane of incidence, the main polarization being a polarization contained in the plane of incidence, called polarization P (See, e.g., projector 300 in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0009] which explains this);
wherein the reflector element is selected from the group consisting of a coating, a treatment, and a film (Note that the cited reflector element is given to be a layer, which can be considered a treatment at the very least).
Okada lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflector element having a greater reflectivity, over a range of angles of incidence including the angle of incidence, for light with polarization P than for light with rectilinear polarization perpendicular to the plane of incidence, called polarization S.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In the instant case, the reflectivity of the P/S polarizations is a result effective variable as it directly impacts the overall brightness of the scene presented to a user. Further, there are only three configurations possible here, either P or S has higher reflectivity or they are the same. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity of the P polarization to be greater than the S polarization, for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the output of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Okada teaches the device set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the reflector element has a greater reflectivity over the range of angles of incidence for light with polarization P than for light with a different polarization (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 11 above which explains this).
Regarding claim 13, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with polarization P, over the range of angles of incidence, is greater than or equal to 10 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 14, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with polarization P, over the range of angles of incidence, is greater than or equal to 15 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 15, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with polarization P, over the range of angles of incidence, is greater than or equal to 20 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 16, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with polarization P, over the range of angles of incidence, is greater than or equal to 40 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 17, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with a polarization different from a polarization P over the range of angles of incidence, is less than or equal to 10 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 18, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the reflectivity of the reflector element for light with a polarization different from a polarization P over the range of angles of incidence, is less than or equal to 5 percent.
However, the reflectivity of the reflector corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this reflectivity directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflectivity to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 19, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the range of angles of incidence extends over at least 20 degrees.
However, the range of angles corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the range of angles directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of angles to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 20, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the range of angles of incidence extends over at least 40 degrees.
However, the range of angles corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the range of angles directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of angles to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 21, Okada teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the range of angles of incidence extends over at least 60 degrees.
However, the range of angles corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the range of angles directly impacts the level of brightness a user sees when using the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of angles to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the brightness of the device for a user.
Regarding claim 22, Okada teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the range of angles of incidence comprises a Brewster angle with respect to the input optical interface (See, e.g., paragraph [0009] which explains this).
Regarding claim 23, Okada teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the information projection source is configured for emitting the incident beam with an angle of incidence chosen so that the portion of the incident beam transmitted by the reflector element arrives on the output optical interface at an angle substantially equal to the Brewster angle with respect to the output optical interface (See, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraph [0009] which explain this).
Regarding claim 24, Okada teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the reflector element comprises a stack of dielectric layers (See, e.g., paragraph [0068] which explain this).
Regarding claim 25, Okada teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the transparent support is a windscreen of a vehicle, the reflector element being advantageously arranged over the entire external face of the input optical interface (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows this).
Regarding claim 26, Okada teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a vehicle comprising a head-up display device according to claim 11 (See, e.g., Fig. 9 which shows this).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection among other things. Specifically, applicant argues that the new limitations include the working angle for the reflectivity “without any polarization conversion”. Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the working angle for the reflectivity “without any polarization conversion”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights