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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 6-19 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
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) 1-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20080151185 A1) in view of Toshihiko (JP H10333080 A, See attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Saito discloses, on Fig. 4, a virtual image optical system with which a virtual image is formed by introducing light from a display surface to a pupil (light source 3 comprising video signal), the virtual image optical system comprising: a first reflective surface arranged to reflect the light from the display surface (mirror 13), and a second reflective surface (mirror 6) arranged to reflect light from the first reflective surface, wherein an optical path length from the display surface to the second reflective surface is changeable with movement of the first reflective surface (position of mirror 13 of P7 and P8),
wherein the virtual image is tiltable (paths L3 or L5 would have tilted virtual images) with rotation of the first reflective surface relative to a straight line connecting a center of the pupil and a center of the virtual image (mirror 13 can move and scanner 5 and mirror 6 can move such that the different paths L3, L5, L2, or L4 can be produced and thus different virtual images).
a position of the pupil is changeable (EP changes) with rotation of the second reflective surface in a direction having a component in a direction perpendicular to an optical path of a principal ray incident on the pupil (mirror 6 rotates in direction A perpendicular to the paths of locations L3/L5), and an angle formed between a moving direction of the first reflective surface (mirror 13 moves to position 7, in the same direction of the optical path) and the principal ray incident on the first reflective surface is 5° or less (the angle between the movement path between positions P8 and P7 the incident ray is 0º).
But Saito does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rotation of the first reflective surface tilts the virtual image while maintaining the virtual image as a single continuous virtual image formed on the same optical axis, the tilting being relative to a straight line connecting a center of the pupil and a center of the virtual image.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Toshihiko teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in heads up displays for the rotation of the first reflective surface (rotation of optical element 6) [Par 18] tilts the virtual image while maintaining the virtual image as a single continuous virtual image formed on the same optical axis (position of virtual image is adjusted vertically by rotation) [Par 18], the tilting being relative to a straight line connecting a center of the pupil and a center of the virtual image (See Fig. 1 wherein there is a straight line between the driver’s eye E and the virtual image P, “As a result, an enlarged virtual image of the object being observed is formed at the position P in front of the combiner 1. Driver E can perceive both the illusion and the actual object in front of them.”) [Par 20].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saito with Toshihiko, in order to provide a smaller heads-up display, as taught by Toshihiko.
Re Claim 2, Saito in view of Toshihiko discloses on Fig. 4, the virtual image optical system according to claim 1.
But Saito in view of Toshihiko does not explicitly disclose, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
30°≤β≤70° where sum of an incident angle and a reflection angle of the principal ray with respect to the first reflective surface is denoted by β.
Optimizing β is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Saito teaches the control of the reflection angle of the principle ray (angle of incidence is equal to angle of reflection, and thus
β
2
) [Par 58-64], as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting β and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize β, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 3, Saito in view of Toshihiko discloses, on Fig. 4, the virtual image optical system according to claim 1.
But Saito in view of Toshihiko does not explicitly discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.00<|ϕ1/ϕ2|≤0.40 where power of the first reflective surface on the optical path of the principal ray is denoted by ϕ1 and power of the second reflective surface thereon is denoted by ϕ2.
Optimizing ϕ1/ϕ2| is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Saito teaches the control of the reflection angle of the principle ray of mirror 13 and the reflection angle of mirror 6 relative to each other (thus ϕ1 and ϕ2) [Par 58-64], as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting ϕ1/ ϕ2 and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize ϕ1/ ϕ2 ,since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 4, Saito in view of Toshihiko discloses, the virtual image optical system according to claim 1, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein a rotation center of the second reflective surface is positioned between an incident position of the principal ray on the second reflective surface when the first reflective surface is maximally moved to a reduction side and an incident position of the principal ray on the second reflective surface when the first reflective surface is maximally moved to an enlargement side (center of rotation for mirror 6, is between the dotted and solid lines representing the principle incident rays on the second reflective when mirror 13 is at position P7 and P8, though scanner 5 can control the incident ray on mirror 6 such that the angle of reflected light from mirror 13 to mirror 6 can further be controlled) [Par 64].
Re Claim 6, Saito in view of Toshihiko discloses, the virtual image optical system according to claim 1, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein a rotation center of the first reflective surface (mirror 13) is positioned on the optical path of the principal ray incident on the first reflective surface (optical path shown in Fig. 4, rotate is in a direction C so that incident light reflects from the center of mirror 13 at P7 and P8).
Claim(s) 7-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Toshihiko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagata (JP 6252883 B1, see attached Machine Translation).
Re claim 7, Saito in view of Toshihiko discloses, a virtual image display device comprising: the virtual image optical system according to claim 1; and Saito further discloses on Fig. 4, a first and second drive units configured to drive the first and second reflective surfaces, respectively (drive controlling part 28 controls mirror 6, and mirror 13 is driven similar to scanning unit 5 which uses drive controlling part 23) [Par 51, 56, and 66].
But Sait does not explicitly disclose, a display unit with a display surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yamagata teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in display systems to include a display unit (display 110) with a display surface (LCD 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saito with Yamagata in order to emit display image light as taught by Yamagata [Page 4, Par 7].
Re claim 8, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the virtual image display device according to claim 7, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the first drive unit (drive controlling part 23) changes a position of the virtual image (Different optical paths L3 or L5 and L2 or L4) to be visually recognized by a user by moving the first reflective surface (mirror 13).
Re Claim 9, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the virtual image display device according to claim 7, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the second drive unit (drive controlling part 28) adjusts a relative position between the pupil (pupil EP) and an eye of a user (eye pupil EA) by rotating the second reflective surface (different light paths L3 or L5 and L2 or L4) [Par 65].
Re Claim 10, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the virtual image display device according to claim 7, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 3-4, wherein at least one of the first and second drive units (drive controlling part 28) drives at least one of the first and second reflective surfaces (mirror 6) in accordance with at least one of position information and visual point information of a user (pupil position from pupil detection part 27, and thus pupil detection unit 10) [Par 54-56].
Re Claim 11, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, an on-board system comprising: the virtual image display device according to claim 7, and Yamagata further discloses on Fig. 1, the on-board system being installed on a vehicle [Page 3, Par 1-3].
Re Claim 12, Satio in view of Yamagata discloses, the on-board system according to claim 11, and Saito further discloses on Fig. 3, further comprising: a first acquisition unit (pupil detection unit 10) configured to acquire at least one of position information and visual point information of a user (pupil position from pupil detection part 27, and thus pupil detection unit 10) [Par 54-56], wherein at least one of the first and second drive units drives at least one of the first and second reflective surfaces in accordance with the information acquired by the first acquisition unit (drive controlling part 28 drives mirror 6 in accordance with pupil detection part 27) [Par 54-56].
Re Claim 13, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the on-board system according to claim 11, and Yamagata further discloses on Fig. 2-3, wherein at least one of the first and second drive drives at least one of the first and second reflective surfaces units (optical control unit 63 controls optical system 50) [Page 4, Par 4] in accordance with information related to a moving speed of the vehicle (vehicle information acquisition unit 63 acquires speed information and transmits to control unit 63)[Page 4, Par 3].
Re Claim 14, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the on-board system according to claim 11, and Yamagata discloses on Fig. 2, further comprising: a second acquisition unit configured to acquire external information (vehicle information acquisition unit 63) [Page 4, Par 3].
Re Claim 17, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, a mobile apparatus comprising: the virtual image display device according to claim 7, and Yamagata further discloses on Fig. 1, the mobile apparatus installing the virtual image display device thereon and being movable (EVS is installed in a vehicle 100).
Re Claim 18, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the mobile apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising: an optical member (ocular mirror 7) arranged to reflect light from the virtual image display device toward a user (user pupil EP).
Re Claim 19, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata discloses, the mobile apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the optical member (mirror 7) transmits light from exterior therethrough toward the user (mirror 7 transmits infrared light from LED’s 11) [Par 38].
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Seder (US 20100253601 A1).
Re Claim 15, Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata disclose, the on-board system according to claim 14.
But Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata does not explicitly disclose, further comprising: a determination unit configured to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and an object based on the information acquired by the second acquisition unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Seder teaches, on Fig. 15, that it is desirable in vehicle displays to include a determination unit (collision preparations system, CPS) configured to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and an object based on the information acquired by the second acquisition unit (object tracking and measurements)[Par 124].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saito in view of Toshihiko and Yamagata with Seder in order to provide reduced collision severity as taught by Seder [124].
Re Claim 16, Saito in view of Toshihiko, Yamagata, and Seder discloses, the on-board system according to claim 15, and Seder further discloses, wherein the virtual image display device issues warning to a user when the possibility of collision between the vehicle and the object is determined to be present by the determination unit (CPS warns the driver of impending collision) [Par 124].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohta (US 20180174463 A1) teaches a driving assistance apparatus with an early warning system.
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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
