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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/04/2025 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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US 20190317322 A1) in view of Koyama (US 20220113539 A1).
Re Claim 1, Hayakawa discloses, on Fig. 1, 2, and 6, a multi-viewing angle floating projection device, comprising: at least two directional light sources (backlights 33 and 23), each of the directional light sources adapted to emit a directional light beam respectively (Fig. 1); at least two display panels (display panels 20 and 30, comprise display surfaces 21 and 31 respectively ), the number of which is the same as the number of the at least two directional light sources, wherein each of the display panels is adapted to display an image (images 28 and 38), each of the directional light beams illuminates the image of a corresponding one of the display panels to form a directional image beam (near and far display images 28, and 38); and an imaging concave mirror (magnifying optical element 40), being adapted to form a real image, wherein the two directional image beams are reflected by the imaging concave mirror and projected to at least two viewing areas to form at least two floating projected real images respectively (images 28 and 38 are reflected to the driver’s eyes D).
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, wherein corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%, wherein there is a viewing angle difference between viewing angles of the at least two viewing areas, each of the at least two floating projected real images is configured to project to a respective person.
However, optimizing image overlap 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, Hayakawa teaches the overlap of reflected regions of the two image beams (incident areas 42 and 43 overlap) [Par 41] as a variable which achieves a recognized result (corrective action of surface 41 can be the same for both areas) [Par 55]
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the overlap of reflected regions 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 the overlap of the reflected regions such that they are at least 70% overlapped, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
But modified Hayakawa still does not explicitly disclose, wherein there is a viewing angle difference between viewing angles of the at least two viewing areas, each of the at least two floating projected real images is configured to project to a respective person.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Koyama teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in windshield projection systems, for wherein there is a viewing angle difference between viewing angles of the at least two viewing areas (image light from projector 2 is reflected to two different directions and two different viewing areas) [Par 57-58], each of the at least two floating projected real images is configured to project to a respective person (passengers C1 and C2) [Par 57 and 58].
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 Hayakawa with Koyama in order to suppress an increase in the size of the light source, as taught by Koyama [Par 61].
Re Claim 2, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising a windshield (Windshield WS) disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams being reflected by the imaging concave mirror and then projected to the at least two viewing areas (See Fig. 1).
Re Claim 3, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising a paraxial reflector (correction element 60) disposed on optical paths of the directional image beam (beam from display 30) before being projected to the imaging concave mirror (magnifying element 40).
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, a paraxial reflector disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams before being projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is in the path of both image beams (light from display 20 and 30). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, and secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa such that the paraxial reflector is in the path of two image beams, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images [Par 55].
Re Claim 4, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 3, wherein the paraxial reflector (correction optical element 60) is a semi-reflector (aluminum on glass base, any non-perfect reflector would allow at least a small portion of light be transmitted or absorbed ) [Par 43].
But Hayakawa does not disclose, the reflector disposed at a light outlet.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is at a light outlet. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, or secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa such that the paraxial reflector is located at a light outlet, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images [Par 55].
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Hong (US 20210033863 A1) and Sugiwara (US 20160313631 A1).
Re Claim 5, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 3.
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, wherein the paraxial reflector is a reflective polarizer disposed at a light outlet; a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively; the reflective polarizer is also provided with another quarter-wave plate facing the imaging concave mirror.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable for the paraxial reflector (optical component 13) to be a reflective polarizer [Par 35] disposed at a light outlet, the reflective polarizer is also provided with another quarter-wave plate (quarter wave plate 26) facing the imaging concave mirror (polarizing splitting element 24) [Par 47-48]
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 Hayakawa with Hong in order to convert the polarization direction of the light, as taught by Hong [Par 35].
But Hayakawa in view of Hong does not disclose, a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sugiwara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical projectors, for a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively (LCD 46, 48, and 47; with quarter wave plates 46a, 48a, 47a).
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 Hayakawa in view of Hong, with Sugiwara in order to provide polarization control, as taught by Sugiwara [Par 36-40].
Re Claim 18, Hayakawa in view of Hong discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 16, and further, Hong teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable for the paraxial reflector (optical component 13) to be a reflective polarizer [Par 35] disposed at a light outlet, the reflective polarizer is also provided with another quarter-wave plate (quarter wave plate 26) facing the imaging concave mirror (polarizing splitting element 24) [Par 47-48].
But Hayakawa in view of Hong does not disclose, a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sugiwara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical projectors, for a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively (LCD 46, 48, and 47; with quarter wave plates 46a, 48a, 47a).
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 Hayakawa in view of Hong, with Sugiwara in order to provide polarization control, as taught by Sugiwara [Par 36-40].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in of Kasahara (WO 2017183556 A1, see attached machine translation).
Re Claim 6, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 1.
But Hayakawa does not disclose, further comprising at least two adjusting reflectors, which are concave mirrors or convex mirrors for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source; the number of the adjusting reflectors are the same as the number of the directional image beams and each of the adjusting reflectors is corresponding to each of the directional image beams; the at least two directional image beams projected by the at least two display panels are first reflected by the at least two adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kasahara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in display systems to include, an adjusting reflector (reflecting portion 16), which is a concave mirror (portion 16 is concave) for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source (Changes eyebox) [Page 5, Par 3]; adjusting reflector corresponding to the directional image beam, wherein the directional image beams (image M1) projected by the display panel is first reflected by the adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror (See Fig. 1, windshield 2).
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 Hayakawa with Kasahara in order to provide, movement of the eyebox, as taught by Kasahara [Page 5, Par 3].
But Hayakawa in view of Kasahara does not disclose, two adjusting reflectors, corresponding to two directional image beams.
Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Kasahara teaches that a concave adjustable reflector (reflector 16) corresponding to an image (M1) projected by a display panel (display 14), has an expected result of allowing for the movement of the optical path and control of the eyebox [Page 5, Par 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Hayakawa in view of Kasahara, such that there are two adjustable reflectors, in order to control two optical paths and two eyeboxes.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Koyama and in view of Ito (WO 2018168708 A1, see attached machine translation).
Re Claim 7, Hayakawa discloses, on Fig. 1-2, a multi-viewing angle floating projection device, comprising: at least two directional light sources (backlights 33 and 23), each of the directional light sources adapted to emit a directional light beam respectively (Fig. 1); a display panel (display panels 20 and 30, comprise display surfaces 21 and 31 respectively ), being adapted to display an image ; wherein each of the directional light beams illuminates the image of the display panel to form a directional image beam (images 28 and 38); at least two reflectors (reflectors 60 and 42), and an imaging concave mirror (magnifying optical element 40), being adapted to form a real image (image light approaching driver D), wherein the two directional image beams are reflected by the reflectors and projected to the imaging concave mirror (See Fig. 1), and then are reflected by the imaging concave mirror and projected to at least two viewing areas to form at least two floating projected real images (images 28 and 38 are reflected to the driver’s eyes D); wherein, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror overlap (incident areas 42 and 43 overlap) [Par 41], wherein, each of the at least two reflectors (reflectors 60 and 42) only corresponded to one of the directional image beam respectively (Reflector 60 corresponds to the beam from display 30 and reflector 42 corresponds to display 20) [Par 39-42]
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, at least two reflectors being plane mirrors, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%, wherein there is a viewing angle difference between viewing angles of the at least two viewing areas, each of the at least two floating projected real images is configured to project to a respective person.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Koyama teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in windshield projection systems, for wherein there is a viewing angle difference between viewing angles of the at least two viewing areas (image light from projector 2 is reflected to two different directions and two different viewing areas) [Par 57-58], each of the at least two floating projected real images is configured to project to a respective person (passengers C1 and C2) [Par 57 and 58].
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 Hayakawa with Koyama in order to suppress an increase in the size of the light source, as taught by Koyama [Par 61].
But Hayakawa in view of Koyama, does not explicitly disclose, at least two reflectors, being plane mirrors, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in display devices to include at least two reflectors (mirrors 17 and 19), being plane mirrors (mirrors 17 and 19 are plate-like) [Page 2, Par 5-9].
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 Hayakawa with Ito in order to control light reflection, as taught by Ito [Page 3, 7-10].
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%.
However, optimizing image overlap 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, Hayakawa teaches the overlap of reflected regions of the two image beams (incident areas 42 and 43 overlap) [Par 41] as a variable which achieves a recognized result (corrective action of surface 41 can be the same for both areas) [Par 55]
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the overlap of reflected regions 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 the overlap of the reflected regions such that they are at least 70% overlapped, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 8, Hayakawa in view of Ito discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 7, and Hayakawa further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising a windshield (Windshield WS) disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams (images 28 and 38) being reflected by the imaging concave mirror (reflector 40) and then projected to the at least two viewing areas.
Re Claim 9, Hayakawa in view of Ito, discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 7, and Hayakawa further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising a paraxial reflector (correction element 60) disposed on optical paths of the directional image beam (beam from display 30) before being projected to the imaging concave mirror (magnifying element 40).
But Hayakawa in view of Ito, does not explicitly disclose, a paraxial reflector disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams before being projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is in the path of both image beams (light from display 20 and 30). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, and secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa in view of Ito, such that the paraxial reflector is in the path of two image beams, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images [Par 55].
Re Claim 10, Hayakawa in view of Ito discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 9, and Hayakawa further discloses, wherein the paraxial reflector (correction optical element 60) is a semi-reflector (aluminum on glass base, any non-perfect reflector would allow at least a small portion of light be transmitted or absorbed ) [Par 43].
But Hayakawa does not disclose, the reflector disposed at a light outlet.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is at a light outlet. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, or secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa such that the paraxial reflector is located at a light outlet, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images [Par 55].
Re Claim 13, Hayakawa in view of Ito discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 7, and Hayakawa further discloses, wherein the display panel is adapted to display at least two images time-divisionally; the at least two images are switched corresponding to the at least two directional light beams; the at least two directional light sources are synchronized with the time-divisionally display of the at least two images on the display panels (control circuit 90 and display control 97 controls the display of images 29 and 39, and displays 20 and 30, based on information acquired from the vehicle that is necessary for the driver D, this would inherently require at least a general time dependent information stream) [Page 39].
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Ito as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hong and Sugiwara.
Re Claim 11, Hayakawa discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 9.
But Hayakawa in view of Ito, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the paraxial reflector is a reflective polarizer disposed at a light outlet; a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively; the reflective polarizer is also provided with another quarter-wave plate facing the imaging concave mirror.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable for the paraxial reflector (optical component 13) to be a reflective polarizer [Par 35] disposed at a light outlet, the reflective polarizer is also provided with another quarter-wave plate (quarter wave plate 26) facing the imaging concave mirror (polarizing splitting element 24) [Par 47-48]
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 Hayakawa in view of Ito, with Hong in order to convert the polarization direction of the light, as taught by Hong [Par 35].
But Hayakawa in view of Ito and Hong does not disclose, a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sugiwara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical projectors, for a light-emitting side of each of the at least two display panels are provided with quarter-wave plates respectively (LCD 46, 48, and 47; with quarter wave plates 46a, 48a, 47a).
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 Hayakawa in view of Ito and Hong, with Sugiwara in order to provide polarization control, as taught by Sugiwara [Par 36-40].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Ito as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kasahara.
Re Claim 12, Hayakawa in view of Ito discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 7.
But Hayakawa in view of Ito does not disclose, further comprising at least two adjusting reflectors, which are concave mirrors or convex mirrors for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source; the number of the adjusting reflectors are the same as the number of the directional image beams and each of the adjusting reflectors is corresponding to each of the directional image beams; the at least two directional image beams projected by the at least two display panels are first reflected by the at least two adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kasahara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in display systems to include, an adjusting reflector (reflecting portion 16), which is a concave mirror (portion 16 is concave) for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source (Changes eyebox) [Page 5, Par 3]; adjusting reflector corresponding to the directional image beam, wherein the directional image beams (image M1) projected by the display panel is first reflected by the adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror (See Fig. 1, windshield 2).
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 Hayakawa in view of Ito, with Kasahara in order to provide, movement of the eyebox, as taught by Kasahara [Page 5, Par 3].
But Hayakawa in view of Kasahara does not disclose, two adjusting reflectors, corresponding to two directional image beams.
Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Kasahara teaches that a concave adjustable reflector (reflector 16) corresponding to an image (M1) projected by a display panel (display 14), has an expected result of allowing for the movement of the optical path and control of the eyebox [Page 5, Par 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Hayakawa in view Ito and Kasahara, such that there are two adjustable reflectors, in order to control two optical paths and two eyeboxes.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Hong.
Re Claim 14, Hayakawa discloses, on Fig. 1-2, a multi-viewing angle floating projection device, comprising: at least two directional light sources (backlights 33 and 23), each of the directional light sources adapted to emit a directional light beam respectively (Fig. 1); a display panel (display panels 20 and 30, comprise display surfaces 21 and 31 respectively ), being adapted to display an image; wherein each of the directional light beams illuminates the image of the display panel to form a directional image beam (images 28 and 38); a reflector (60), and an imaging concave mirror (magnifying optical element 40), being adapted to form a real image (image light approaching driver D), wherein the two directional image beams are reflected by the reflectors and projected to the imaging concave mirror (See Fig. 1), and then are reflected by the imaging concave mirror and projected to at least two viewing areas to form at least two floating projected real images (images 28 and 38 are reflected to the driver’s eyes D); wherein, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror overlap (incident areas 42 and 43 overlap) [Par 41].
But Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, at least two imaging concave mirrors, and corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in display devices to include at least two imaging concave mirrors (23 and 25).
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 Hayakawa with Hong in order to control light reflection, as taught by Ito [Par 44].
But Hayakawa in view of Hong, does not explicitly disclose, corresponding reflected regions of the at least two directional image beams on the imaging concave mirror are the same or overlapped more than 70%.
However, optimizing image overlap 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, Hayakawa teaches the overlap of reflected regions of the two image beams (incident areas 42 and 43 overlap) [Par 41] as a variable which achieves a recognized result (corrective action of surface 41 can be the same for both areas) [Par 55]
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the overlap of reflected regions 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 the overlap of the reflected regions such that they are at least 70% overlapped, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 15, Hayakawa in view of Hong, discloses on Fig. 1) the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 14, and Hayakawa further discloses, further comprising a windshield (windshield WS) disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams being reflected by the at least two imaging concave mirrors and projected to the at least two viewing areas (See Fig. 1).
Re Claim 16, Hayakawa in view of Hong, discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 16, and Hayakawa further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising a paraxial reflector (correction element 60) disposed on optical paths of the directional image beam (beam from display 30) before being projected to the imaging concave mirror (magnifying element 40).
But Hayakawa in view of Hong, does not explicitly disclose, a paraxial reflector disposed on optical paths of the at least two directional image beams before being projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is in the path of both image beams (light from display 20 and 30). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, and secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa in view of Hong, such that the paraxial reflector is in the path of two image beams, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images as taught by Hayakawa [Par 55].
Re Claim 17, Hayakawa in view of Hong discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 16, and Hayakawa further discloses, wherein the paraxial reflector (correction optical element 60) is a semi-reflector (aluminum on glass base, any non-perfect reflector would allow at least a small portion of light be transmitted or absorbed ) [Par 43].
But Hayakawa does not disclose, the reflector disposed at a light outlet.
However, since Hayakawa does teach the use of a paraxial reflector in the optical path of an image beam, it would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the location of the paraxial reflector (correction element 60), such that is at a light outlet. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to correct the light from the display image, reduce device size, or secure the imaging performance of two overlapping images [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the filing of the invention, to modify Hayakawa in view of Hong, such that the paraxial reflector is located at a light outlet, in order to provide secure imaging performance for two overlapping images, as taught by Hayakawa[Par 55].
Re Claim 20, Hayakawa in view of Hong discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 16, and Hayakawa further discloses, wherein the display panel is adapted to display at least two images time-divisionally; the at least two images are switched corresponding to the at least two directional light beams; the at least two directional light sources are synchronized with the time-divisionally display of the at least two display panels (control circuit 90 and display control 97 controls the display of images 29 and 39, and displays 20 and 30, based on information acquired from the vehicle that is necessary for the driver D, this would inherently require at least a general time dependent information stream) [Page 39].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Hong as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kasahara.
Re Claim 19, Hayakawa in view of Hong discloses, the multi-viewing angle floating projection device of claim 16.
But Hayakawa in view of Hong, does not disclose, further comprising at least two adjusting reflectors, which are concave mirrors or convex mirrors for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source; the number of the adjusting reflectors are the same as the number of the directional image beams and each of the adjusting reflectors is corresponding to each of the directional image beams; the at least two directional image beams projected by the at least two display panels are first reflected by the at least two adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kasahara teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in display systems to include, an adjusting reflector (reflecting portion 16), which is a concave mirror (portion 16 is concave) for adjusting a distance and a size of an image source (Changes eyebox) [Page 5, Par 3]; adjusting reflector corresponding to the directional image beam, wherein the directional image beams (image M1) projected by the display panel is first reflected by the adjusting reflectors respectively and then projected to the imaging concave mirror (See Fig. 1, windshield 2).
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 Hayakawa with Kasahara in order to provide, movement of the eyebox, as taught by Kasahara [Page 5, Par 3].
But Hayakawa in view Hong and Kasahara does not disclose, two adjusting reflectors, corresponding to two directional image beams.
Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Kasahara teaches that a concave adjustable reflector (reflector 16) corresponding to an image (M1) projected by a display panel (display 14), has an expected result of allowing for the movement of the optical path and control of the eyebox [Page 5, Par 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Hayakawa in view of Kasahara, such that there are two adjustable reflectors, in order to control two optical paths and two eyeboxes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (US 20180157036 A1) teaches a heads up display for a vehicle.
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
Prosecution Insights