Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/081,797

VEHICLE PART WITH USER INTERFACE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 15, 2022
Examiner
WILSON, PAISLEY L
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Compagnie Plastic Omnium SE
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
389 granted / 671 resolved
-10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 671 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-14 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weindorf (US 2020/0218044) in view of CIE Plastic Omnium SE (EP 3795406), hereinafter “CIE Plastic”, of record. Regarding claim 1, Weindorf discloses a vehicle part (Figs. 1-3; paras. [0006, 0013]), comprising: a light source (22, Fig. 1) capable of emitting a light image (para. [0014]), a micro-mirror plate (28, Fig. 1) capable of projecting the light image outside the vehicle part in a form of a hologram (e.g., at 34, Fig. 1; para. [0015]; floating image considered to be a hologram), and at least one privacy filter (50, Fig. 1) located between the light source (22) and the hologram (Fig. 1), the at least one privacy filter limiting, by filtering light, an angular range of the light image passing through the at least one privacy filter to within a predetermined angular range (52) centered on an axis (26) perpendicular to an exit surface of the at least one privacy filter (Fig. 1; para. [0018]), and attenuating light pollution formed by artifacts of the hologram located on a periphery of the hologram (paras. [0006, 0019]; light is limited to within viewing angle, increasing clarity and quality of image displayed). Weindorf fails to explicitly disclose a sensor capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane coinciding at least partially with the hologram. However, CIE Plastic discloses a vehicle part (2, Figs. 1-12), comprising a sensor (16) capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane (17) coinciding at least partially with the hologram (4) (Fig. 3; paras. [0031, 0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sensor capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane coinciding at least partially with the hologram, as in CIE Plastic, into the vehicle part of Weindorf for effective and timely interaction with a user. Regarding claims 2-3, Weindorf fails to explicitly disclose wherein the micro-mirror plate is covered by a skin transparent to visible light and infrared, and wherein the skin is made of polycarbonate, polypropylene or polymethyl methacrylate. However, CIE Plastic discloses wherein the micro-mirror plate (12) is covered by a skin (14) transparent to visible light and infrared (Figs. 2-12; para. [0032]), and wherein the skin (14) is made of polycarbonate, polypropylene or polymethyl methacrylate (para. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the micro-mirror plate is covered by a skin transparent to visible light and infrared, and wherein the skin is made of polycarbonate, polypropylene or polymethyl methacrylate, as in CIE Plastic, into the vehicle part of Weindorf to protect the part from external stress, while not obstructing the light image. Regarding claim 4, Weindorf fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is formed by an infrared sensor. However, CIE Plastic discloses wherein the sensor (16) is formed by an infrared sensor (para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the sensor is formed by an infrared sensor, as in CIE Plastic, into the vehicle part of Weindorf to effectively detect a person approaching (CIE Plastic, para. [0035]). Regarding claim 5, Weindorf discloses forming a tailgate, a door, a front, middle or rear pillar, a hood, an exterior mirror or a vehicle bumper (paras. [0006, 0013]). Regarding claim 6, Weindorf discloses wherein the light source (22) comprises an illuminated screen (Fig. 1; paras. [0013-0014]). Regarding claim 7, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is colored and/or metallized (para. [0020]). Regarding claim 8, Weindorf discloses a plurality of privacy filters (256, 254, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 9, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is located adjacent to the micro-mirror plate (28) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 10, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is located at a distance from the micro-mirror plate (28) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is in contact with the micro-mirror plate (28) (Fig. 1; in contact within the system). Regarding claim 12, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is located adjacent to the light source (22) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 13, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (256) is located at a distance (246) from the light source (224) (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 14, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is in contact with the light source (22) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Weindorf discloses a vehicle part (Figs. 1-3; paras. [0006, 0013]), comprising: a light source (22, Fig. 1) capable of emitting a light image (para. [0014]), a micro-mirror plate (28, Fig. 1) capable of projecting the light image outside the vehicle part in a form of a hologram (e.g., at 34, Fig. 1; para. [0015]; floating image considered to be a hologram), and at least one privacy filter (50, Fig. 1), in a form of a flat sheet, located between the light source (22) and the hologram (Fig. 1), the at least one privacy filter limiting, by filtering light, an angular range of the light image passing through the at least one privacy filter to within a predetermined angular range (52) centered on an axis (26) perpendicular to a flat exit surface of the at least one privacy filter (Fig. 1; para. [0018]), attenuating light pollution formed by artifacts of the hologram located on a periphery of the hologram (paras. [0006, 0019]; light is limited to within viewing angle, increasing clarity and quality of image displayed), and concealing the hologram from observers whose gaze presents an angle greater than the predetermined angular range (Fig. 1; para. [0006]), wherein the privacy filter (46) is adjacent to the micro-mirror plate (20, 22, 42) or is adjacent to the light source (62) (Figs. 1-9; para. [0063]). Weindorf fails to explicitly disclose a sensor capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane coinciding at least partially with the hologram. However, CIE Plastic discloses a vehicle part (2, Figs. 1-12), comprising a sensor (16) capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane (17) coinciding at least partially with the hologram (4) (Fig. 3; paras. [0031, 0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sensor capable of detecting a presence of any object in a projection plane coinciding at least partially with the hologram, as in CIE Plastic, into the vehicle part of Weindorf to for effective and timely interaction with a user. Regarding claims 18-19, Weindorf discloses wherein the predetermined angular range (52) is a 50-degree range (para. [0018]), but not explicitly a 60-degree range. However, the angular range is a result-effective variable which achieves a recognized result (Weindorf, para. [0018]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the predetermined angular range as a 60-degree range to increase the field of view as desired. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recited range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 20, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) is in a form of a flat sheet in the location between the light source (22) and the hologram (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 21, Weindorf discloses wherein the at least one privacy filter (50) further conceals the hologram from observers whose gaze presents an angle greater than the predetermined angular range (Fig. 1; para. [0006]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 16, Weindorf, along with the other prior art of record, fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of the privacy filters positioned such that each of the plurality of the privacy filters has a different filtering direction, the plurality of the privacy filters filtering light pollution formed by artifacts of the hologram in each of the different filtering directions, along with the other limitations of claims 1 and 8. Therefore, claim 16 would be allowable. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, the new ground of rejection over Weindorf in view of CIE Plastic is considered appropriate in accordance with the amendments to the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET. 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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2022
Application Filed
May 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 27, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598960
DISPLAY PANEL, PREPARATION METHOD FOR DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599001
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING DISPLAY PANEL AND INFORMATION CODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585052
Dispersive Optical Elements, Devices, Systems and Methods Using the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566349
PIXEL UNIT, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560753
LIGHTING UNIT HAVING A CENTERING DEVICE FOR A LIGHT GUIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+35.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 671 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month