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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated September 9, 2025, Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 and puts out new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Response, filed September 9, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, regarding the layered positioning of the sensor and the performance of proportional depth measurements, 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 these arguments. Regarding those arguments with respect to the size of a sensor area, starting Page 5, Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Examiner interprets the claim language as saying the sensor area must be larger than the holographic image, however, in order to create interactive holograms, the holographic images must be or often will be projected within the area of the sensor, and thus, the sensor area will be larger. Furthermore, Examiner now provides redundant support via an alternative usage of Ong, previously of record, and furthermore, Examiner also believes this material to be further addressed by the teaching of Kim as quoted for the rejection of Claim 2, for essentially the same reasons that Examiner defends the usage of Völkel regarding these limitations, i.e., that the hologram image appears within the sensor area.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Völkel (US 20210087795 A1), previously of record, in view of Weber (US 20190018366 A1), previously of record, Ong (US 20120327491 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Völkel, Weber, and Ong.
Regarding Claim 1,
Völkel discloses the following limitations,
A display panel for a vehicle, comprising: (Abstract, “According to one example, a working machine includes a projection arrangement to generate a hologram, wherein the hologram presents a virtual operating element or a virtual display” – see also, element 36, Paragraph [0022], “On or in the operator platform 22, a projection arrangement labeled 36 as a whole is also provided. The projection arrangement 36 is designed to generate, for example, a hologram 38 as a projection using known projection technologies.”)
a holographic optical element configured to create a real hologram image (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch, or/and at least one display visually perceptible by the operator 26 that can display information relevant to an ongoing working process, for example the speed of an internal combustion engine or the like.” – hologram 38 is a real hologram image, and projection arrangement 36 includes a holographic optical element)
a sensor … configured to detect a position of a user’s finger with respect to the real hologram image; (Paragraph [0024], “A movement/position detection arrangement designated 42 as a whole is provided in order to be able to detect the interaction of the operator 26 with the projection generated by the projection arrangement 36. … For this purpose, a gesture database can be stored in the control unit 44, in which movements or gestures of an operator corresponding to actuation of or action upon an operating element or a display are provided in correlation with the virtual operating elements or displays presented by the hologram 38”)
a display screen configured to emit light through the holographic optical element, wherein the light from the display screen creates the real hologram image with the holographic optical element being located between the display screen and the real hologram image (Paragraph [0022], “On or in the operator platform 22, a projection arrangement labeled 36 as a whole is also provided. The projection arrangement 36 is designed to generate, for example, a hologram 38 as a projection using known projection technologies. Such a hologram 38 creates the impression for a person viewing it that the projection thus generated is floating in the air as a three-dimensional body and could be touched by the person.” – a projection arrangement 36, as an arrangement of components, includes at least a light emitting source, which is a display screen, and a holographic optical element, to appropriately modulate that light. Because the generated hologram image 38 is floating in air, the hologram optical element is located between the display screen and this real hologram image, both visually and, in the sequence of light interactions, temporally.)
wherein an area of the sensor is larger than an area of the real holographic image, wherein the area of the sensor constitutes at least part of a sensing area and an area constituted by the sensor itself within the display panel (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch, or/and at least one display visually perceptible by the operator 26 that can display information relevant to an ongoing working process, for example the speed of an internal combustion engine or the like. The hologram 38 can present a virtual control panel, which contains multiple operating elements or displays of this kind that appear to the operator 26 to be virtual three-dimensional bodies floating in space.” – the display panel includes multiple bodies and elements 40, which constitute real holographic images. The sensor, however, must cover the whole of this area, so that the objects may be interacted with as if they are floating in space. For example, in the case of dragging a slider, the knob of the slider can be taken to constitute an image, but the sensor must at least read the finger position along the entirety of the slider’s track.)
However, Völkel does not teach the following limitations,
a sensor included within the display panel, the sensor being configured to detect a position of a user’s finger …
However, Weber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of a light-transmissive hover touch capacitive sensor (Paragraph [0049], “The laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention is not limited to a specific sensor technology. Instead, the sensor assembly S.sub.touch can be used along with a wide variety of sensor technologies. For example, the sensor assembly has a capacitive sensor or an optical sensor. The sensor assembly/assemblies S.sub.touch is/are, for example, suitable for detecting the approach of a finger. The approach can be detected, for example, in the case of a capacitive sensor by a change in the charge on a capacitor. In the case of an optical sensor, the detection is, for example, possible based on a shadow using a light-sensitive resistor or a photoelectric cell, or even by means of a camera outside the laminated glass pane 100 that observes the sensor assembly. Of course, not only the approach but also the direct placement of a finger on the sensor region can be detected.” – the capacitive sensor detects an approach of the finger, before direct contact, and is thus a hover touch capacitive sensor. Because this sensor is overlaid on the laminated glass pane 100, which can be an information display screen (Paragraph [0107], “According to yet another embodiment of the invention, the laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention can be used in vehicles or buildings or as an information display.”), the sensor is a light-transmissive sensor, it is visually transparent so that the screen behind the sensor may remain visible for the user. This is also stated explicitly, Paragraph [0021], “In another embodiment of the invention, the sensor assembly has one planar, transparent, electrically conductive layer or a plurality of planar, transparent, electrically conductive layers that are delimited by insulating separating lines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the vehicle holographic display of Völkel with the capacitive sensor of Weber, as this is a specific manner of enabling the general details presented in Völkel, and because the construction of Weber is known to be economical (Paragraph [0108], “I.e., the range of applications is very wide such that the laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention can be produced economically.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, if Applicant is unpersuaded by Examiner argument regarding the area of a sensor, Examiner provides redundant support for the following limitation via an alternatively reasonable interpretation of the claim language,
-wherein an area of the sensor is larger than an area of the real holographic image, wherein the area of the sensor constitutes at least part of a sensing area and an area constituted by the sensor itself within the display panel
Ong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a hologram overlay may be a portion of a display screen (Paragraph [0025], “The holographic screen may be a portion of a flat LCD display or a portion of a projection display.”). In a case where the sensors are capacitive touch sensors, as in Weber (Paragraph [0049]), it is then reasonable that a broader touchscreen can have a holographic section overlaid onto it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the hologram of Völkel, as previously modified by Weber, with the holographic portion of a screen as taught by Ong, as a hybrid display is desirable for a user input (Paragraph [0025], “FIG. 6 shows a flowchart 600 illustrating a method for detecting a user's movement in a gaming system.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein an image on the display screen is configured to change based on input from the sensor (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch or/and at least one display visually perceptible by the operator 26 that can display information relevant to an ongoing working process, for example the speed of an internal combustion engine or the like.” – first, the operating element itself will visually change, however, a display for an accordant work process is also provided. As the operating elements perform control actions, images of a separate hologram of a display screen, which can be part of the same projection arrangement, will thus be altered in accordance with the changed operation of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Weber further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the sensor is a light-transmissive hover touch capacitive sensor (Paragraph [0049], “The laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention is not limited to a specific sensor technology. Instead, the sensor assembly S.sub.touch can be used along with a wide variety of sensor technologies. For example, the sensor assembly has a capacitive sensor or an optical sensor. The sensor assembly/assemblies S.sub.touch is/are, for example, suitable for detecting the approach of a finger. The approach can be detected, for example, in the case of a capacitive sensor by a change in the charge on a capacitor. In the case of an optical sensor, the detection is, for example, possible based on a shadow using a light-sensitive resistor or a photoelectric cell, or even by means of a camera outside the laminated glass pane 100 that observes the sensor assembly. Of course, not only the approach but also the direct placement of a finger on the sensor region can be detected.”)
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Völkel does not disclose the following limitations,
wherein the real holographic image is a transmission hologram
However, Weber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a hologram in an interactive display can be a transmission hologram (Paragraph [0026] “In another embodiment, the hologram is designed such that a second view of the hologram appears upon transmissive illumination in relation to the viewer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the vehicle holographic display of Völkel with the capacitive sensor of Weber, as this is a specific manner of enabling the general details presented in Völkel, and because the construction of Weber is known to be economical (Paragraph [0108], “I.e., the range of applications is very wide such that the laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention can be produced economically.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Weber further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the holographic optical element is a computer generated holographic layer having a surface relief pattern (Paragraph [0026] “In another embodiment, the hologram is designed such that a second view of the hologram appears upon transmissive illumination in relation to the viewer.” – the hologram of weber is created by pushing like through a transparent holographic layer, the state of this layer of the material is thus modified by the manner in which light passes through it, and constitutes a computer-generated holographic layer. This applies even if the holographic image was not taken to be dynamic, but rather, merely modified in terms of a color or brightness)
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Völkel does not disclose the following limitations,
wherein the holographic optical element is located on a cover lens adjacent an interior cabin of the vehicle
While Völkel discloses that the hologram assembly and resultant images are located within a vehicle cabin (Figure 1), it does not disclose the use of a cover lens. However, Weber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a holographic optical element can be sandwiched between glass planes (Paragraph 0012], “The object is accomplished by a laminated glass pane having a sensor assembly, wherein the laminated glass pane has a first glass layer and a second glass layer joined by a combination film, wherein the sensor assembly is suitable for detecting the approach of a finger. A hologram is arranged at the location of the sensor assembly, which hologram becomes visible to a viewer upon illumination, wherein the hologram is arranged between the first glass layer and the second glass layer.”). One or both glass panes may be considered a cover lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the vehicle holographic display of Völkel with the capacitive sensor of Weber, as this is a specific manner of enabling the general details presented in Völkel, because doing so provides protection to the holographic structure (Paragraph [0016], “With placement on the combination film, production can be simplified and, also, the hologram can be reliably protected against negative production impacts as well as against damage from external forces.”) and because the construction of Weber is known to be economical (Paragraph [0108], “I.e., the range of applications is very wide such that the laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention can be produced economically.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Völkel does not disclose the following limitations,
wherein the holographic optical element is sealed with an optically clear adhesive layer between the display screen and a cover lens
However, Weber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a holographic optical element, along with adhesive bonding layers, can be sandwiched between glass panes (Paragraph [0060], “The intermediate layers can preferably be thermoplastic and, after lamination, bond the glass pane GS.sub.1, the glass pane GS.sub.2, and any other intermediate layers to one another.”) such that light must go through the hologram to be displayed to a viewer (Paragraph [0095], “the hologram H is designed such that is illuminated either by ambient light and/or selective illumination … by lighting integrated into the pane/sensor assembly by means of suitable (organic) light emitting diodes (p)LEDs,” and Paragraph [0098], “provision can, … be made for … the hologram H to appear upon transmissive illumination … to the viewer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the vehicle holographic display of Völkel with the capacitive sensor of Weber, because doing so provides protection to the holographic structure (Paragraph [0016], “With placement on the combination film, production can be simplified and, also, the hologram can be reliably protected against negative production impacts as well as against damage from external forces.”) and because the construction of Weber is known to be economical (Paragraph [0108], “I.e., the range of applications is very wide such that the laminated glass pane 100 according to the invention can be produced economically.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
comprising a plurality of holographic optical elements, wherein a first holographic element of the plurality of holographic elements creates the real holographic image and a second holographic element of the plurality of holographic elements a separate, second, real holographic image (Paragraph [0022], “Of course, a number of holograms may be utilized.” – whatever physical arrangements is associated with each of the number of holograms 38, or portions of a physical arrangement, constitutes each respective holographic optical element.)
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the real hologram image is not a virtual image or a projection/reflective style hologram (Paragraph [0022], “Such a hologram 38 creates the impression for a person viewing it that the projection thus generated is floating in the air as a three-dimensional body and could be touched by the person.”)
Claim 2-3, 5, 7, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Kim (US 20190018364 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Kim.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein a change of the position of the user’s finger through the real hologram image in an X-direction, in a Y-direction, in a Z-direction, or in two or more of the X-direction, the Y-direction, and the Z-direction results in … [an] adjustment to a vehicle function (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch, or/and at least one display visually perceptible by the operator 26 that can display information relevant to an ongoing working process, for example the speed of an internal combustion engine or the like.” – sliders are activated with dragging motions, and thus move in at least one axis, while a knob or dial will identify motion in two axes to detect a rotation. Pressing a button involves detecting an inward motion. Thus, all three axes, and combinations involving two or more axes, are detected. Further, Paragraph [0024], “The information representing this virtual operation of a virtual operating element can in turn be used to correspondingly activate a system region of the working machine that is linked to such a virtually actuated operating element.” – these operating elements enable vehicle control.)
However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
a change of the position … in a Z-direction … results in a proportional adjustment to a vehicle function
However, this is taught by Kim which teaches that a proportional depth information can be collected by a capacitive sensors (Paragraph [0044], “Various three-dimensional user gesture position sensors, such as ultrasonic position sensors, radar-based position sensors, electrical field detection-based position sensors, and/or capacitive position sensors can be integrated into or installed near the casing of the three-dimensional holographic pod (401) to provide accurate real-time three-dimensional (i.e. horizontal, vertical, and depth) sensing of user hand or finger movements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the holographic display of Völkel, as previously modified by Weber, with the depth based manipulation of Kim as this allows for a recognition of broader array of gestures, and increases the illusion of directly manipulating the hologram (Paragraph [0045], “The holographic sensing-based user control interface (503) is configured to display a hologram designed, pre-configured, and controlled by an in-vehicle holographic application that utilizes an ultrasonic position sensor, a radar-based position sensor, an electrical field detection-based position sensor, a capacitive position sensor, or a combination thereof to detect the user's current hand/finger positions or gestures near or into particular areas of the currently-displayed hologram.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the real hologram image has a circular shape and an arced shape path of the user’s finger in the X-direction and in the Y-direction results in the proportional adjustment to the vehicle function. (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch”)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the real hologram image is a bar shape and the change of position of the user’s finger in the X-direction or in the Y-direction results in the proportional adjustment (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch”)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Völkel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein an image on the display screen is configured to change to account for the proportional adjustment to the vehicle function (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch or/and at least one display visually perceptible by the operator 26 that can display information relevant to an ongoing working process, for example the speed of an internal combustion engine or the like.” – first, the operating element itself will visually change, however, a display for an accordant work process is also provided. As the operating elements perform control actions, images of a separate hologram of a display screen, which can be part of the same projection arrangement, will thus be altered in accordance with the changed operation of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Kim further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein one or more detection parameters of the sensor are adjusted in the Z-direction depending on a height of the real hologram image (Paragraph [0045], “The holographic sensing-based user control interface (503) is configured to display a hologram designed, pre-configured, and controlled by an in-vehicle holographic application that utilizes an ultrasonic position sensor, a radar-based position sensor, an electrical field detection-based position sensor, a capacitive position sensor, or a combination thereof to detect the user's current hand/finger positions or gestures near or into particular areas of the currently-displayed hologram.”).
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 recites essentially the same or broader limitations to that of Claim 1, further including the limitations of Claims 2 and 18. The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, already teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and the further inclusion of Kim teaches the limitations of Claims 2 and 18. Therefore, Claim 21 is also taught.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim as applied to Claim 3 above, in view of Ledermann (US 20200031230 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Ledermann.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Völkel discloses the following limitation,
wherein the circular shape is a ring (Paragraph [0022], “The projection generated by the projection arrangement 36, i.e. the hologram 38, presents at least one virtual operating element 40, for example a rotary knob, a slider or a switch”)
However, Völkel does not disclose the following limitations,
wherein the circular shape is a ring having an opening in a middle of the circular shape where at least a portion of an image on the display screen is visible.
However, Ledermann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a holographic display may augment a pointer display (Figures 9A and 9B, displaying a hologram 902 overlaid onto a pointer 905, and Paragraph [0061]-[0063], “The one or more light elements 901 may be evenly distributed around the periphery. As an alternative, the one or more light elements 901 may be distributed unevenly. The one or more light elements 901 may cause the display 900 to produce one or more holograms 902. … Additionally, indicia in the segmented region 903 may be enhanced with or be one or more hologram 902. … The segmented region 903 may track a pointer 905 of the display 900. Thus, as the pointer 905 moves, the segmented region 903 may move, too.”), where the pointer can be a graphical display element (Paragraph [0068], “The pointer 905 may be a graphical pointer or a mechanical pointer. The graphical pointer may be used with the graphical gauge. The mechanical pointer may be used with the analog gauge.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable chance of success, to have modified the holographic display of Völkel, as previously modified by Weber, with the augmented digital display as taught by Ledermann, as this improves a visual display for a vehicle (Paragraph [0005], “One or more embodiments described in the present application aim in providing an improved display for a vehicle, the display being configured for showing visual content and producing a hologram, in addition to the visual content.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim as applied to Claim 2 above, in view of Hamano (US 20210055813 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Hamano.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Kim, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle function is a control of an HVAC system or a control of an infotainment system
However, Hamano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle holographic system can control air conditioning (Paragraph [0033], “As schematically shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the first virtual image display unit 11 displays an operating unit 12 as a virtual image K1 in midair on the near side viewed from the user U of the virtual image display device 10, and detects a target F that is approaching the operating unit 12. The operating unit 12 expresses an operating switch, as an example, that can operate devices installed on the vehicle 1 (e.g. an on-vehicle back camera, an air conditioner, and any other device), expressing buttons, such as switches, as the virtual image K1 The target F expresses an object that operates the devices by the operation of the operating unit 12, expressing, for example, a user U's finger or a bar-like object, such as a pen.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle hologram display of Völkel, as previously modified by Weber, so as to control the air conditioning, as fulfilling a user’s intentions to control vehicle systems provides a benefit to the user (Paragraph [0059], “Accordingly, the operation as the intention of the user U is performed, and thus the user U is allowed to have senses that the operability of the operating unit 12 is excellent.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Tanoue (US 20220406230 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Tanoue.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
comprising a plurality of holographic optical elements, wherein each holographic optical element is configured to create a different segment of the real holographic image
However, Tanoue, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a plurality of holographic elements can be used together to form an image (Paragraph [0033], “On the back surface 11 b of the light guide plate 11, a plurality of optical path changing units 13 including an optical path changing unit 13 a, an optical path changing unit 13 b, and an optical path changing unit 13 c are formed.” – see Figure 2, where the optical elements 13 create the holographic image 1. See also, Figure 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the holographic display of Völkel, as previously modified by Weber, with the multiple holographic elements of Tanoue, as this is a manner of enabling an improved 3D image (Paragraph [0005], “An object of one aspect of the present invention is to achieve a light guide plate or the like capable of displaying a stereoscopic image with an improved stereoscopic effect.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Chien (US 20120013533 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Chien
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Völkel, Weber, and Ong as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
Wherein the sensor is located at least partially between the display screen and the holographic optical element
However, this is taught by Chien, which teaches that it can be alternatively arranged for a holographic element to be other a touch sensor or vis versa (Figure 2A and 2B, Elements 30 and 40, Paragraph [0026], “The light source 50 is located under the holographic film 30. The light source 50 project light beams through the touch panel 40 and onto the holographic film 30.” And Paragraph [0028], “The keyboard 10 in FIG. 2B is of the same working principles with the embodiment shown in FIG. 2A.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the holographic display of Völkel with the arrangement of layers as taught by Chien, as Chien teaches that either arrangement is, to some degree, an arbitrary design decision, and further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary sill in the art.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, merely broader in their lack of inclusion that a sensor area be larger than the area of the hologram image, alongside further including the limitations of Claim 17. The combination of Völkel, Weber, Ong, and Chien, as shown, teaches the limitations of Claim 1 Therefore, Claim 20 is also taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsao (US 20150009155 A1), previously of record, teaches the use of a non-holographic touch-screen using a hover-touch capacitive sensor (Paragraph [0026], and Figures 4A-4D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666