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 Amendment
The amendment filed on December 26, 2025 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled in the present application. Claim 20 is new in the present application. Claim 1 has been amended in the present application. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7 that Izutani teaches away from Zeng and therefore there is no reason to combine the references, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Izutani teaches away from Zeng since Izutani teaches the reflectance of near-red light is less than the reflection of near-blue light, which is opposite to the teaching of Zeng. However, In order to teach away from a combination the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP §2141.02(VI). In the case at hand, Izutani’s teachings that the reflectance of near-red light is less than the reflection of near-blue light does not teach away from the opposite reflectance ratio taught by Zeng, since it does not criticize or discredit the teachings of Zeng. Rather it is merely difference in preferred reflectances. Thus the additional teachings of Izutani regarding the ratio of near-red to near-blue wavelengths are still applicable. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Izutani teaches a head-up display similar to that taught by Zeng and further teaches that it is desirable to balance red, green, and blue to increase image quality (Izutani [0033]) which is sufficient motivation to modify the head-up display taught by Zeng to balance the proportion of near-red and near-blue wavelengths. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that Izutani fails to teach “a ratio of proportion T1 of near-red light with the wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to proportion T2 of near-blue light with the wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is T1/T2=0.1~0.9,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Izutani seeks to balance the proportion of near-red light to near-blue light intensities in order to increase the luminance of projection while the function of the instant limitation T1/T2=0.1~0.9 is different and results in neutral colored images and thus images can be more colorful. However different stated functions of the desired proportions taught by Izutani and that of the instant invention does not mean Izutani fails to teach the desired proportion. Indeed, Izutani teaches a peak intensity peak intensity in wavelength range of 400-500 nm is 1.25 to 2.5 times peak intensity in wavelength range of 500-700 nm which results in a proportion T1/T2 = 0.4-0.8 (Izutani [0092]). Furthermore T1 and T2 are defined as the proportions of near-red and near-blue wavelength. The term “proportion” is broad and can include a number of parameters relating to the near-red and near-blue light, including the peak intensity used by Izutani. Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over Zeng in view of Izutani.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”) in view of Izutani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409 – hereinafter referred to as “Izutani”).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a Head up display system (Figure 1), comprising:
a projection light source (Figure 1 projection light source 1, [0035]);
laminated glass (Figure 1 laminated glass 2, [0035]) comprising an outer glass pane (glass plate 23), an inner glass pane (glass plate 21, and an intermediate adhesive layer (intermediate film 22) sandwiched between the outer glass pane and the inner glass pane (Figure 1, [0035] intermediate film 23 sandwiched between glass plates 21, 23); and
a transparent nano film (Figure 1 nano film 3) deposited on a surface of the inner glass pane away from the intermediate adhesive layer (Figure 1 nano film 3 is on surface 211 of glass plate 21 away from intermediate film 22, [0035]) and comprising at least one laminated structure (Figure 2A) each consisting of a high refractive-index layer (high refractive index layer 31) and a low refractive-index layer (low refractive index layer 32, [0036] laminated structure comprises a high and low refractive-index layer), wherein the high refractive-index layer and the low refractive-index layer are deposited sequentially outwards from the surface of the inner glass pane (Figure 2A high refractive index layer 31 and low refractive index layer 32 are sequentially outwards from surface 211 of glass plate 21), the high refractive-index layer has a refractive index greater than or equal to 1.8 ([0036] refractive index of high refractive index layer is not less than 1.8), and the low refractive-index layer has a refractive index less than or equal to 1.6 ([0036] refractive index of low refractive index layer is not more than 1.6), wherein
the projection light source (Figure 1 projection light source 1) is configured to generate P-polarized light ([0035] projection light source 1 generates P-polarized light), the P-polarized light is incident on the transparent nano film at an angle of incidence ranging from 55° to 75° ([0041] incident angle preferably 55° to 70°), and the laminated glass with the transparent nano film has a reflectivity for the P-polarized light greater than or equal to 8% ([0042] reflectivity preferably higher than 10%); and
for the laminated glass with the transparent nano film, a ratio of near-red light reflectivity R1 at wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to near-blue light reflectivity R2 at wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is R1/R2=1.0-2.0 (Figure 4 A1 R1 is approximately 17.5%, R2 is approximately 15%, R1/R2 is approximately 1.67);
P-polarized light incident on the transparent nano film ([0035] projection light source 1 generates P-polarized light).
Zeng fails to teach a ratio of proportion T1 of near-red light with the wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to proportion T2 of near-blue light with the wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is T1/T2=0.1-0.9. However, Izutani teaches a head up display (Figure 1) with a ratio of proportion T1 of near-red light with the wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to proportion T2 of near-blue light with the wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is T1/T2=0.1-0.9 ([0092] peak intensity in wavelength range of 400-500 nm is 1.25 to 2.5 times peak intensity in wavelength range of 500-700 nm thus T1/T2 = 0.4-0.8) . It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Izutani further teaches this the ratio of near-red to near-blue light increases the balance between red, green, and blue colors and leads to an increase in image quality ([0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head up display taught by Zeng such that the ratio of near-red to near-blue light is 0.1-0.9 as taught by Izutani in order to balance red, green, and blue colors and improve image quality (Izutani [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches a difference between a refractive index of the intermediate adhesive layer and a refractive index of the inner glass pane is less than or equal to 0.1 ([0035] refractive index difference between glass sheets 21, 22 and intermediate film 23 is preferably no greater than 0.1).
Regarding claim 5, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the laminated glass with the transparent nano film has the reflectivity for the P-polarized light greater than or equal to 15% ([0042] A1 has a reflectivity as high as 20.27%).
Regarding claim 6, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the laminated glass with the transparent nano film has the reflectivity for the P-polarized light greater than or equal to 20% ([0042] A1 has a reflectivity as high as 20.27%).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches at least one high refractive-index layer has a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 ([0042] TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of TiO2 is inherently around 2.6 (www.dmphotonics.com)) and a thickness ranging from 45 nm to 75 nm ([0042] TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, thickness of TiO2 is 65.6 nm).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the at least one high refractive-index layer comprises at least two high refractive-index sub-layers (Figure 3 sublayers 311 and 312, [0037]), at least one of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers has a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of TiO2 is inherently around 2.6 (www.dmphotonics.com)), and at least another of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers has a refractive index ranging from 1.8 to 2.2 (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of Si3N4 is inherently 2.04 (refractiveindex.info)).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches P-polarized light incident on the transparent nano film ([0035] projection light source 1 generates P-polarized light). Zeng fails to teach a ratio of proportion T1 of near-red light with the wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to proportion T2 of near-blue light with the wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is T1/T2=0.4-0.8. However, Izutani teaches a head up display (Figure 1) with a ratio of proportion T1 of near-red light with the wavelengths ranging from 580 nm to 680 nm to proportion T2 of near-blue light with the wavelengths ranging from 420 nm to 470 nm is T1/T2=0.4-0.8 ([0092] peak intensity in wavelength range of 400-500 nm is 1.25 to 2.5 times peak intensity in wavelength range of 500-700 nm thus T1/T2 = 0.4-0.8) . It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Izutani further teaches this the ratio of near-red to near-blue light increases the balance between red, green, and blue colors and leads to an increase in image quality ([0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head up display taught by Zeng such that the ratio of near-red to near-blue light is 0.4-0.8 as taught by Izutani in order to balance red, green, and blue colors and improve image quality (Izutani [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches wherein the outer glass pane (Figure 1 glass plate 23) is a bent glass pane ([0040] laminated glass 2 is curved) with a thickness greater than or equal to 1.8 mm ([0046] glass is 2.1 mm thick), and the inner glass pane (glass plate 21) is a bent glass pane ([0040] laminated glass 2 is curved). Zeng fail to teach the inner glass plane has with a thickness less than or equal to 1.6 mm. However, Izutani teaches the glass plate in laminated glass may be less than 2 mm thick ([0072]). Izutani further teaches having the glass plate be less than 2 mm thick to reduce weight ([0072]). It is a well-established proposition that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I). In the current instance Izutani discloses a range of less than 2 mm which encompasses the narrower claimed range of less than 1.6 mm. Furthermore, A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value of the inner glass pane thickness of Zeng be less than 1.6 mm within the narrower claimed range for weight reduction as taught by Izutani (Izutani [0072]).
Regarding claim 15, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further the inner glass pane is made of chemically strengthened soda-lime-silica glass, chemically strengthened aluminosilicate glass, chemically strengthened borosilicate glass, body strengthened soda lime silicate glass, body strengthened aluminosilicate glass, or body strengthened borosilicate glass ([0045] glass is soda-lime silicate glass). Zeng fails to teach the inner glass pane has a thickness ranging from 0.7 mm to 1.2 mm. However, Izutani teaches the glass plate in laminated glass may be less than 2 mm thick ([0072]). Izutani further teaches having the glass plate be less than 2 mm thick to reduce weight ([0072]). It is a well-established proposition that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I). In the current instance Izutani discloses a range of less than 2 mm which encompasses the narrower claimed range of 0.7 to 1.2 mm. Furthermore, A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value of the inner glass pane thickness of Zeng be within the narrower claimed range of 0.7 to 1.2 mm for weight reduction as taught by Izutani (Izutani [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the ratio of the near-red light reflectivity R1 to the near-blue light reflectivity R2 is R1/R2=1.07-1.9 (Figure 4 A1 R1 is approximately 17.5%, R2 is approximately 15%, R1/R2 is approximately 1.67).
Regarding claim 17, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the low refractive-index layer includes at least two low refractive-index sub-layers ([0037] the low refractive index layer may include multiple sublayers).
Regarding claim 18, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the high refractive-index layer is made of at least one of: oxides of zinc, stannum, titanium, niobium, zirconium, nickel, indium, aluminium, cerium, tungsten, molybdenum, antimony, or bismuth or mixtures thereof, or nitrides or nitrogen oxides of silicon, aluminium, zirconium, yttrium, cerium, or lanthanum or mixtures thereof ([0036] high refractive index layer selected from oxides of Zn, Sn, Ti, Nb, Zr, Ni, In, Al, Ce, W, Mo, Sb, and Bi, and mixtures thereof, or nitrides, oxynitrides, and mixtures thereof of Si, Al, Zr, Y, Ce, and La).
Regarding claim 19, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches the low refractive-index layer is made of at least one of silicon dioxide. aluminium oxide or mixtures thereof ([0036] low refractive index layer selected from SiO2, Al2O3, and mixtures thereof).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A) in view of Izutani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nohara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0046737 – hereinafter referred to as “Nohara”).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng and Izutani fail to teach the intermediate adhesive layer has a wedge-shaped cross-sectional profile, and the wedge-shaped cross-sectional profile has a wedge angle ranging from 0.01 milli-radians (mrad) to 0.18 mrad. However, Nohara teaches laminated glass for a head up display (Figure 4) where the intermediate adhesive layer (Figure 4 interlayer film 10C) has a wedge-shaped cross-sectional profile ([0102] interlayer film 10C is wedge-shaped), and the wedge-shaped cross-sectional profile has a wedge angle ranging from 0.01 milli-radians (mrad) to 0.18 mrad ([0104] interlayer film 10C has a wedge angle of 0.1 mrad or more). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Nohara further teaches having an intermediate layer with a wedge angle in order to prevent multiple images ([0051]). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the wedge angle such that is between 0.1 and 0.18 mrad, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.01 to 0.18 mrad and to modify the laminated glass taught by Zeng and Izutani by having the intermediate layer have a wedge angle as taught by Nohara in order to prevent multiple images (Nohara [0051]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A) in view of Izutani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Valera et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387 – hereinafter referred to as “Valera”).
Regarding claim 9, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches wherein at least one high refractive-index layer (Figure 3 sublayers 311 and 312, [0037]) comprises a first high refractive-index sub-layer (sublayer 311) and one second high refractive-index sub- layer (sublayer 312), the first high refractive-index sub-layer has a refractive index ranging from 1.8 to 2.2 (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of Si3N4 is inherently 2.04 (refractiveindex.info)), the second high refractive-index sub-layer has a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of TiO2 is inherently around 2.6 (www.dmphotonics.com)).
Zeng and Izutani fail to teach two first high refractive-index sub-layers and the one second high refractive-index sub- layer is disposed between the two first high refractive-index sub-layers, each of the two first high refractive-index sub-layers has a refractive index ranging from 1.8 to 2.2. However, in the analogous art of reflective optical coatings, Valera teaches optimizing the number layers in a multilayer film and the refractive indices of each layer in order to achieve the desired level of reflectivity and transmissivity ([0017]). Thus optimizing the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film 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 dis-cover 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, Valera teaches the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film 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 filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high refractive index layer taught by Zeng and Izutani by duplicating the first high refractive index sublayer (Figure 3 sublayer 311, Example 3 Si3N4 layer) and disposing the second high refractive index sublayer (sublayer 312, Example 3 TiO2) between the two first high refractive index sublayers following the teachings of Valera of optimizing the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film in order to achieve the desired leveled of reflectivity and transmissivity (Valera [0017]) and since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Zeng, Izutani, and Valera teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9. Zeng further teaches the refractive index of the second high refractive-index sub-layer (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of TiO2 is inherently around 2.6 (www.dmphotonics.com)) is at least 0.5 greater than the refractive index of the first high refractive-index sub-layers (Table 1 Example 3 Si3N4/TiO2/SiO2 laminated structure, refractive index of Si3N4 is inherently 2.04 (refractiveindex.info); the refractive index of 2.6 is more than 0.5 greater than the refractive index of 2.04).
Zeng and Izutani fail to teach two first high refractive-index sub-layers However, in the analogous art of reflective optical coatings, Valera teaches optimizing the number layers in a multilayer film and the refractive indices of each layer in order to achieve the desired level of reflectivity and transmissivity ([0017]). Thus optimizing the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film 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 dis-cover 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, Valera teaches the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film 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 filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high refractive index layer taught by Zeng and Izutani by duplicating the first high refractive index sublayer (Figure 3 sublayer 311, Example 3 Si3N4 layer) following the teachings of Valera of optimizing the number and refractive indices of layers in a multilayer film in order to achieve the desired leveled of reflectivity and transmissivity (Valera [0017]) and since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A) in view of Izutani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Otani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0333598 – hereinafter referred to as “Otani”).
Regarding claim 12, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng and Izutani fail to teach a light-filtering component, wherein the light-filtering component is located on an optical path of the P-polarized light, and the light-filtering component has a transmittance for the P-polarized light greater than or equal to 80%. However, Otani teaches a head up display (Figure 5) with a light-filtering component ([0343] linearly polarizing film), wherein the light-filtering component is located on an optical path of the P-polarized light ([0343] polarizing film is disposed on the side through which light is emitted), and the light-filtering component has a transmittance for the P-polarized light ([0343] P-polarized light passes through). Otani fails to explicitly teach the transmittance for P-polarized light is greater than or equal to 80%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the transmittance for P-polarized light be greater than or equal to 80% since the Head up display taught by Otani uses P-polarized light ([0337]) and to achieve sufficient brightness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head up display taught by Zeng and Izutani by adding the polarizing filter taught by Otani in order to achieve a P-polarized beam (Otani [0343]) of sufficient brightness and polarizing filters are well-known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A) in view of Izutani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Arndt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0285882 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Arndt”).
Regarding claim 13, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng further teaches a projection control system configured to: control the projection light source to generate the P-polarized light (Figure 1 projection light source 1, [0035]). Zeng and Izutani fail to teach the projection control system performs a color filtering algorithm on the P-polarized light generated from the projection light source. However, Arndt teaches a head up display (Figure 1) where the projection control system performs a color filtering algorithm on the P-polarized light generated from the projection light source ([0018] calibration carried out by altering emitted color based on reflection). Arndt further teaches using a color filtering algorithm to true color images in using a correction image based on the reflection ([0018]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head up display taught by Zeng and Izutani by adding the color filtering algorithm taught by Arndt in order to generate a true color image (Ardnt [0018]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (machine translation Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104267498 A) in view of Izutani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323409) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of ISO 9050 (Internation Standard ISO 9050:2003(E), Glass in building — Determination of light transmittance, solar direct transmittance, total solar energy transmittance, ultraviolet transmittance and related glazing factors).
Regarding claim 20, Zeng and Izutani teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng and Izutani fail to teach the near-red reflectivity R1 and near-blue reflectivity R2 are measured and calculated according to international organization for standardization (ISO) 9050. However, ISO 9050 teaches a method for determining reflectance of window glazings (pages 4 and 5) and is a well-known method in the art to calculate reflectivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ISO 9050 to calculate the near-red reflectivity and near-blue reflectivity of Zeng and Izutani since ISO 9050 is a well-known method in the art and one would expect a similar resulting ratio of reflectivity as the instant invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872