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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 7-8 have been canceled in the present application. Claim 1 has been amended in the present application. Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-20 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 uses the terms “first high refractive-index sub-layers” and “second high refractive-index sub-layer” to describe sub-layers of the at least one high refractive-index layer while claim 1 uses the terms “at least one of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers has a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5” and “at least one of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers has a refractive index ranging from 1.8 to 2.2” to describe the sub-layers of the at least one high refractive-index sub-layer. To improve the clarity of the claim, Examiner recommends using the same terms in claims 1 and 9 to describe the sub-layers of the at least one high refractive-index layer Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 9-11, 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”) and in further view of Valera et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387 – hereinafter referred to as “Valera”).
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).
in one of the at least one laminated structure, 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)).
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]).
Zeng further teaches at least one of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers having the refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 has a thickness of TiO2 layer is 41 nm (Table 1 example 3) but Zeng and Izutani fail to teach the at least one of the at least two high refractive-index sub-layers having the refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 each have a thickness ranging from 45 nm to 75 nm. However, in the analogous art of reflective optical coatings, Valera teaches optimizing the thickness of layers in a multilayer film in order to achieve the desired level of reflectivity and transmissivity ([0017]). Thus optimizing the thickness 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 thickness of layers in a multilayer film as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the thickness 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 sub-layer having an refractive index greater than or equal to 2.5 taught by Zeng and Izutani to have a thickness between 45 nm and 75 nm following the teachings of Valera of optimizing the thickness 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 3, Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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 9, Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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.
Regarding claim 11, Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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 fails 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, Izutani, and Valera be less than 1.6 mm within the narrower claimed range for weight reduction as taught by Izutani (Izutani [0072]).
Regarding claim 15, Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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) and Valera (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387) 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, Izutani, and Valera teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera by having the intermediate layer have a wedge angle as taught by Nohara in order to prevent multiple images (Nohara [0051]).
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) and Valera (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387) 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, Izutani, and Valera teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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) and Valera (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387) 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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) and Valera (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041387) 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, Izutani, and Valera teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zeng, Izutani, and Valera 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, Izutani, and Valera 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
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
Prosecution Insights