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 .
Reissue Applications
This is an application to reissue US Patent No. 11,039,112 (“the ‘112 patent”). In a January 27, 2026 claim amendment that was filed with a RCE, the applicant has amended claims 1-3. Claims 4-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,039,112 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.173 – Insufficient Explanation of Support
This application is objected to for failing to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.173(c), which requires an explanation of support in the disclosure for changes to the claims. For reasons given in the §112(a) rejection below, the applicant’s explanation (see Remarks pg. 6) fails to show where support exists for amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 describes that “when it is determined that the apparatus fault is present,” the CPU performs a “display content changing process to change a display content of the video.” The claim positively recites that this display content changing process involves three mutually-exclusive actions. The specification does not support this claim scope.
The claim recites that, responsive to the fault, the CPU “performs a display content changing process” and “generates a flag” that indicates a shutdown has occurred. As has been described previously (see e.g. the 01/07/2025 final action pg. 4-6), this would be understood in light of the specification (and in light of claim 2) to recite that the “display content changing process” involves shutting down the HUD in response to the fault.
The claim later recites that the “change of the display content includes displaying no video in the display region and reducing an area of the display region.” It is noted that “displaying no video” and “reducing an area of the display region” are not claimed in the alternative; the claim requires performance of both. It is clear from the specification that the device cannot do both, because it cannot “reduc[e] an area of the display region” (which is video) while “displaying no video” at all.
The specification describes the “displaying no video” as “prevent[ing] the virtual image from being displayed.” ‘112 patent at 13:35-39. This shows that nothing is displayed by the HUD, either by blocking the output of the projector or by turning off the LCD backlight. See id. Fig. 10 and 14A-14B, and their description. Another way the display content is changed involves “reducing the area of the display region when failure occurs.” Id. at 13:65-14:4 and Fig. 13. The applicant confirms that these passages of the specification correspond to the claim language by referencing these passages in describing support for the recent amendment. See Remarks pg. 6.
The POSITA would accordingly conclude that “displaying no video” and “reducing an area of the display region” are mutually exclusive embodiments. And because the claim does not recite that the CPU performs “one of” these operations, but instead requires performance of both, the claim recites that the CPU performs functions that do not find support in the specification.
In addition, both “displaying no video” and “reducing an area of the display region” are likewise mutually exclusive with shutting down the HUD, which is also required by the claim. As described above, “displaying no video” involves “prevent[ing] the virtual image from being displayed” but is shown as a different embodiment from shutting down the HUD. See ‘112 patent at 13:35-39. See also Figures 10 and 14A-14B and their description, which describe “preventing” the video from being displayed without powering down the HUD, either by blocking the output of the projector or by turning off the LCD backlight. In addition, the device cannot reduce an area of the display region, as depicted in Fig. 13, while the HUD is shut down.
To summarize, claim 1 requires that in response to a fault, the CPU performs three functions: it shuts down the HUD, prevents video from being displayed in the display region, and reduces an area of the display region. The specification only recites that one of these three steps occur in response to the fault. As a result, the claim is drawn to an invention that does not find support in the specification. Claims 2-3 inherit this deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As described under the §112(a) rejection above, claim 1 requires that in response to a fault, the CPU performs three functions that the specification describes to be mutually exclusive. These functions are: shut down the HUD, display no video in the display region (that is, prevent video from being displayed), and reduce an area of the display region. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the vehicle can, for example, reduce an area of the display region when the HUD is shut down. Because it is not clear how or whether these steps are performed, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-3 inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim Rejection, 35 USC §251 – New Matter
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is described in the §112(a) rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, while reciting an invention that is indefinite and does not find support in the specification (see §§ 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above), are allowable over the prior art.
The closest prior art would be the various combinations of Choi, Thornley, Yue, and Tomita that were described in the obviousness rejections of the previous Office action. These prior art references fail to teach or suggest a HUD that, in response to detecting a fault, performs three operations: shuts down the HUD, prevents video from being displayed in the display region, and reduces an area of the display region. See above for a discussion of the interpretation of claim 1. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the following limitations in claim 1:
performs a display content changing process to change a display content of the video displayed by the video display apparatus when it is determined that the apparatus fault is present, changes the display of the display region when the apparatus fault occurs, and generates a flag indicating that a shutdown process has been performed on the apparatus1 … wherein the change of the display content includes displaying no video2 in the display region and reducing an area of the display region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 This requires that the display content changing process involves changing the display content by shutting down the HUD. See the §112(a) rejection above, as well as claim 2, which informs how this language in claim 1 is interpreted.
2 As described supra, this requires preventing video from being displayed without shutting down the HUD.