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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 15 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the display device recited in claim 15 does not define an emitting angle relative to a vehicle window, thus being drawn to a distinct product, and thus precluding examination in CPC B60K and B60J. Additionally, the serious burden to examination stems from the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 5-14 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 recites “a display device for a vehicle with a window, comprising: … a light control structure disposed on the substrate, wherein the light control structure comprises a plurality of light shielding structures; .an anti-reflection layer covering the plurality of light shielding structures; a protection layer covering the anti-reflection layer; and a plurality of light emitting units disposed between the substrate and the light control structure and emitting a light passing through the light control structure; wherein in a cross-sectional view, a viewing region is defined on the window, a first reference point at the window is out of the viewing region and corresponding to an upper side of the viewing region, a distance dx1 exists between the first reference point and the display device in a horizontal direction, a distance dz1 exists between the first reference point and a center of the display device in a vertical direction, the light control structure has an effective emitting angle θ, and the effective emitting angle θ satisfies the following equation: θ ≤ arctan(dz1/dx1)”. In the originally-filed disclosure, Applicant demonstrates the origin of the limitation on emitting angle in at least Fig. 1 and 4. The emitting angle drawn and described in Fig. 4 relates directly to a geometric configuration of light shielding structures of the light control structure (e.g. spacing and depth) correlates to a design avoiding ambient windshield light from impinging on a portion of the display. The numerical condition on the emitting angle of the light control structure originates from the connections of P1 and RP1 through the point P2. This geometry and the numerical condition are only valid for straight line geometry from P1 to P2 to RP1 and implicitly require the refractive index from P1 to RP1 to be consistent. As the point RP1 is in a point within a vehicle, it is understood that the consistent refractive index is that of air. Providing a solid material having a refractive index different than air, as would be required in providing an anti-reflection layer and protection layer, necessitates that refraction occurs between P2 and RP1. Refraction may also occur at one or more interfaces between points P1 and P2 depending on the specific geometry of the anti-reflection coating and protection layer. While it is understood that Fig. 7 is not drawn to scale, the scale depicted illustrates a geometry in which two refractive interfaces would be traversed between corresponding points P1 and P2 from Fig. 4. Further in reference to Fig. 7, light traversing the anti-reflection layer and protection layer between P2 and RP1 would refract at least twice more. The additional refraction between the light source and the upper side of the claimed reference point of the upper side of the viewing region would not result in the claimed numerical condition on the emitting angle. The scope of the claimed numerical range includes at least three distinct embodiments: (1) θ = 0, (2) θ = arctan(dx1/dx1), and (3) 0 < θ < arctan(dx1/dz1). At the time of the invention, Applicant evidenced possession of the Specie 1 and sufficiently evidenced possession of Specie 2 but has failed to evidence possession of Specie 3 given the other context in the claim (i.e. anti-reflection layer and protection layer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4128464 to Nakajima (hereinafter Nakajima) in view of US Pat. No. 10,766,363 to Takamatsu et al. (hereinafter Takamatsu) and JP 2004-20725 to Matsumoto (hereinafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima discloses a display device (in-vehicle display device 4, Figs. 1-3) for a vehicle with a window (windshield 1a, Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (panel frame 5 and/or LCD 6, Fig. 2); a light control structure (light control film 20, Figs. 1-3) disposed on the substrate, wherein the light control structure comprises a plurality of light shielding structures (Figs. 2-3); and a light emitting unit (backlight 7 and reflector 9, Fig. 2) disposed between the substrate and the light control structure and emitting a light passing through the light control structure (Figs. 1-3); wherein in a cross-sectional view, a viewing region (viewing region of windshield 1a, Fig. 1) is defined on the window, a first reference point (a impingement point between light beam P14b and light beam P11, Fig. 1) at the window (windshield 1a, Fig. 1) is out of the viewing region and corresponding to an upper side of the viewing region, a distance dx1 exists between the first reference point and the display device in a horizontal direction, a distance dz1 exists between the first reference point and a center of the display device in a vertical direction, the light control structure has an effective emitting angle θ (light beams P11, P12, P13b permitted while light beam P14b blocked, Figs. 1-3; “a dimmed light beam that absorbs an incident light beam (for example, P14a) of the backlight 7 that is incident with an inclination larger than the light beam P12)”), and the effective emitting angle θ satisfies the following equation: θ ≤ arctan (dz1/dx1).
Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of light emitting units.
Takamatsu discloses a plurality of light emitting units (light sources 65 on mount base 63 with sidewalls and surface panel 70 having apertures 71, Fig. 2, 4, 7, 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of light emitting units as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose an anti-reflection layer covering the plurality of light shielding structures and a protection layer covering the anti-reflection layer.
Matsumoto discloses an anti-reflection layer covering the plurality of light shielding structures and a protection layer covering the anti-reflection layer (“anti-reflection coating layer (also referred to as an AR coating) is made of, for example, a silicone coating material having a low refractive index, is applied to the transparent protective layer 20”, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide protective and anti-reflection layers as taught by Matsumoto with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to increase device strength and durability while increasing light transmittance characteristics ([0011],[0012],[0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakajima discloses a view point is in the vehicle, a distance dx2 exists between the display device and the view point in the horizontal direction, a distance dz2 exists between the view point and the center of the display device in the vertical direction, and the effective emitting angle θ satisfies the following equation: arctan(dz2/dx2) ≤ θ θ (light beams P11, P12, P13b permitted while light beam P14b blocked, Figs. 1-3; “a dimmed light beam that absorbs an incident light beam (for example, P14a)”).
Regarding claim 6, Nakajima discloses a view point is in the vehicle, a distance dx2 exists between the display device and the view point in the horizontal direction, a distance dz2 exists between the view point and the center of the display device in the vertical direction, and the effective emitting angle θ satisfies the following equation:0.5*arctan(dz2/dx2) ≤ θ (light beams P11, P12, P13b permitted while light beam P14b blocked, Figs. 1-3; “a dimmed light beam that absorbs an incident light beam (for example, P14a)”). As the light beams are emitted on both side of a normal vector from light control film 20, it can always be true that an arbitrary dz2 and dx2 can be chosen that is sufficiently small to satisfy the claimed condition on emitting angle.
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima discloses the light control structure is a multi-layer structure (transparent resin layer 21, absorption layer 22, reflective layer 23, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima discloses a first opening (transparent resin layer 21, Fig. 3) is between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, at least one of the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a first thickness h1 in the horizontal direction (Fig. 2-3), the first opening has a first width d1 in the vertical direction, and the effective emitting angle θ satisfies the following equation: tan (θ)=d1/h1 (Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a distance exists between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light emitting units, and the distance is greater than the first width of the first opening.
Takamatsu discloses a distance exists between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light emitting units (between sources 65, Fig. 7), and the distance is greater than the first width of the first opening (several iterations of repeating cells of surface panel 70 having apertures 71, Fig. 2, 4, 7, 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed geometry as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a second opening is between other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, the second opening has a second width, at least one of the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a second thickness, a first ratio is the first thickness to the first width, a second ratio is the second thickness to the second width, and the first ratio is different from the second ratio.
Takamatsu discloses a second opening is between other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, the second opening has a second width, at least one of the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a second thickness, a first ratio is the first thickness to the first width, a second ratio is the second thickness to the second width, and the first ratio is different from the second ratio (sidewall baffles of base 63 exhibit the claimed ratios in Fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed dimensionality as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance for curved displays (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a top surface, a first part of the top surface is overlapped with the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, a second part of the top surface is overlapped with the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, and the first part is not parallel to the second part.
Takamatsu discloses the substrate has a top surface (Figs. 7-8), a first part of the top surface is overlapped with the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures (left in Fig. 8), a second part of the top surface is overlapped with the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures (right in Fig. 8), and the first part is not parallel to the second part (Fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed dimensionality as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance for curved displays (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 14, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose an anti-reflection layer.
Matsumoto discloses a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer (refractive index of X-12-2142 by Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. and “the anti-reflection coat layer is made of X-12-2142 having a refractive index of 1.42”) is between a refractive index of the protection layer (refractive index of “Polyester, polypropylene, polyvinyl acetate, polysulfone, polycarbonate”) and a refractive index of the plurality of light shielding structures (refractive index of “the light-reflecting light-shielding layer 43 is made of a metal vapor-deposited film, first, about 500 Å of aluminum is vacuum-deposited on the polyester film on which the release layer is formed, and a transparent silicone resin is applied to the aluminum. Is heated and cured by topping. When the topping heat curing is completed in this manner, the light-absorbing light-shielding layer 44 in which carbon black is dispersed on the transparent silicone resin is topped by a calender, and the polyester film and the aluminum surface are peeled off. Thus, the louver layer 40 in which the surface opposite to the aluminum deposition surface is the light absorption type light shielding layer 44 in which carbon black is dispersed is manufactured”). Note: Refractive indexes of the following protective layer species satisfy the claimed condition: polypropylene and polyvinyl acetate.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed refractive indexes as taught by Matsumoto with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to enhance light transmittance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Takamatsu and Matsumoto, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0036263 to Kim (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a polarizer overlapping the light control structure, wherein the polarizer converts the light to a p-polarized light.
Kim discloses a polarizer overlapping the light control structure, wherein the polarizer converts the light to a p-polarized light (Figs. 3, 5, 7; [0079]-[0082]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a polarization layer as taught by Kim with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to selectively transmit light ([0082]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Takamatsu and Matsumoto, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of JP 2006-79978 to Ozeki (hereinafter Ozeki).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the at least one of the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a width in the vertical direction, and the width is less than the first width of the first opening.
Ozeki discloses the at least one of the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a width in the vertical direction, and the width is less than the first width of the first opening (“A louver was used as the light control member. The dimensions of the louver are as follows: the total thickness D is 1 mm, the width t of the light absorbing portion 12 is 25μm, the width P of the light transmitting portion 11 is 100μm, the inclination angle θ with respect to the boundary surface is 18°”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed geometry as taught by Ozeki with the system as disclosed by Nakajima. The motivation would have been to enhance display luminance and control light directionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872