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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 4 and 7 have been canceled. The amendments have overcome the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 10/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1223/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose “the diffuser screen comprises a second curved body with a second surface curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, and wherein the reflector field curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature,” and “the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlaps with the projection field curvature”.
Specifically, applicant argues that because Yasui discloses “screen 15 may have a curved shape or a flat shape”, that Yasui is indifferent as to the shape and therefore Yasui does not teach “the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlaps with the projection field curvature” and there is no reasonable basis for routine skill in the art to make the limitation obvious. However, there are a limited number of ways the second curved body of the diffuser screen can be configured relative to the projection field curvature – either the curvatures can be overlapping or not overlapping. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One would be motivated to have the second curved body overlap with the projection field curvature for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays. Applicant additionally argues that Yasui does not disclose “the 2D scanner has a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature”. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. One would be motivated to make the projection field curvature substantially matched with the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox. With the projection field curvature matched to the reflector field curvature and the second curved body overlapping with the projection field curvature, it necessarily follows that the other limitations relating the second curved body/second surface curvature and the reflector field curvature would also be met. Claims 18 and 22 contain similar limitations and therefore are also obvious based on the disclose of Yasui.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5-6, 8-19, 21, and 23-2 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 18, and 24, the limitations with phrases following the format “[first element] overlaps with [second element]” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
In each claim, the phrase “[first element] overlaps with [second element]”, such as “the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlaps with the projection screen curvature” and “the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by overlaps, whether it is a partial overlap or whether the curvatures of each element are equal to each other. It is inherent in each case that there would be a partial overlap, since two curvatures superimposed on each other would have at least a point where they overlap. Since ¶0072-¶0078 include examples of partially overlapping vs. fully overlapping curvature, examiner assumes “overlaps” implied that the curvatures in each claim “fully overlap”, i.e., are substantially equal/matched.
Further regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether there is a further limitation or not. The claim recites “the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature”. If “overlaps” indicates they are fully overlapping or substantially equal/matched, there is no further limitation from claim 1, which recites “a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature”. If the term can include a partial overlap, then claim 6 would broaden the limitations from claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the second curved surface of the diffuser screen is substantially matched with the projection field curvature”, “the curved surface of the diffuser screen is substantially matched with the projection field curvature”, and “the projection field curvature is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature”. Examiner further assumes there is no further limitation in claim 6.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-17 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 only recites the limitation "the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature" which does not further limit from claim 1, which recites "the 2D scanner has a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature". Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (US 20200166750 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yasui discloses a head-up display (HUD) system, comprising:
a HUD reflector (30; Fig. 2; ¶0044) comprising a first curved body (30; Fig 2) with a first surface curvature (30; Fig. 2; ¶0044-¶0045) that is configured to produce a reflector field curvature in object space (inherent that light reflecting off of a curved surface would have a curved plane);
a light transmitter (111-116 of element 11; Figs. 2, 11; ¶0039, ¶0051) configured to generate a plurality of pixel light beams corresponding to an image (Fig. 11; ¶0039) and transmit the plurality of pixel light beams on an optical path toward the HUD reflector (30) (Fig. 2);
a two-dimensional (2D) scanner (13; Fig. 2; ¶0040) arranged on the optical path (Fig. 2), wherein the 2D scanner (13) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 2) and steer the plurality of pixel light beams along the optical path according to a 2D scanning pattern (Fig. 2; ¶0040); and wherein the 2D scanner has a projection field curvature (inherent that an oscillating 2D scanner would produce a projection field curvature); and
a diffuser screen (15; Figs. 2, 22; ¶0041, ¶0133-¶0134) arranged on the optical path between the 2D scanner (13) and the HUD reflector (30) (Fig. 2), wherein the diffuser screen (15) comprises a second curved body (15; Fig. 22, ¶0134) with a second surface curvature (15; Fig. 22; ¶0134),
wherein the diffuser screen (15) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the 2D scanner (13) (Fig. 2) and expand a beam width of each pixel light beam of the plurality of pixel light beams to generate a plurality of divergent pixel light beams (¶0041), and
wherein the HUD reflector (30) is configured to receive the plurality of divergent pixel light beams from the diffuser screen (15) (Fig. 2) and reflect the plurality of divergent pixel light beams toward a field of view (Fig. 2).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the projection field curvature is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner, and a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the projection field curvature substantially matched with the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the projection field curvature to be substantially matched with the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Yasui additionally does not disclose the second surface curvature is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, a radius of the reflector field curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature, and the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlaps with the projection field curvature.
Regarding the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlapping with the projection field curvature, there are only two possibilities as to the curvatures – that the second curved body does overlap with the projection field curvature, or that it doesn’t. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Yasui discloses that the diffuser screen (15) comprises a second curved body (15; Fig. 22, ¶0134) with a second surface curvature (15; Fig. 22; ¶0134) and the 2D scanner has a projection field curvature (inherent that an oscillating 2D scanner would produce a projection field curvature). One would be motivated to have the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlap with the projection field curvature for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays.
With the projection field curvature substantially matched to the reflector field curvature and the second curved body of the diffuser screen overlapping the projection field curvature, it would necessarily follow that the second surface curvature is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature and a radius of the reflector field curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second surface curvature to be substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, a radius of the reflector field curvature to be equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature, and the second curved body of the diffuser screen to overlap with the projection field curvature for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp.
Regarding claim 3, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses wherein the 2D scanner (13) is configured to scan the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen (15) according to the 2D scanning pattern (¶0040).
Regarding claim 5, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses wherein the projection field curvature is a curved projection plane (inherent that an oscillating 2D scanner would produce a projection plane which is curved), formed by a scanning movement of the 2D scanner (13), at which the plurality of pixel light beams are in focus (inherent).
Regarding claim 6, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, including the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature (inherent given the structure that the light beams would overlap given the light path and the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature).
Regarding claim 8, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, including the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses the 2D scanner (13) includes a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) mirror (13; Fig. 2; ¶0040) configured to oscillate about a first axis according to a first oscillation (¶0040) and oscillate about a second axis according to a second oscillation (¶0040), wherein the first oscillation and the second oscillation form the 2D scanning pattern (¶0040), and wherein the projection field curvature is a projection field curvature of the MEMS mirror (13) (Fig. 2; ¶0040).
Regarding claim 9, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a light projection distance from the 2D scanner (13) to the second curved body (15) (Fig. 2) remains substantially constant as a scanning position of the 2D scanner (13) changes according to the 2D scanning pattern (2D scanner is only oscillating and no other elements are moving, therefore the distance would remain substantially constant; ¶0040).
Regarding claim 10, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 9, as set forth above. Yasui does not explicitly disclose the light projection distance is substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, and a light projection distance from the 2D scanner to the second curved body, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 11, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a light projection distance from the 2D scanner (13) to the first curved body (30) (Fig. 2) remains substantially constant as a scanning position of the 2D scanner (13) changes according to the 2D scanning pattern (2D scanner is only oscillating and no other elements are moving, therefore the distance would remain substantially constant; ¶0040).
Regarding claim 12, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 11. Yasui does not explicitly disclose the light projection distance is substantially equal to the radius of the first surface curvature.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, and a light projection distance from the 2D scanner to the first curved body, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the first surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the first surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 13, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a first light projection distance from the 2D scanner (13) to the first curved body (30) (Fig. 2) remains substantially constant as a scanning position of the 2D scanner (13) changes according to the 2D scanning pattern (2D scanner is only oscillating and no other elements are moving, therefore the distance would remain substantially constant; ¶0040), and
wherein a second light projection distance from the 2D scanner (13) to the second curved body (15) (Fig. 2) remains substantially constant as the scanning position of the 2D scanner (13) changes according to the 2D scanning pattern (2D scanner is only oscillating and no other elements are moving, therefore the distance would remain substantially constant; ¶0040).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the second light projection distance is substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, and a second light projection distance from the 2D scanner to the second curved body, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the second light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the second surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 14, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a pre-scan lens (117; Fig. 11; ¶0054) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 11), wherein the pre-scan lens (117) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 11).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the pre-scan lens focuses the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen, and a pre-scan lens between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pre-scan lens focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pre-scan lens focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 15, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 14, as set forth above. Yasui does not explicitly disclose a focal length of the pre-scan lens is equal to a sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner, along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen, along the optical path.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen, and a pre-scan lens between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 16, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 14. wherein a focal length of the pre-scan lens (117) is substantially equal to half of a radius of the first surface curvature (30).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose a focal length of the pre-scan lens is substantially equal to half of a radius of the first surface curvature. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen, and a pre-scan lens between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path for the purpose of having the entire image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the focal length of the pre-scan lens substantially equal to half of a radius of the first surface curvature for the purpose of having the entire image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 17, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a windshield (50; Fig. 1; ¶0036) comprising a windshield reflector (50; Fig. 1; ¶0036) configured to receive the plurality of divergent pixel light beams from the HUD reflector (30) (Figs. 1, 2; ¶0044) and project the image into the field of view (Fig.1; ¶0044).
Regarding independent claim 18, Yasui discloses a head-up display (HUD) system, comprising:
a light transmitter (111-116 of element 11; Figs. 2, 11; ¶0039, ¶0051) configured to generate a plurality of pixel light beams corresponding to an image (Fig. 11; ¶0039) and transmit the plurality of pixel light beams on an optical path (Fig. 2);
a two-dimensional (2D) scanner (13; Fig. 2; ¶0040) arranged on the optical path (Fig. 2), wherein the 2D scanner (13) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 2) and steer the plurality of pixel light beams along the optical path according to a 2D scanning pattern (Fig. 2; ¶0040);
a HUD reflector (30; Fig. 2; ¶0044) comprising a first curved body (30; Fig 2) that is configured to produce a reflector field curvature in object space (inherent that light reflecting off of a curved surface would have a curved plane); and
a diffuser screen (15; Figs. 2, 22; ¶0041, ¶0133-¶0134) arranged on the optical path downstream from the 2D scanner (13) (Fig. 2), wherein the diffuser screen (15) comprises a curved body (15; Fig. 22, ¶0134) with a surface curvature (15; Fig. 22, ¶0134), and wherein the diffuser screen (15) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the 2D scanner (13) (Fig. 2) and expand a beam width of each pixel light beam of the plurality of pixel light beams to generate a plurality of divergent pixel light beams (¶0041), and
wherein the 2D scanner (13) has a projection field curvature (inherent that an oscillating 2D scanner would produce a projection field curvature).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose a radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature, the projection field curvature is substantially matched with the surface curvature of the diffuser screen, and the curved body of the diffuser screen overlaps with the projection field curvature.
However, one would be motivated to have the projector field curvature be substantially matched with the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image be in focus at the eyebox since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05.
Further, regarding the curved body of the diffuser screen overlapping with the projection field curvature and the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the surface curvature, there are only two possibilities as to the curvatures – that the curved body does overlap with the projection field curvature, or that it doesn’t. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Yasui discloses that the diffuser screen (15) comprises a curved body (15; Fig. 22, ¶0134) with a surface curvature (15; Fig. 22; ¶0134) and the 2D scanner has a projection field curvature (inherent that an oscillating 2D scanner would produce a projection field curvature). One would be motivated to have the curved body of the diffuser screen overlap with the projection field curvature and to have the projection field curvature be substantially matched with the surface curvature of the diffuser screen for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays.
With the projection field curvature substantially matched to the reflector field curvature and the curved body of the diffuser screen overlapping the projection field curvature, it would necessarily follow that a radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature and the curved body of the diffuser screen to overlap with the projection field curvature for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp.
Regarding claim 19, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 18, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a light projection distance from the 2D scanner (13) to the curved body remains substantially constant as a scanning position of the 2D scanner (13) changes according to the 2D scanning pattern (2D scanner is only oscillating and no other elements are moving, therefore the distance would remain substantially constant; ¶0040).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the light projection distance is substantially equal to the radius of the surface curvature. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen with surface curvature, and a light projection distance from the 2D scanner to the curved body, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light projection distance substantially equal to the radius of the surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding claim 21, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 18, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a pre-scan lens (117; Fig. 11; ¶0054) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 11), wherein the pre-scan lens (117) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 11).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the pre-scan lens focuses the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen or a focal length of the pre-scan lens is equal to a sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner, along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen, along the optical path. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen, and a pre-scan lens between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pre-scan lens focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen and have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pre-scan lens focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen and have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Regarding independent claim 22, Yasui discloses a head-up display (HUD) system, comprising:
a light transmitter (111-116 of element 11; Figs. 2, 11; ¶0039, ¶0051) configured to generate a plurality of pixel light beams corresponding to an image (Fig. 11; ¶0039) and transmit the plurality of pixel light beams on an optical path (Fig. 2);
a two-dimensional (2D) scanner (13; Fig. 2; ¶0040) arranged on the optical path, wherein the 2D scanner (13) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 2) and steer the plurality of pixel light beams along the optical path according to a 2D scanning pattern (Fig. 2; ¶0040);
a HUD reflector (30; Fig. 2; ¶0044) comprising a first curved body (30; Fig 2) that is configured to produce a reflector field curvature in object space (inherent that light reflecting off of a curved surface would have a curved plane);
a diffuser screen (15; Figs. 2, 22; ¶0041, ¶0133-¶0134) arranged on the optical path downstream from the 2D scanner (13), wherein the diffuser screen (15) comprises a curved body (15; Fig. 22; ¶0134) having a surface curvature (15; Fig. 22; ¶0134), and wherein the diffuser screen (15) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the 2D scanner (13) (Fig. 2)and expand a beam width of each pixel light beam of the plurality of pixel light beams to generate a plurality of divergent pixel light beams (¶0041); and
a pre-scan lens (117; Fig. 11; ¶0054) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 11), wherein the pre-scan lens (117) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Fig. 11).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose the pre-scan lens focuses the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, a focal length of the pre-scan lens is equal to a sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path, and the second distance is substantially equal to a radius of the surface curvature.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Yasui has a HUD reflector which produces a reflector field curvature, a light transmitter, a diffuser screen, a 2D scanner which produces a projection field curvature, a diffuser screen, and a pre-scan lens between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pre-scan lens focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, have the focal length of the pre-scan lens equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path, and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path, and have the second distance substantially equal to a radius of the surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pre-scan lens to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, the focal length of the pre-scan lens to be equal to the sum of a first distance between the pre-scan lens and the 2D scanner along the optical path and a second distance between the 2D scanner and the diffuser screen along the optical path, and the second distance be substantially equal to a radius of the surface curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox.
Yasui additionally does not disclose a radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature.
However, one would be motivated to have the projector field curvature be substantially matched with the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image be in focus at the eyebox since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. Further, one would be motivated to have the curved body of the diffuser screen overlap with the projection field curvature for the purpose of reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays, since there are only two possibilities – that the curved body and the projection field curvature either overlap or do not overlap – and it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). With the projector field curvature being substantially matched to the reflector field curvature and the curved body overlap with the projection field curvature, it would necessarily follow that the radius of the surface curvature would be equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the radius of the surface curvature to be equal to or substantially equal to the radius of the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image be in focus and the eyebox and reducing reflections by having the surface of the diffuser screen normal to the incident light rays, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp.
Regarding claim 24, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 18, including the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature (inherent given the structure that the light beams would overlap given the light path and the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature).
Claim(s) 2, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (US 20200166750 A1) in view of El-Haddad et al. (US 20230393400 A1), hereinafter El-Haddad.
Regarding claims 2, 23, and 24, Yasui discloses the HUD systems of claim 1, 18, and 22, as set forth above. Yasui is silent on the specific curvature of the reflector field curvature, namely that the reflector field curvature is a Petzval field curvature.
However, El-Haddad teaches a similar HUD system (Figs. 1, 5A) with a HUD reflector (540; Fig. 5A; ¶0039) that produces a reflector field curvature (image plane; ¶0039) with a Petzval curvature (¶0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reflector field curvature to have a Petzval field curvature for the purpose of better matching an eye curvature of an eye (¶0039 of El-Haddad).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 28th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872