Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 16-19, 21-27 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections, applicant’s amendments in combination with the arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated, however are not sufficient to overcome all of the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections. The 112(b) rejections for claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16-19, 21, 23, and 24 have been withdrawn. However, the 112(b) rejection regarding the term “overlaps” still stands for claim 6, which was not amended, and new claim 27, for the same reasons as previously set forth. Accordingly, the 112(d) rejection of claim 6 is maintained as well.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the limitation “a pre-scan lens is configured to…focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein 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” is not taught or suggested by the currently applied prior art.
Applicant argues that lens 117 cannot be considered the pre-scan lens and be considered to meet these limitations because lens 117 is internal to the light source and that it is only disclosed by Yasui that the operation of lens 117 is to receive the collimated light combined by the combining elements and output this light. However, the examiner disagrees. Lens 117 is the lens that receives the light from all of the light transmitting elements 114, 115, and 116. Whether it is located inside the box that holds 114-116 or not is irrelevant to its ability to receive light from the light transmitter. It would function equally well whether located internally or externally to the housing that holds the light source. Further, it is a lens. Lenses refract light. Although Yasui does not explicitly disclose the focal length of lens 117, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the focal length of the lens to focus the light to the required position of the system that would result in the image being in focus at the eyebox.
However, for the sake of clarity, the new rejection, necessitated by amendment, relies upon condenser lens 410 to teach the pre-scan lens. Applicant points to ¶0056-¶0057 to argue that condenser lens 410 does not focus the light onto the diffuser screen. However, there is nothing in Yasui to indicate that the condenser lens would not or cannot focus light onto the diffuser screen. Yasui discloses condenser lens 410 receives light from the light transmitter and guides the light towards the deflecting device. That does not mean that the light must be focused on the deflecting device. The operation of a condenser lens is to focus light. Yasui is silent as to the focal length of the condenser lens, therefore it can be easily inferred that Yasui would have chosen to have the focal length of the lens be configured as to have the image in focus at the eyebox. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for lens (410) to be configured to focus the light onto the diffuser screen (13) for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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 6 and 27 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 27, the limitations “the projection field curvature overlaps with the reflector field curvature” 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.
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 projection field curvature is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature”.
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, 8-13, 16-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (US 20200166750 A1), with evidence of certain facts provided by Page et al. (US 20140085436 A1), hereinafter Page.
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);
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); and
a pre-scan lens (410; Fig. 7; ¶0057) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 7, 11),
wherein the pre-scan lens (410) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Figs. 7, 11).
Yasui does not explicitly disclose a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, a second surface curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, wherein a radius of the reflector field curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature, wherein the second surface curvature of the diffuser screen matches or substantially matches the projection field curvature, wherein the pre-scan lens is configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein 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, and a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim.
Regarding the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding the pre-scan lens being configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein a focal length of the pre-scan lens being 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, 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding the second surface curvature of the diffuser screen matching or substantially matching the projection field curvature, there are only two possibilities as to the curvatures – that the second surface curvature is substantially matched with the projection field curvature, or that it isn’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 surface curvature 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 surface curvature of the diffuser screen substantially matching 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 to have a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, wherein the pre-scan lens is configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein 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 for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054), 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.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second surface curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, wherein a radius of the reflector field curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the second surface curvature, wherein the second surface curvature of the diffuser screen matches or substantially matches 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding claim 16, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 1, as set forth above.
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);
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).
a pre-scan lens (410; Fig. 7; ¶0057) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 7, 11),
the pre-scan lens (410) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Figs. 7, 11).
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, a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the surface curvature of the diffuser screen, the pre-scan lens is configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein 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, and a diffuser screen with second surface curvature, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim.
Regarding the pre-scan lens being configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein a focal length of the pre-scan lens being 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, 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the surface curvature of the diffuser screen, there are only two possibilities as to the curvatures – that the projection field curvature is substantially matched to the surface curvature, or that it isn’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 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.
One would further 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. With the projection field curvature substantially matched to the reflector field curvature and the projection field curvature substantially matched to the surface curvature of the diffuser screen, 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 to have a projection field curvature that is substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, wherein the pre-scan lens is configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein 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 for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054), 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.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding claim 21, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 18, as set forth above.
Yasui does not explicitly disclose a focal length of the pre-scan lens is substantially equal to half of a radius of 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 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 focal length of the pre-scan lens substantially equal to half of a radius of the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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 focal length of the pre-scan lens substantially equal to half of a radius of the reflector field curvature for the purpose of having the image in focus at the eyebox, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
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 (410; Fig. 7; ¶0057) arranged on the optical path between the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) and the 2D scanner (13) (Figs. 2, 7, 11), wherein the pre-scan lens (410) is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (111-116 of element 11) (Figs. 7, 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, and a radius of the surface curvature is equal to or substantially equal to a radius of 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 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.
Regarding the pre-scan lens being configured to focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the diffuser screen, and wherein a focal length of the pre-scan lens being 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, 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Regarding a radius of the surface curvature being equal to or substantially equal to a radius of the reflector field curvature, one would be motivated to have a projection 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. 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 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, as evidenced by Page (Figs. 2, 15; abstract, ¶0037, ¶0054).
Further, 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 matched or 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 26, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 22, as set forth above. Yasui further discloses a projection field curvature is a curved projection plane, formed by a scanning movement of the 2D scanner (13) (inherent that the 2D scanner of Yasui would form a curved projection plane), at which the plurality of pixel light beams are in focus (inherent, this is a definition).
Regarding claim 27, Yasui discloses the HUD system of claim 26, including the projection field curvature being substantially matched with the reflector field curvature, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 22. 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 25 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, with evidence of certain facts provided by Page (US 20140085436 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 23, and 25, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 June 26th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights