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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 04 March, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Examiner also notes that the Office Action Summary dated 10 November, 2026 incorrectly states that the drawings filed on 22 February, 2023 are objected to by the Examiner, as no objections were raised in said Office Action. As reflected in the Office Action Summary included with this Office Action, the drawings filed on 22 February, 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mockarram-Dorri fails to disclose the angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1 because Mockarram-Dorri provides no disclosure regarding a multi-layer or stacked-plate structure of the light directing filter.
Examiner disagrees. As suggested in the Office Action mailed on 10 November, 2025, the stacked plate structure includes the light directing filter 410, the display screen 420, and the protective glass layer 430. These are all considered to be part of the angle selection type transmission element. Therefore, Mockarram-Dorri does disclose an angle selection type transmission element that is formed by stacking a plurality of plates. The claim does not require the limiter to be formed by stacking a plurality of plates, and the angle selection type transmission element is claimed to comprise the limiter, which means it may include additional elements such as a display screen and a protective glass layer. Therefore this argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Mockarram-Dorri fails to disclose or suggest that opening portions are distributed across stacked plates that cooperate to form a passage portion.
Examiner points out that Mockarram-Dorri does teach that “the limiter is configured by a plurality of opening portions included in the plurality of plates”, since the limiter includes a plurality of opening portions and is included in the plurality of plates. As cited in the rejection, the plurality of opening portions include the opening portions of the light directing filter, openings 300 shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 4D and the protective glass layer 430 is considered to also be an opening portion. Furthermore, the claim language does not even require that the opening portions be distributed across stacked plates that cooperate to form a passage portion. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129; hereinafter Mockarram-Dorri).
Regarding claim 1: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesAn angle selection type transmission element provided on an optical path (see Figs. 2A-C, 4D, and Figs. 6A-B), the angle selection type transmission element comprising: a limiter (Figs. 2A-2C and 4D, light directing filter 100) configured to limit a passage direction of light flux (see paragraph 0005), wherein a passage portion in which the light flux passes in the limiter is formed radially centering on a pre-decided point 3-dimensionally (see Fig. 4D and paragraph 0052; the passage portions in which the light flux passes in the limiter is formed radially centering on a pre-decided point 3-dimensionally, which is the center of viewing angle),
wherein the angle selection type transmission element is formed by stacking a plurality of plates (see Fig. 6A-B, plates include the light directing filter 410, the display screen 420, and the protective glass layer 430), and wherein the limiter is configured by a plurality of opening portions included in the plurality of plates (the plurality of opening portions include the opening portions of the light directing filter, openings 300 shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 4D and the protective glass layer 430 is considered to also be an opening portion).
Regarding claim 4: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the limiter is configured by a plurality of opening portions (Figs. 2A-C, 3B, and 4D, opening portions between barriers are a plurality of opening portions).
Regarding claim 5: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 4 (as applied above), wherein first (Fig. 2C, surface 120) and second (Fig. 2C, surface 130) surfaces including the plurality of opening portions in the angle selection type transmission element are configured in a regular tessellation (Fig. 2A-C shows this; also 3B shows a variety of tessellated opening portions with different shapes).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein walls (Figs. 1, 2, and 4D, walls 200) provided in the opening portions are configured as walls surfaces in at least two directions which are not parallel to a passage direction of light (the walls comprise, as they extend in 2 directions and the light propagates in directions that are not parallel to the walls, as it is described in paragraphs 0050-0051, that the viewing angle is the maximum angles at which light transmits through the filter, and there are deviation viewing angles as well).
Regarding claim 12: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein central positions of opening diameters of the opening portions are different in front and rear of the piled plates (the central position of any of the opening portions of the light directing filter is different than the central position of the protective glass layer).
Regarding claim 13: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 11 (as applied above), wherein opening sizes of the opening portions are different in front and rear of the piled plates (the opening sizes of the opening portions of the light directing filter are different than the opening size of the protective glass layer).
Regarding claim 14: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 4 (as applied above), wherein a plurality of regions where opening sizes or pipe lengths of the opening portions are different are provided in the angle selection type transmission element (Fig. 4D shows that the plurality of opening portions are oriented at different angles with respect to the surfaces of the limiter, which has a uniform height; therefore the pipe lengths of the opening portions, measured along the central axis of each respective pipe/opening portion, are different).
Regarding claim 16: Mockarram-Dorri disclosesThe angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: a plurality of mask members (best shown in Fig. 1 and 2, openings 300; corresponds to openings shown in Fig. 4D); and a plurality of separation members in which each gap is formed between the plurality of mask members (best shown in Figs. 1 and 2, barriers 200; corresponds to barriers shown in Fig. 4D), wherein the limiter is configured by a plurality of opening portions included in the mask members (a subset of the mask members 300 are considered to be a plurality of opening portions included in the mask members).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129; hereinafter Mockarram-Dorri).
Mockarram-Dorri discloses the angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1, as applied above. Mockarram-Dorri fails to explicitly disclose that the passage portion of the light flux is formed radially centering on a point on an optical axis away from the angle selection type transmission element. However, Mockarram-Dorri does disclose that the passage portion of the light flux is formed radially centering on a point on an optical axis away from the limiter (see Fig. 4D), and further teaches that the vehicle display is configured to allow a vehicle passenger to view visual information presented on the display while not allowing a vehicle driver to view visual information presented on the display (see paragraphs 0021, 0054). Based on the disclosure of Mockarram-Dorri, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the central point of the passage portion of the light flux at the expected location of the vehicle passenger, which is away from the angle selection type transmission element, in order to direct the light of the display to the vehicle passenger and prevent the light of the display from being directed to the vehicle driver.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129; hereinafter Mockarram-Dorri) in view of Mimura et al. (US 2008/0089068; hereinafter Mimura).
Mockarram-Dorri discloses the angle selection type transmission element according to claim 1, as applied above. Mockarram-Dorri fails to disclose that a surface is subjected to an antireflection coating. Mimura, also related to angle selection type transmission elements for displays (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0002), teaches that the display apparatus includes a surface subjected to an antireflection coating in order to prevent reflection of stray light (see paragraph 0098). In order to prevent stray light from degrading the displayed image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Mockarram-Dorri device by providing an anti-reflection coating on a surface, including the surface of the angle selection type transmission element facing the vehicle passenger.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129; hereinafter Mockarram-Dorri) in view of Wolfram MathWorld (Semiregular Tessellation; copy attached to prior Office Action; url: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SemiregularTessellation.html; as captured on Wayback Archive from 23 February, 2016).
Mockarram-Dorri teaches the angle selection type transmission element according to claim 4, as applied above. Mockarram-Dorri further shows the opening shapes which could be tessellations of different polygons (for example, hexagons 354 or triangles 356), and further teaches that the array of openings can include more than one different shape (see paragraph 0049). As evidenced by Wolfram Mathworld, Archimedean tessellations were known patterns including two or more tessellated polygons. Combining the tessellated polygon teaching of Mockarram-Dorri with the suggestion of including more than one polygon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an Archimedean regular tessellation of a plurality of types of regular polygons for the opening portions including on the first and second surfaces, since this was a known pattern including more than one shape.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mockarram-Dorri (US 2019/0146129; hereinafter Mockarram-Dorri) in view of Melby et al. (US Patent No. 5,254,388; hereinafter Melby).
Mockarram-Dorri discloses the angle selection type transmission element according to claim 4, as applied above, and that the plurality of opening portions are partitioned by walls (best represented in Figs. 1 and 2, barriers 200; corresponding structures in Fig. 4D). Mockarram-Dorri fails to teach that the walls are subjected to an antireflection coating, instead broadly teaching that the walls block or reduce the transmission of light, “e.g. via reflection, etc.”. This is merely an example of how the light blocking can be achieved. However, alternative means of blocking light with absorptive materials is well known in the art, and supplying such surfaces with coatings with antireflection properties that allow for the absorption to be more effective at preventing stray light from degrading the displayed image, as is for example taught by Melby (Fig. 1, carbon black films 16 and 18 on light blocking structures of the louver 14; carbon black is a highly light-absorbing antireflective material; see col. 3, lines 45-60). For the purpose of preventing stray light from propagating in the display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the Mockarram-Dorri device such that the blockers absorb, rather than reflect, light and are further subjected to an antireflection coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7: The closest found prior art, Mockarram-Dorri, fails to teach or suggest: The angle selection type transmission element according to claim 4, wherein an inside of the opening portion is filled with a material of which a refractive index difference from air is equal to or less than 0.1. Mockarram-Dorri teaches that the opening portions are filled with glass, and while transparent materials having refractive index differences from air that are equal to or less than 0.1 are known, as was taught, for example, by Selbrede (US 2007/0242334; relied on in prior office action in rejection of claim 7). However, examiner considers that modifying Mockarram-Dorri by substituting the glass for the low refractive index material of Selbrede would be non-obvious and rely on hindsight reasoning. Therefore, claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8: Due at least to the allowable features of claim 7, claim 8 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights