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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane et al. (US 2022/0334300) in view of Weber et al. (US 2004/0135742), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Sadakane discloses head-up display glass (10, Figs. 1-12), comprising an outer surface (i.e., uppermost surface in Figs. 1-12) and an inner surface (i.e., lowermost surface in Figs. 1-12) opposite to the outer surface, wherein
a transparent nanofilm (15, 25) used for reflecting P-polarized light (paras. [0033, 0132]) is disposed on the inner surface (Figs. 2, 3, 5-12), and the transparent nanofilm (15, 25) comprises a first high-refractive-index-layer, a second high-refractive-index-layer, a first low-refractive-index-layer, a third high-refractive-index-layer, and a second low-refractive-index-layer which are sequentially stacked on the inner surface (paras. [0133-0134]);
a refractive index of each of the first high-refractive-index-layer, the second high-refractive-index-layer, and the third high-refractive-index-layer is greater than 1.8 (para. [0136]), and a refractive index of each of the first low-refractive-index-layer and the second low-refractive-index-layer is less than or equal to 1.8 (para. [0136]); and
the head-up display glass (10) has a reflectivity of at least 13% to P-polarized light emitted at all incident angles between 42° and 72° (Figs. 1, 4; paras. [0062, 0069]);
wherein the head-up display glass is capable of cooperating with projection light at all incident angles between 42° and 72° (paras. [0036, 0062]), and the projection light is reflected on the transparent nanofilm (15, 25) to form a primary head-up display image (M, Figs. 3B, 6), and reflected on the outer surface to form a secondary head-up display image (Sb, Figs. 3B, 6) (para. [0061]), and a ratio of a reflectivity of the primary head-up display image (M) to a reflectivity of the secondary head-up display image (Sb) is greater than 10 (para. [0062]).
Sadakane fails to explicitly disclose wherein the incident angles are between 38° and 85°.
However, Weber discloses a head-up display glass (18, Fig. 2), wherein the head-up display glass has a reflectivity of at least 13% to P-polarized light emitted at all incident angles between 38° and 85° (Fig. 4; paras. [0010-0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the incident angles are between 38° and 85°, as in Weber, into the HUD glass of Sadakane to provide highly efficient reflection of p-polarized light effective over a wide angular range, useful in a variety of HUD systems having different incidence angles for greater design flexibility (Weber, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Sadakane may not explicitly disclose wherein the transparent nanofilm has a five-layer structure.
However, Sadakane does disclose the transparent nanofilm (15, 25) includes at least two, three or four sequences of high-refractive-index-layers and low-refractive-index-layers (paras. [0134, 0168]). Weber also discloses the transparent nanofilm (20) comprising a multilayer stack of repeating and alternating refractive-index-difference layers, including total layers of four and six (paras. [0033, 0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the transparent nanofilm has a five-layer structure, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2141 and 2143.
Regarding claim 4, Sadakane discloses wherein the head-up display glass (10) has a reflectivity of at least 16% to P-polarized light emitted at an incident angle between 55° and 85° (paras. [0062, 0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Sadakane discloses wherein the head-up display glass (10) has a reflectivity of at least 18% to P-polarized light emitted at an incident angle of 65° (paras. [0062, 0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Sadakane discloses wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm, the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm, or the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness greater than or equal to 200 nm (paras. [0052, 0145]).
Regarding claim 9, Sadakane discloses wherein the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 35 nm, the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 80 nm and 145 nm, or the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm (para. [0150]).
Regarding claim 14, Sadakane discloses wherein the head-up display glass comprises laminated glass (10), the laminated glass comprises outer glass (12), inner glass (11), and an intermediate layer (13) sandwiched between the outer glass and the inner glass (Figs. 2, 3, 5-12), the outer surface is a surface of the outer glass (12) away from the intermediate layer (13), the inner surface is a surface of the inner glass (11) away from the intermediate layer (Figs. 2, 3, 5-12), the outer glass is tinted glass and/or the intermediate layer is a colored intermediate layer (paras. [0077, 0091]), the head-up display glass has a visible light transmittance greater than or equal to 70% (para. [0225]).
Regarding claim 15, Sadakane discloses wherein the head-up display glass further comprises one or more of: an anti-fingerprint film, a heat insulating film, and an electric heating film (para. [0103]).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane et al. (US 2022/0334300) in view of Weber et al. (US 2004/0135742), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuyao Glass Ind Group Co Ltd (CN 113031276), of record, hereinafter “Fuyao Glass”.
Regarding claim 2, Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer is lower than the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer and a difference between the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer and the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer is greater than or equal to 0.3; and the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer is between 1.9 and 2.2, the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer is greater than 2.2, the refractive index of the third high-refractive-index-layer is greater than 2.2.
However, Fuyao Glass discloses head-up display glass (Figs. 1-3), wherein the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer (311, Fig. 3A) is lower than the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer (312, Fig. 3A) and a difference between the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer and the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer is greater than or equal to 0.3 (para. [0041]); and
the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer (311) is between 1.9 and 2.2, the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer (312) is greater than 2.2, the refractive index of the third high-refractive-index-layer (311) is greater than 2.2 (Fig. 3C; para. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer is lower than the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer and a difference between the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer and the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer is greater than or equal to 0.3; and the refractive index of the first high-refractive-index-layer is between 1.9 and 2.2, the refractive index of the second high-refractive-index-layer is greater than 2.2, the refractive index of the third high-refractive-index-layer is greater than 2.2, as in Fuyao Glass, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to have a higher reflectivity for P-polarized light to obtain higher quality display images (Fuyao Glass, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Sadakane discloses wherein the first low-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 130 nm and 200 nm, and the second low-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 80 nm and 130 nm (paras. [0149, 0151]).
Sadakane fails to explicitly disclose wherein the third high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 20 nm and 80 nm.
However, Fuyao Glass discloses wherein the third high-refractive-index-layer (31) has a thickness between 20 nm and 80 nm (para. [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the third high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 20 nm and 80 nm, as in Fuyao Glass, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to have excellent mechanical, chemical and thermal stability (Fuyao Glass, para. [0039]).
Claims 6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sadakane et al. (US 2022/0334300) in view of Weber et al. (US 2004/0135742), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 2021/0325672), of record.
Regarding claim 6, Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein a reflectivity difference between a maximum reflectivity and a minimum reflectivity to P-polarized light emitted on the head-up display glass at an incident angle of 65° in a wavelength range of 460 nm-630 nm is less than or equal to 6%.
However, Fischer discloses a head-up display glass (Figs. 1-4), wherein a reflectivity difference between a maximum reflectivity and a minimum reflectivity to P-polarized light emitted on the head-up display glass at an incident angle of 65° in a wavelength range of 460 nm-630 nm is less than or equal to 6% (para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein a reflectivity difference between a maximum reflectivity and a minimum reflectivity to P-polarized light emitted on the head-up display glass at an incident angle of 65° in a wavelength range of 460 nm-630 nm is less than or equal to 6%, as in Fischer, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to smooth the reflections resulting in more neutral reproduction of the projector image.
Regarding claim 10, Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm and the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 35 nm.
However, Fischer discloses a head-up display glass (Figs. 1-4), wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2) and the second high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 5 nm and 35 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm and the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 35 nm, as in Fischer, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to make a layer structure not too complex with suitable reflection properties.
Regarding claim 11, Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm and the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm.
However, Fischer discloses a head-up display glass (Figs. 1-4), wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2) and the second high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 85 nm and 145 nm and the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm, as in Fischer, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to make a layer structure not too complex with suitable reflection properties.
Regarding claim 12, Sadakane discloses wherein the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 80 nm and 145 nm (para. [0150]).
Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm.
However, Fischer discloses a head-up display glass (Figs. 1-4), wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm, as in Fischer, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to make a layer structure not too complex with suitable reflection properties.
Regarding claim 13, Sadakane in view of Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm and the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm.
However, Fischer discloses a head-up display glass (Figs. 1-4), wherein the first high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 25 nm and 75 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2)and the second high-refractive-index-layer (21, Figs. 3-4) has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm (para. [0024]; Tables 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the second high-refractive-index-layer has a thickness between 190 nm and 230 nm, as in Fischer, into the HUD glass of Sadakane and Weber to make a layer structure not too complex with suitable reflection properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sadakane in view of Weber is considered appropriate in accordance with the amendments to the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights