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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 3-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey et al. (US 2016/0327797).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey discloses, a wavefront manipulator (Figs. 1-4) for an arrangement in a beam path of a head-up display (Para. 0003-0006 and see 100) between a picture generating unit (Para. 0034 and see 220, 221) and a projection surface (222), the wavefront manipulator comprising:
a holographic arrangement (230) comprising at least two holographic elements (231, 232, 233), the at least two holographic elements being arranged directly behind one another in the beam path (see 231, 232, 233) and configured to be reflective for at least one defined wavelength (Para. 0061, lines 11-35) and a defined angle of incidence range (Para. 0061, lines 11-35).
Regarding claim 3, Bailey discloses, each of the at least two holographic elements comprises a plurality of holograms (see 231, 232, 233).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey discloses, at least one of the at least two holographic elements comprises at least two holograms configured to be reflective for mutually different wavelengths (Para. 0034 and see 231, 232, 233), and/or wherein at least one of the at least two holographic elements comprises at least one hologram configured to be reflective for at least two mutually different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 5, Bailey discloses, in relation to the arrangement of the individual holograms in relation to a defined direction, the first holographic element is arranged identically or mirror-symmetrically with respect to the second holographic element (Para. 0052-0054 and see 231, 232, 233).
Regarding claim 6, Bailey discloses, a plurality of the holograms of at least one of the holographic elements are recorded with two design wavefronts (see 231, 232, 233), of which at least one design wavefront of at least one hologram of the holographic elements is identical to at least one design wavefront of another hologram of one of the holographic elements with regard to the wavelength and the angle of incidence (Para. 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 7, Bailey discloses, the at least two holographic elements are arranged at a distance from one another of less than 1 millimeter (see 231, 232, 233 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Bailey discloses, the holographic arrangement is configured in a form of a layer or a film or a substrate or a plate and/or has a planar surface or a curved surface (see 231, 232, 233).
Regarding claim 11, Bailey discloses, an optical component (240, 250) configured to be transmissive and to be arranged in the beam path between the holographic arrangement and the projection surface (Para. 0051).
Regarding claim 12, Bailey discloses, the wavefront manipulator is configured to project multi-colored image representations (Para. 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 13, Bailey discloses, at least one of the holographic elements (see 231, 232, 233) is configured efficiently for a plurality of angles of incidence and/or for a plurality of angle of incidence ranges that do not overlap one another (Para. 0061).
Regarding claim 14, Bailey discloses, the holographic arrangement is configured in a curved fashion (see 231, 232, 233).
Regarding claim 15, Bailey discloses, an optical arrangement for a head-up display (Para. 0003-0006 and see 100) at a projection surface (250), the head-up display including a picture generating unit (220), the optical arrangement comprising: a wavefront manipulator as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Bailey discloses, the picture generating unit comprises a plane configured to emit light in a defined emission angle range and with a defined maximum bandwidth with regard to the wavelengths of the emitted light (Para. 0051-0053 and see 231, 232, 233).
Regarding claim 17, Bailey discloses, the picture generating unit is configured to emit laser light in at least two different wavelengths (Para. 0051 and see 221, “R”, “G”, “B”).
Regarding claim 18, Bailey discloses, the optical arrangement has a volume of less than 10 liters (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Bailey discloses, a head-up display (Para. 0003-0006 and see 100)comprising: a projection surface (250), wherein the head-up display comprises an optical arrangement as claimed in claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2016/0327797) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cakmakci et al. (US 2022/0163804).
Bailey remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Bailey does not disclose at least one optical element which has a freeform surface and is configured to be arranged in the beam path between the picture generating unit and the holographic arrangement.
Cakmakci teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-up display (Figs. 1-3) that it would have been desirable to include at least one optical element (212, 312) which has a freeform surface (Para. 0025) and is configured to be arranged in the beam path between the picture generating unit (202) and the holographic arrangement (214-1, 214-2 and 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one optical element which has a freeform surface and is configured to be arranged in the beam path between the picture generating unit and the holographic arrangement as taught by the head-up display of Cakmakci in the head-up display of Bailey since Cakmakci teaches it is known to include these features in a head-up display for the purpose of providing a head-up display with improved image quality, efficiency and increased field of view.
Regarding claim 9, Bailey in view of Cakmakci discloses and teaches as set forth above, and further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-up display that it would have been desirable to make the optical element is configured to be reflective and/or transmissive (212, 312).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-up display of Cakmakci in the head-up display of Bailey since Cakmakci teaches it is known to include these features in a head-up display for the purpose of providing a head-up display with improved image quality, efficiency and increased field of view.
Regarding claim 10, Bailey in view of Cakmakci discloses and teaches as set forth above, and further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-up display that it would have been desirable to make the freeform surface of the optical element is configured to at least partly correct at least one aberration (Para. 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-up display of Cakmakci in the head-up display of Bailey since Cakmakci teaches it is known to include these features in a head-up display for the purpose of providing a head-up display with improved image quality, efficiency and increased field of view.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble, recitations in claims 1-19. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation head-up display is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Furthermore, the Examiner points out that Para. 0014 of Bailey et al. (US 2016/0327797), Para. 0003 of Alexander et al. (US 2018/0373046) and Para. 0015 of Cakmakei et al. (US 2022/0163804) discloses a wavefront manipulator for arrangement in a beam path of a wearable/head-mounted heads-up display.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 03/30/2026
Prosecution Insights