Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/248,465

HEAD-UP DISPLAY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR HEAD-UP DISPLAY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 10, 2023
Examiner
LEE, MATTHEW Y
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
194 granted / 237 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
280
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Response to Amendment The amendments filed August 18th, 2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2013/0155520) in view of Yamazoe (US 2019/0146218), further in view of Lynmam (US 2004/0264011) and Wu (CN105022168B, as evidenced by the machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses a head-up display (Figs. 1-6, element 10) comprising: a housing (11); a display device (14) which emits display light ([0046], “The indicator assembly 14 irradiates display light L”); a plane mirror (41) which reflects the display light ([0049], “a flat mirror (a reflective mirror) 41”); and a holder (42) which holds the plane mirror ([0049], “the flat mirror 41 is fixed to the lower casing 12 by the bezel 42”). Shimada does not specifically disclose the plane mirror includes a base material, and a reflection layer which is provided on the base material. However Yamazoe, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches the plane mirror (Figs. 1-5, element 11) includes a base material ([0058], “an inorganic glass or a transparent resin”), and a reflection layer which is provided on the base material ([0058], “The first mirror 11 is formed by depositing a reflective film on an inorganic glass or a transparent resin”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada with the plane mirror includes a base material, and a reflection layer which is provided on the base material as taught by Yamazoe, for the purpose of reducing cost ([0060]). Modified Shimada does not specifically disclose the reflection layer includes a resin film. However Lynam, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a mirror element, teaches the reflection layer ([0011], “reflective film”) includes a resin film ([0011], “The reflective film may comprise an all polymer-thin-film multilayer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe with the reflection layer includes a resin film as taught by Lynam, for the purpose of forming a highly reflective mirror film ([0011]). Modified Shimada does not specifically disclose the holder comprises 1) a base portion which holds the plane mirror, and 2) a first part which abuts against a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided, and the base portion and the first part are integrally provided in the holder. PNG media_image1.png 864 602 media_image1.png Greyscale However Wu, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a mirror element, teaches the holder comprises 1) a base portion (Figs. 1-3, examiner labeled Fig. 1) which holds the plane mirror (10), and 2) a first part (20) which abuts against a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided (as shown in Fig. 1, 20 abuts the edges of the base 10 which does not have a reflective layer provided), and the base portion and the first part are integrally provided in the holder (as shown in Figs. 1-3, the base and first part are integrally formed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam with the holder comprises 1) a base portion which holds the plane mirror, and 2) a first part which abuts against a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided, and the base portion and the first part are integrally provided in the holder as taught by Wu, for the purpose of improving the structure of the HUD image adjustment device. Regarding claim 2, modified Shimada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein: the base material includes a first edge portion on both sides of a first direction along a rolling direction of the resin film, and a second edge portion on both sides of a second direction intersecting the first direction; the reflection layer is provided on an inner side relative to the first edge portion of the base material; and the holder abuts against the first edge portion. However Yamazoe, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein: the base material (Fig. 4, element 42) includes a first edge portion (as shown in Fig. 4, examiner interprets the first edge to be the edges of 42 closest to screws 43 going into the page) on both sides of a first direction (into the page) along a rolling direction of the resin film (examiner interprets the direction into the page to be the rolling direction), and a second edge portion (edge of 42 stretching from an upper 43 to a lower 43) on both sides of a second direction intersecting the first direction (the first direction intersects the second direction); the reflection layer is provided on an inner side relative to the first edge portion of the base material (as shown in Fig. 4, 11 is located on an inner side of 42); and the holder abuts against the first edge portion (as shown in Fig. 4b, 33 abuts against the first edge portion of 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam and Wu with the wherein: the base material includes a first edge portion on both sides of a first direction along a rolling direction of the resin film, and a second edge portion on both sides of a second direction intersecting the first direction; the reflection layer is provided on an inner side relative to the first edge portion of the base material; and the holder abuts against the first edge portion as taught by Yamazoe, for the purpose of reducing cost ([0060]). Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2013/0155520) in view of Yamazoe (US 2019/0146218), further in view of Lynmam (US 2004/0264011), Wu (CN105022168B, as evidenced by the machine translation), and Takahashi (US 2019/0278053). Regarding claim 5, modified Shimada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the holder comprises an adhesive portion, to which a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided is fixed via an adhesive. However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the holder (Figs. 3-4, 7, and 14-16, element 35) comprises an adhesive portion ([0045], “adhesion surfaces 37a to 37e”), to which a portion of the base material (31) in which the reflection layer is not provided (as shown in Fig. 4, no reflection layer is provided on the rear surface of 31) is fixed via an adhesive ([0045], “each of the adhesion surfaces 37a to 37e is opposed to the back surface of the concave mirror 31”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam and Wu with the wherein the holder comprises an adhesive portion, to which a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided is fixed via an adhesive as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of improving operation in high temperatures ([0052]). Regarding claim 6, modified Shimada teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the holder comprises: an opposed portion which is opposed to the reflection layer; and a groove formed between the adhesive portion and the opposed portion. However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the holder (Figs. 3-4, 7, and 14-16, element 35) comprises: an opposed portion (37a-37e) which is opposed to the reflection layer (31); and a groove formed (370) between the adhesive portion and the opposed portion (as shown in Fig. 10, grooved portion 370 which is formed in 37 is between the adhesive 55 and opposed portion 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam, Wu, and Takahashi with the wherein the holder comprises: an opposed portion which is opposed to the reflection layer; and a groove formed between the adhesive portion and the opposed portion as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of improving operation in high temperatures ([0052]). Regarding claim 7, modified Shimada teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the holder comprises: an opening portion which exposes the reflection layer; and a groove formed between the adhesive portion and the opening portion. However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein the holder (Figs. 3-4, 7, and 14-16, element 35) comprises: an opening portion (37a-37e) which exposes the reflection layer (31); and a groove (370) formed between the adhesive portion (55) and the opening portion (as shown in Fig. 10, grooved portion 370 which is formed in 37 is between the adhesive 55 and opening portion 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam, Wu, and Takahashi with the wherein the holder comprises: an opening portion which exposes the reflection layer; and a groove formed between the adhesive portion and the opening portion as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of improving operation in high temperatures ([0052]). Regarding claim 8, modified Shimada teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein: the holder comprises an abutment portion which abuts against a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided; and the abutment portion defines a thickness of the adhesive to be applied to the adhesive portion. However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a head-up display, teaches wherein: the holder (Figs. 3-4, 7, and 14-16, element 35) comprises an abutment portion (37a-37e) which abuts against a portion of the base material (31) in which the reflection layer is not provided (as shown in Fig. 10, 37a abuts against the rear surface of 31 where no reflection layer is present); and the abutment portion defines a thickness of the adhesive to be applied to the adhesive portion ([0045], “each of the adhesion surfaces 37a to 37e is opposed to the back surface of the concave mirror 31 with a certain clearance in the thickness direction of the holder 35”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the head-up display of Shimada in view of Yamazoe further in view of Lynam, Wu, and Takahashi with the wherein: the holder comprises an abutment portion which abuts against a portion of the base material in which the reflection layer is not provided; and the abutment portion defines a thickness of the adhesive to be applied to the adhesive portion as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of improving operation in high temperatures ([0052]). 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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 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. /MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10 November 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 18, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601888
LENS MODULE AND PROJECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601857
METAMATERIAL DEVICES FOR OPTICAL ABSORPTION, DISPERSION AND DIRECTIONAL SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601930
SOLAR LENS WITH SUPER COLOR ENHANCING PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601889
IMAGING LENS ASSEMBLY, CAMERA MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601928
DETERMINING A PROGRESSIVE LENS OPTICAL DESIGN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 237 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month