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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the communication filed 10/08/2025.
Newly submitted Claims 8-20, filed 10/08/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita (2017/0072800), hereinafter Fujita.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Fujita discloses, in figures 1 and 2, a vehicle display device (1, display device) (paragraph 0079) including a first and a second display surfaces (51, first display surface and 52, second display surface) (paragraph 0079), which are discrete (figure 1 shows that each surface is separate), the first display surface (51, first display surface) being semi-transparent and designed to create a virtual image obtained by reflection of an image produced by a display source (paragraph 0079), the second display surface (52, second display surface) being visible through the first display surface (figure 1 shows the first display surface in placed in front of the second display surface and paragraph 0059), said display device including a first display mode wherein at least one first information item is displayed on the first display surface (image pattern) and at least one second information item (image pattern) is displayed on the second display surface (paragraph 0058), characterized in that it further includes a second display mode wherein the at least one first information item (image pattern) and the at least one second information item (image pattern) are displayed on the second display surface (paragraph 0058)and wherein the display source is switched off (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Fujita discloses wherein the display source is a digital screen (paragraph 0055 discloses the vehicle information is displayed on the screen).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Fujita discloses wherein the second display surface is a digital screen (paragraph 0055 discloses the vehicle information is displayed on the screen).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Fujita discloses wherein the first information item corresponds to the speed of the vehicle (paragraph 0055 discloses various driving information that concerns the driving).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Fujita discloses wherein the second information item is selected from: a speed limitation, an indication relating to a cruise control (paragraph 0055 discloses various driving information that concerns the driving).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Fujita discloses a vehicle including a display device, according to Claim 1 (paragraph 0050).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (2017/0072800), hereinafter Fujita as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Sekiyama Shigetoshi (JP H06148631), hereinafter ‘631.
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 16, Fujita discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Fujita does not disclose wherein the first display surface is a semi-transparent strip.
Fujita and ‘631 are related as displays in vehicles.
‘631 discloses wherein the first display surface is a semi-transparent strip (11, semi-transparent strip) (figure 1 and paragraph 0009).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Fujita with the semi-transparent strip of ‘631 for the purpose of transmitting so as to diffusely reflect light.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (2017/0072800), hereinafter Fujita as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Feiss Reinhold (FR 2939523), hereinafter Reinhold.
Regarding claim 17, Fujita discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Fujita does not disclose wherein the first digital screen display source and the second digital screen display source are oriented at a right angle.
Fujita and Reinhold are related as projection for display information in a vehicle.
Reinhold discloses wherein the first digital screen display source (11, first display surface) and the second digital screen display source (12, second display surface) are oriented at a right angle (figure 2 shows the screens at a right angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Fujita with the orientation of the display screens of Reinhold for the purpose of generating a virtual image.
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 BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872