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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/11/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/255, 625 and 18/255, 653 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-9, 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2021/0041594) in view of Pasca (US 2020/0257115).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses, a display system for displaying information (Figs. 1-3 and 8-9), the display system comprising:
a. a glazing (104) that includes a first transparent rigid substrate (416), a second transparent rigid substrate (412), and an interlayer (804) positioned between the first and the second transparent rigid substrates (Para. 0050 and see Fig. 8);
b. one or more narrow band absorbers (Para. 0011, 0040, 0059 and see 804; note, discloses red, green and blue absorptive dyes), disposed in a vision area of the glazing, that collectively absorb light selectively within three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum (Para. 0011, 0040, 0059; note, discloses red, green and blue absorptive dyes); and
c. a projector (304) that emits light (Para. 0059 and see 212, 428) toward the glazing at the three discrete wavelength ranges (Para. 0011 and 0040; note, discloses the projector emits red, green and blue light output).
Chang does not disclose the display system achieves a high contrast ratio of greater than 30:1 between the primary image and secondary image for at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum.
Pasca teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a display system that it would have been desirable to make the display system achieves a high contrast ratio of greater than 30:1 between the primary image and secondary image for at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum (Para. 0053; note, discloses ideally the contrast ratio should be larger than 5000:1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the display system achieves a high contrast ratio of greater than 30:1 between the primary image and secondary image for at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum as taught by the display system of Pasca in the display system of Chang since Pasca teaches it is known to include these features in a display system for the purpose of providing an inexpensive and high quality display system with a reduced moiré pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, at least one of the one or more narrow band absorbers is in the interlayer (Para. 0011, 0040, 0059 and see 804).
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, at least one of the one or more narrow band absorbers is in or on one of the rigid substrates (Para. 0011, 0040, 0059 and see 804).
Regarding claim 4, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, at least one of the one or more narrow band absorbers is in a coating or film attached to one of the two rigid substrates (Para. 0011, 0040, 0059 and see 804).
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, one of the one or more narrow band absorbers selectively absorbs light within two wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 6, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the interlayer is provided with a wedge portion which aligns primary and secondary images reflected from the glazing (Para. 0061 and see Fig. 9; note, discloses the wedge shape minimizes or prevents ghost images).
Regarding claim 7, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the three discrete wavelength ranges include light of 445nm, 515nm, and 642nm (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 8, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the three discrete wavelength ranges include light of 445nm, 550nm, and 642nm, respectively (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 9, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, one of the discrete wavelength ranges includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660 (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 11, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the three discrete wavelength ranges are from 430 to 490 nm, from 500 to 565 nm, and from 625 to 740 nm (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 12, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the three discrete wavelength ranges are from 430 to 475 nm, from 510 to 550 nm, and from 640 to 700 nm (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 13, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector; an LED projector; a DPSS laser-based projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, a laser projector, or a waveguide projector (Para. 0046 and 0058).
Regarding claim 14, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector, and wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges include light of 457nm, 532nm, and 671 nm, and have a width from about 0.5nm to about 50nm (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 15, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector, and wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges include light of 473nm, 532nm, and 671 nm, and have a width from about 0.5nm to about 50nm (Para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 16, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments (Para. 0040 and 0059).
Regarding claim 18, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the interlayer comprises PVB (Para. 00014, 0040, 0059 and see 804).
Regarding claim 19, Chang in view of Pasca discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chang further discloses, the narrow band absorbers are in a film positioned between two PVB layers in the interlayer (Para. 00014, 0040, 0059 and see 804).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2021/0041594) in view of Pasca (US 2020/0257115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz et al. (US 2016/0170220; already of record).
Chang in view of Pasca remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Chang in view of Pasca does not explicitly disclose the narrow band absorbers have a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 50nm.
Kurtz teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a display system that it would have been desirable to make the narrow band absorbers have a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 50nm (Para. 0126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the narrow band absorbers have a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 50nm as taught by the display system of Kurtz in the combination of Chang in view of Pasca since Kurtz teaches it is known to include this feature in a display system for the purpose of providing a low cost display system with improved performance and brighter colors.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2021/0041594) in view of Pasca (US 2020/0257115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz et al. (US 2016/0170220; already of record).
Chang in view of Pasca remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Chang in view of Pasca does not disclose at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye.
Kurtz teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a display system that it would have been desirable to make at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye (Para. 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye as taught by the display system of Kurtz in the combination of Chang in view of Pasca since Kurtz teaches it is known to include this feature in a display system for the purpose of providing a display system with improved brightness, contrast and display quality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2021/0041594) in view of Pasca (US 2020/0257115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shouhi et al. (US 2021/0025226; already of record).
Chang in view of Pascal remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Chang in view of Pascal does not disclose the glazing incorporates one or more UV dye absorbers forming a layer blocking UV radiation to the narrow band dyes.
Shouhi teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a display system that it would have been desirable to make the glazing incorporates one or more UV dye absorbers forming a layer blocking UV radiation to the narrow band dyes (Para. 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the glazing incorporates one or more UV dye absorbers forming a layer blocking UV radiation to the narrow band dyes as taught by the display system of Shouhi in the combination of Chang in view of Pascal since Shouhi teaches it is known to include this feature in a display system for the purpose of providing a display system with improved light control performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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 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
12/06/2025