DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-28 are pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-28 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 9-11, 13-15, 18 of Co-Pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,653. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recites similar features and limitations as the patented application. Both Applications recited features regarding a glazing with has 3 visible wavelengths to absorb light comprising substrates and interlayers.
Present Application 18/255,628
Co-Pending Application No.18/255,653
A display system for displaying information, the display system comprising:
a glazing that includes a first transparent rigid substrate, a second transparent rigid substrate, and an interlayer positioned between the first and the second transparent rigid substrates;
a projector that emits light toward the glazing at three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum;
one or more narrow-band absorbers, disposed in a vision area of the glazing, that selectively absorb light within at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum; and
one or more narrow-band reflectors comprising a dielectric multilayer stack, the one or more narrow-band reflectors being disposed in the vision area of the glazing, and selectively reflecting light within at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum, and at least one of the one or more narrow-band reflectors selectively reflects light in the near infrared (NIR) wavelength range;
wherein the one or more narrow-band absorbers and one or more narrow-band reflectors are arranged such that the visible light transmittance through the vision area is at least 70%; and wherein the display system exhibits a contrast ratio of greater than 30:1.
1. A display system for viewing information, comprising:
a. a glazing, comprising:
i. a first transparent rigid substrate;
ii. a second transparent rigid substrate; and
iii. a polymer interlayer, positioned between the first transparent substrate and the second transparent substrate,
wherein one face of the first transparent rigid substrate defines an inner surface of the glazing and one face of the second transparent rigid substrate defines an outer surface of the glazing;
b. one or more holographic optical elements which reflect visible light within three discrete wavelength ranges; and
c. one or more narrow-band absorbers that selectively absorb visible light within the three discrete wavelength ranges, disposed between the holographic optical elements and the outer surface of the glazing.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-16, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlofske, III et al. (US 2022/0050287) in view of Shikii et al. (US 2012/0099170), and further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0153450).
Claim 1, Verderlofske teaches a display system for displaying information, the display system comprising:
a. a glazing that includes a first transparent rigid substrate (i.e. first glass layer), a second transparent rigid substrate (i.e. second glass layer), and an interlayer (i.e. reflective film) positioned between the first and the second transparent rigid substrates (p. 0024);
b. a projector (i.e. projector) that emits light toward the glazing (i.e. glass layers) at three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum (i.e. red green and blue ranges) (p. 0021 0034);
c. one or more narrow-band absorbers (i.e. absorbing material), disposed in a vision area of the glazing (i.e. in the skin layer), that selectively absorb light within at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges (p. 0029); and
d. “one or more narrow-band reflectors comprising a dialetheic multilayer stack (i.e. glass layer and reflective film), the one or more narrow-band reflectors being disposed in the vision area of the glazing, and selectively reflecting light within at least one of the three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum” (i.e. narrow band ranges) (p. 0020-0021, 0033-0034).
Verderlofske is silent regarding the specific features of:
“at least one of the one or more narrow-band reflectors selectively reflects light in the near infrared (NIR) wavelength range”;
wherein the one or more narrow-band absorbers and one or more narrow-band reflectors are arranged such that the visible light transmittance through the vision area is at least 70%; and
wherein the display system exhibits a contrast ratio of greater than 30:1.
Shikii teaches the specific feature of:
“at least one of the one or more narrow-band reflectors selectively reflects light in the near infrared (NIR) wavelength range” (i.e. absorb light infrared range) (p. 0160-0161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided infrared light absorption as taught by Shikii to the system of Verderlofske to provide quality images in the HUD (p. 0161).
Ishii teaches the specific features of:
wherein the one or more narrow-band absorbers (i.e. light absorbers) and one or more narrow-band reflectors (i.e. holographic reflector) are arranged such that the visible light transmittance through the vision area is at least 70% (i.e. high transparency) (figs. 8-9, 16; p. 0002, 0016, 0044, 0048, 0051); and
wherein the display system exhibits a contrast ratio of greater than 30:1 (i.e. 1000:1) (p. 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided high contrast ratios as taught by Ishii to the system of Verderlofske to provide visibility (p. 0044).
Claim 5, Verderlofske teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the alternating high and low index materials are polymers (i.e. polymeric layers) (p. 0024).
Claiim 7, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow-band reflectors (i.e. reflective film) reflects in the blue range of visible light (p. 0034).
Claim 8, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow-band reflectors (i.e. reflective film) reflects in the green range of visible light (p. 0034).
Claim 9, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow-band reflectors comprises two reflectors (110, 210) that reflect in the blue range of visible light and in the green range of visible light, respectively (p. 0034).
Claim 10, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow-band reflectors is provided in the interlayer (i.e. between glass layers) (p. 0024).
Claim 11, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein one or more narrow-band reflectors is in or on one of the rigid substrates (i.e. bonded to the glass layers interpreted as “in”) (p. 0024).
Claim 12, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow-band reflectors are in a coating or film attached to one of the two rigid substrates substrates (i.e. bonded to the glass layers interpreted as “in”) (p. 0024).
Claim 13, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers (i.e. absorbing material) are in the interlayer (p. 0024).
Claim 14, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers are in or on one of the rigid substrates (i.e. included in adhesive layer) (p. 0024).
Claim 15, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers are in a coating or film attached to one of the two rigid substrates i.e. included in adhesive layer) (p. 0024).
Claim 16, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the interlayer is provided with a wedge portion which aligns primary and secondary images reflected from the glazing (i.e. wedge design) (p. 0020).
Claim 22, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments (p. 0029).
Claim 23, Verderlofske teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye (i.e. polymeric layers with dye) (p. 0029).
Claim 24, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the interlayer comprises PVB (p. 0021-0022).
Claim 25, Verderlofske teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the narrow band absorbers are in a film positioned between two PVB layers in the interlayer (i.e. reflective film between PVB glass layers) (p. 0021-0022).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlofske, III et al. (US 2022/0050287) in view of Shikii et al. (US 2012/0099170), and further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0153450), and further in view of Patrickson et al (US 2020/0147935).
Claim 2, Verderlofske teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the narrow-band reflectors (i.e. predetermined visible wave length in reflective film) exhibits both a narrow secondary reflection in the visible range that selectively reflects the light within at least one of the three wavelength ranges emitted by the projector (i.e. red green blue ranges), and a primary reflection in the near-infrared range.
Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
“a primary reflection in the near-infrared range”.
Patrickson teaches the specific feature of:
“a primary reflection in the near-infrared range (i.e. major surface reflecting film)” (p. 0076-0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided infrared ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to reduce misting on the windscreen (p. 0309).
Claim 6, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the alternating high and low index materials are metal oxides.
Patrickson teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the alternating high and low index materials are metal oxides (p. 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided infrared ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to reduce misting on the windscreen (p. 0309).
Claim 17, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445 nm, 515 nm, and 642 nm.
Patrickson teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445 nm, 515 nm, and 642 nm (i.e. wavelengths envisioned within the range of 380nm-780nm) (fig. 7; p. 0330-0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided wavelength ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to provide wavelength variation (p. 0331).
Claim 18, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445 nm, 550 nm, and 642 nm.
Patrickson teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445 nm, 550 nm, and 642 nm (i.e. wavelengths envisioned within the range of 380nm-780nm) (fig. 7; p. 0330-0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided wavelength ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to provide wavelength variation (p. 0331).
Claim 19, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
Patrickson teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660. (i.e. wavelengths envisioned within the range of 380nm-780nm) (fig. 7; p. 0330-0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided wavelength ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to provide wavelength variation (p. 0331).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlofske, III et al. (US 2022/0050287) in view of Shikii et al. (US 2012/0099170), and further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0153450), and further in view of Ederer et al. (US 2023/0081209).
Claim 4, Verderlofske teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the dielectric multilayer stack comprises alternating high and low index materials (i.e. PET, PETg) (p. 0082-0084).
Verderlofske is silent regarding the specific feature of:
“producing a primary peak in the NIR range and a secondary narrow peak in the visible range”.
Ederer teaches the specific feature of:
“producing a primary peak in the NIR range and a secondary narrow peak in the visible range” (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided primary peak and narrow peak as taught by Ederer to the system of Verderlofske to produce emitters with different wavelengths (claim 3).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlofske, III et al. (US 2022/0050287) in view of Shikii et al. (US 2012/0099170), and further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0153450), and further in view of Patrickson et al (US 2020/0147935), and further in view of Raring et al. (US 2012/0314398).
Claim 20, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector, and wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 457 nm, 532 nm, and 671 nm, and have a FWHM from about 0.5 nm to about 50 nm.
Patrickson teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 457 nm, 532 nm, and 671 nm” (i.e. wavelengths envisioned within the range of 380nm-780nm) (fig. 7; p. 0330-0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided wavelength ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to provide wavelength variation (p. 0331).
Raring teaches the specific features of:
“wherein the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector” (p. 0010);
“a FWHM from about 0.5 nm to about 50 nm” (i.e. spectral width) (p. 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided spectral width for projectors as taught by Raring to the system of Verderlofske to reduce speckle (p. 0091).
Claim 21, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector, and wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges include light of 473 nm, 532 nm, and 671 nm, and have a FWHM from about 0.5 nm to about 50 nm.
Patrickson teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 457 nm, 532 nm, and 671 nm” (i.e. wavelengths envisioned within the range of 380nm-780nm) (fig. 7; p. 0330-0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided wavelength ranges as taught by Patrickson to the system of Verderlofske to provide wavelength variation (p. 0331).
Raring teaches the specific features of:
“wherein the projector is a DPSS laser-based projector” (p. 0010);
“a FWHM from about 0.5 nm to about 50 nm” (i.e. spectral width) (p. 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided spectral width for projectors as taught by Raring to the system of Verderlofske to reduce speckle (p. 0091).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlofske, III et al. (US 2022/0050287) in view of Shikii et al. (US 2012/0099170), and further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0153450), and further in view of Sakellarides et al (US 2013/0344345).
Claim 26, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the glazing incorporates one or more UV light blockers.
Sakellarides teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the glazing incorporates one or more UV light blockers (i.e. UV blocker) (p. 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided UV blockers as taught by Sakellarides to the system of Vanderlofske to convert solar radiation to infrared radiation (p. 0014).
Claim 27, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the UV blockers are UV dye absorbers forming a layer blocking UV radiation to the narrow band dyes.
Sakellarides teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the UV blockers are UV dye absorbers (i.e. dye/absorber) forming a layer blocking UV radiation to the narrow band dyes (p. 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided UV blockers as taught by Sakellarides to the system of Vanderlofske to convert solar radiation to infrared radiation (p. 0014).
Claim 28, Verderlofske is not entirely clear in teaching The display system of claim 1, wherein the glazing system incorporates NIR absorbers.
Sakellarides teaches The display system of claim 1, wherein the glazing system incorporates NIR absorbers (i.e. infrared reflecting layer) (p. 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided UV blockers as taught by Sakellarides to the system of Vanderlofske to convert solar radiation to infrared radiation (p. 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-28 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
Claims 1-2, 4-28 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230358937 A1 DIGUET; Antoine – improved HUD visability
US 20210308990 A1 LI; Meijie et al. – optical device glazing with infrared
US 20210041694 A1 CHANG; Kai-Han et al. – infrared ghosting on windshield
US 5405680 A Chang; David B. et al. – temperature reduction of infrared
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.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 8/3/2026
Prosecution Insights