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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019150038 A1 (BAUERLE PASCAL et al.) in view of US 20190255813 A1 (BAUERLE; Pascal et al.) and US 20190001629 A1 (LALUET; Jean-Yves).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
286
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, Bauerle teaches a vehicle pane [1’] for a head-up display [4’] having, in the installed state [see figure 1’ and 2bis], an outer side facing external surroundings and an inner side facing a vehicle interior [inherent, see figure 1bis], the vehicle pane comprising: at least one transparent pane [1,1’], at least one first masking strip in an edge region of the at least one transparent pane [71-72, see figures 1’ and 2bis], wherein the at least one first masking strip is arranged on or in a carrier film, and the carrier film is bonded to the at least one transparent pane [as Applicant’s specification is unclear regarding the carrier film, Bauerle enamel is the carrier film; see Bauerle’s machine translation: “a black enamel masking frame 72” is comprised of the enamel carrier and embedded black dye], and at least one light-deflecting device for deflecting light into the vehicle interior or at least one image display device for displaying image information [OLED 4’], which is arranged in a region of the at least one first masking strip, on a vehicle-interior side of the at least one first masking strip [see figures 1bis and 2bis].
Bauerle lacks the at least one first masking strip is free of glass and enamel. However, Bauerle teaches at paragraph 0158 that “the carrier for the diodes can even be positioned in a peripheral region of the bent laminated glazing in which the first glazing is entirely (or partially) opaque by an opaque masking layer (outermost if another masking layer is on the second glazing side), preferably on face F2. This layer can be an inorganic layer, preferably an enamel (black or any other color), or an organic layer, in particular of tinted polymer, for example made of polyethylene or of polymethyl methacrylate.” Furthermore, Laluet teaches at paragraph 0164 that “The interior masking layer 4 is opaque and may be made of a black enamel deposited on face 13 or F3 or face 14 or F4 of the internal glass 1′, made of paint or even of an optically opaque ink deposited on the polymer interlayer, or of an added, tinted or painted, opaque polymer layer laminated between the interior glass and the interlayer.”
As such Bauerle and Laluet suggest that enamel and organic masking would have been art recognized equivalents. Simplified manufacturing would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the holographic deflection device of Bauerle and Laluet with Bauerle.
Per claim 4, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle pane is a composite pane [see figure 1bis and figure 2bis] and that comprises a first pane [1] having, in the installed state, an outer side facing the external surroundings [see figures 1bis and 2bis] and an inner side [see figure 2bis] and a second pane [1’] having, in the installed state, an inner side facing the vehicle interior [see figure 2bis] and an outer side, which first and second panes are fixedly joined to one another by at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer [2, see the machine translation: “ a lamination interlayer 2 made of polymeric material, in this case made of PVB”].
Per claim 9, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first masking strip (5) is formed in a circumferential frame shape [see figure 1bis].
Per claim 11, Bauerle et al. teach a head-up display, with a vehicle pane according to claim 1 [see figure 1bis].
Per claim 13, Bauerle et al. teach a vehicle with a head-up display according to claim 11 [see figure 1bis].
Per claim 14, Bauerle et al. teach a method for producing a vehicle pane according claim 1, wherein at least comprising: (a) applying a carrier film with at least one first masking strip is applied in an edge region of the at least one pane), and (b) arranging at least one light-deflecting device for deflecting light into the vehicle interior or at least one image display device for displaying image information is arranged in the a region of the at least one first masking strip, on the a vehicle-interior side of the at least one first masking strip [the method step are merely a recitation of the product claims and inherent to the product, see figures 1bis and 2bis].
Per claim 16, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first masking strip is printed on the carrier film or is embedded in the carrier film [as Applicant’s specification is unclear regarding the carrier film, Bauerle enamel is the carrier film; see Bauerle’s machine translation: “a black enamel masking frame 72” is comprised of the enamel carrier and embedded black dye].
Per claim 19, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 10, wherein the at least one further second masking strip is a baked masking print [see MPEP 2113, this is a product by process limitation that does not material alter the produce and does not further limit the structure].
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019150038 A1 (BAUERLE PASCAL et al.) in view of US 20190255813 A1 (BAUERLE; Pascal et al.) and US 20190001629 A1 (LALUET; Jean-Yves), as applied to claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 19, above and further in view of DE 102016211823 A1 (FIESS REINHOLD et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
506
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 1, but lacks the at least one light-deflecting device is a holographic light-deflecting device having at least one holographic optical element suitable for deflecting light, which is designed such that incident light is deflected toward the vehicle interior wherein the at least one light-deflecting device includes a holographic waveguide, which is designed such that light coupled into the waveguide in the region of the first masking strip is deflected toward the vehicle interior. However, see Fiess’s machine translation: “Under a windshield, a windshield of the vehicle can be understood. A vehicle may, in particular, be understood as a motor vehicle, such as a car or truck. In each case a holographic-optical element, HOE for short, can be understood as being an input or output element. This can be a holographically recorded, diffractive grating. The input or output element can be about with different optical functions such. B. be realized of a lens, a prism or a mirror. The deflection unit can be fastened or fastened approximately at an edge of the windshield. Alternatively, the deflection can be realized as an integral part of the windshield. For example, the input or output coupling element may be arranged on a side of the light-guiding element facing a vehicle interior of the vehicle. For example, the light beam can be coupled out into a beam path to a driver of the vehicle or coupled in from this beam path. Alternatively, the input or output coupling element can also be arranged on a side of the light-guiding element facing away from the vehicle interior. As a result, it is possible, for example, to couple light beams impinging on the windscreen from a side of the windscreen opposite the vehicle interior, or to couple light beams in this direction.” Fiess also Display holographic images would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the holographic deflection device of Fiess with Bauerle.
Per claim 3, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 1, but lacks the at least one light-deflecting device includes a holographic waveguide, which is designed such that light coupled into the waveguide in the region of the first masking strip is deflected toward the vehicle interior. However, Fiess machine translation teaches the at least one light-deflecting device includes a holographic waveguide, which is designed such that light coupled into the waveguide in the region of the first masking strip is deflected toward the vehicle interior. “A light-guiding element can be understood as a waveguide structure. For example, the light-guiding element can be designed to guide light rays along its longitudinal direction by reflection, in particular by total reflection, within the light-guiding element. For this purpose, the light-guiding element can have, for example, at least two materials each having a different refractive index. Furthermore, the light guide can be realized, for example, as a layer composite of at least two layers. The coupling element and the coupling-out element can be mutually objectionable or arranged adjacent to one another on the light-guiding element. For example, the coupling element can be arranged at a first end of the light-guiding element and the coupling-out element at a second end of the light-guiding element opposite the first end. Depending on the embodiment, the respective main extension planes of the coupling element and the coupling-out element may extend substantially parallel to one another or in different directions. The main extension planes can for example also be substantially perpendicular to each other.” Improved display packaging would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the holographic deflection device of Fiess with Bauerle.
Per claim 5, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 4, wherein the carrier film contains [as Applicant’s specification is unclear regarding the carrier film, Bauerle enamel is the carrier film; see Bauerle’s machine translation: “a black enamel masking frame 72” is comprised of the enamel carrier and embedded black dye] or consists of the at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer.
Per claim 6, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 4, wherein the at least one light-deflecting device (9) or the at least one image display device is laminated into two thermoplastic intermediate layers [see figure 2bis:2, and see the machine translation: “a lamination interlayer 2 made of polymeric material, in this case made of PVB”].
Per claim 7, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 4, wherein the at least one light-deflecting device or the at least one image display device is attached to the outer side of the second pane [see figure 2bis].
Per claims 8 and 17, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane (1) according to claim 7, but lacks the at least one light-deflecting device (9) or the at least one image display device is covered by a cover layer, in particular a polymer layer or a glass layer. However, it was common knowledge to cover the display device with a cover layer in order to improve display robustness. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 10, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 4, wherein at least one further second masking strip is arranged on the inner side of the first pane, on the inner side of the second pane and/or on the outer side of the second pane [see figure 2bis].
Per claim 12, Bauerle et al. teach the head-up display according to claim 11. Bauerle lack but Fiess teaches, a light-deflecting device and an image generator associated with the light-deflecting device. See figure 3. Reduce display cell thickness would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 15, Bauerle et al. teach a method comprising providing a vehicle pane according claim 1 in a vehicle for travel on land, in the air, or on water, in particular as a vehicle windshield [see figure 1bis].
Per claim 18, Bauerle et al. teach the vehicle pane according to claim 9, but lacks the at least one first masking strip has in a section that overlaps the at least one light-guiding device or the at least one image display device, a greater width than in sections different therefrom. However, it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the masking layer such that the masking strip has in a section that overlaps the at least one light-guiding device or the at least one image display device, a greater width than in sections different therefrom in order to glazing thickness in specified areas of the windshield. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 20, Bauerle et al. teach the method according to claim 15, wherein the vehicle pane is a vehicle windshield [see figure 1bis].
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871