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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al (US 2022/0291506 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses a mirror for a head-up display [e.g., Fig. 1: 10], comprising:
a base body [e.g., Figs. 2-6: 16]
with a planar region [e.g., Figs. 2, 4-6: 20; Paragraph 33: center portion of first surface 17 of base 16] which extends within an area formed on a surface [e.g., Figs. 2, 4-6: 17] of the base body, and
with a rib [e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 6: 22] arranged at a periphery [e.g., Figs. 2: R, W, 21; Fig. 4: 21; Fig. 5: D, 21; Fig. 6: R, 30] of the area,
the periphery encircling (e.g., see Figs. 2, 3, 5) the planar region and being formed on the surface of the base body with an outer [e.g., Paragraph 36, Fig. 2: outer perimeter of end portion 21] and inner edge [e.g., Paragraph 36, Fig. 2: inner perimeter of end portion 21] disposed apart [e.g., Figs. 2: W] from each other; and
a mirror layer [e.g., Figs. 2, 4-6: 20; Paragraph 33: reflection surface 20 of first mirror 14] arranged on the planar region;
wherein the rib has an anti-reflective structure [e.g., Paragraph 53: base 16 of first mirror 14 is black in color. A black coating may be applied to base 16 or base 16 may be formed using a black material. Forming such a black base 16 can reduce reflection of visible light, and thus this reduces reflection of display light off end portion 21. This further reduces effects of a sink mark. Note that the color of base 16 is not limited to black. A color having a low reflectivity to visible light is still effective but the reflection of visible light is greatly reduced with a black base 16] (e.g., see Paragraphs 26-65).
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto discloses the rib is formed as a circumferential rib [e.g., Fig. 3: 22; Fig. 5: D; Paragraph 52: rib 22 is also provided along the entire perimeter of second surface 18].
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto discloses the rib is inclined (e.g., see Figs. 4, 6) relative to a mirror axis [e.g., Paragraph 62: off-center inclination direction of reflection surface 20] of the mirror.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 of this title, 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 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (US 2022/0291506 A1) in view of Hirata et al (JP 2020-046625 A).
Please note: Hirata et al (US 2021/0349312 A1) is relied upon as a translation of the Hirata et al (JP 2020-046625 A) document.
Regarding claim 3, should it be shown Miyamoto discloses the rib is inclined relative to a mirror axis of the mirror, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Hirata discloses the rib [e.g., Figs. 4, 8: end surface, inclined surface, protective film forming surface] is inclined relative to a mirror axis [e.g., Paragraph 39: optical axis of the concave mirror] of the mirror [e.g., Figs. 4, 5, 8: 40; Paragraph 14: reflective film] (e.g., see Fig. 8; Paragraphs 14-15, 73-75, 81-82).
Miyamoto and Hirata are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of mirrors for head-up displays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Hirata’s rib inclination with Miyamoto’s rib so as to reduce deterioration in image quality of a virtual image due to multiple reflections [Hirata: Paragraph: 81] and/or block intrusion of moisture [Hirata: Paragraph: 81].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Hirata’s rib inclination with Miyamoto’s rib as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Claim 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (US 2022/0291506 A1) in view of Hori et al (US 2023/0350198 A1).
Regarding claim 3, should it be shown Miyamoto discloses the rib is inclined relative to a mirror axis of the mirror, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Hori discloses the rib [e.g., Fig. 13: 33, 34; Figs. 20, 21: 338] is inclined [e.g., Fig. 13: angle θ1] relative to a mirror axis [e.g., Fig. 13: C] of the mirror [e.g., Fig. 13: 32; Figs. 20, 21: 333] (e.g., see Fig. 8; Paragraphs 181-193, 207-210, 217-225).
Miyamoto and Hori are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of mirrors for head-up displays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Hori’s rib inclination with Miyamoto’s rib so that a mirror having a large size can be molded in one piece by using a mold, the moldability of the mirror can be improved [Hori: Paragraph: 207], and/or to increase the strength(s) of the base body and/or rib [Hori: Paragraph: 210, 221].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Hori’s rib inclination with Miyamoto’s rib as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot in view of any new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights