Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2026 has been entered (with the 25 August 2026 RCE).
Claim Interpretation
“planar region.”
The specification uses “planar region” for the plate-like sheet region of the base body irrespective of curvature: the prior-art mirror of Fig. 2 [e.g., Paragraph 32: The mirror 22 has a base body 220, which comprises merely a planar region 221] is in the same sentence group described as [e.g., Paragraph 32: The mirror 22 is thus designed in the form of a substantially flat plate having a large curvature corresponding to the desired optical function]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a concave or free-form reflecting region of a plate-shaped HUD mirror is a “planar region.”
“co-planar with the planar region.”
A mirror layer deposited on, and conforming to, the planar region lies in the plane (surface) of that region and is co-planar with it. Claim 1 recites that the mirror layer is co-planar with the planar region; it does not recite that the mirror layer, or the planar region, is co-planar with the periphery. The specification’s own periphery 222 lies at the transition to the rib (Fig. 3a), and nothing in claim 1 requires the periphery band to lie in the plane of the mirror layer.
“rib.”
A rib is a projecting or thickened strip formed at the periphery of the base body that stiffens it; the specification’s rib 223 is “inclined” and extends “around the planar region” so that [e.g., Paragraph 33: the base body 220 is designed like a pan or a trough]. The mirror layer may be on either side of the base body relative to the rib [e.g., Paragraph 34: the mirror layer is arranged on the side of the base body 220 facing away from the rib 223]. A rib on the rear (non-mirror) side of the periphery is therefore within the claim.
“anti-reflective structure.”
The specification presents the microstructure as one example [e.g., Paragraph 37: For example, a microstructure may be introduced into the rib 223 as an anti-reflective structure 226]. A roughened (grained, embossed) surface, a light-absorbing (black) surface layer or body, and a geometry that directs reflections away from the viewer are each a structure that reduces reflection from the rib and fall within the term under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Ground I
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP 2020-046625 A) in view of Murasawa (WO 2017/208961 A1).
Hirata et al. (US 2021/0349312 A1) is relied upon as the translation of the Hirata (JP 2020-046625 A) document.
An English machine translation (via Espacenet) of the Murasawa (WO 2017/208961 A1) document has been provided and is relied upon in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Hirata discloses a mirror for a head-up display [e.g., Paragraph 14: the virtual image optical system includes a plastic concave mirror; Fig. 1: 40, 60], comprising:
a base body [e.g., Paragraph 68: the concave mirror 40 is formed by injection molding the plastic material; Figs. 4, 5: 40]
with a planar region which extends within an area formed on a surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 14: a reflective film made of aluminum alloy is formed on a reflective film forming surface of the concave mirror; Figs. 4, 5, 8: reflective film forming surface (central region)], and
with a rib arranged at a periphery of the area, the periphery encircling the planar region and being formed on the surface of the base body with an outer and inner edge disposed apart from each other [e.g., Paragraph 73: the reflective film forming surface is curved slightly upward in the vicinity of a peripheral end surface of the mirror substrate; Paragraph 73: a frame-like portion is formed on a peripheral portion of the mirror substrate, thereby improving the strength of the mirror substrate; Paragraph 75: two end surfaces at which mirror rotary shafts are respectively provided are also formed as the inclined surface; Fig. 5(c): peripheral thickening at both ends; Fig. 7: end surface (curved surface) connecting portion; Fig. 8: end surface (inclined surface), connector R]; and
a mirror layer arranged on the planar region and co-planar with the planar region which extends within the area formed on the surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 14: a reflective film made of aluminum alloy is formed on a reflective film forming surface of the concave mirror; Fig. 7: reflective film forming surface];
wherein the rib (e.g., see Paragraphs 13-16, 66-76, 81).
Hirata forms the frame-like peripheral portion with an end surface that is curved or inclined so that light reflected from it does not return to the viewer [e.g., Paragraph 81: by causing a shape of the end surface to be an inclined surface or a curved surface by which reflected light does not return to a video light side], and
identifies stray light reflected at the mirror end surface as a cause of degraded visibility [e.g., Paragraph 16: is reflected by a mirror end surface in addition to normal light that generates a virtual image].
Hirata does not expressly disclose that the frame-like peripheral portion (the rib) carries an anti-reflective structure on its surface.
Murasawa discloses a head-up display concave mirror 41 having a base body [e.g., Paragraph 28: a base body 50 formed by injection molding using a resin such as polycarbonate as a raw material; Fig. 3: 50] with
a reflective film on a curved incident surface [e.g., Paragraph 28: The incident surface 51 has a concave shape with a predetermined curvature; Fig. 3: 51, 52],
an edge portion at the periphery of the film [e.g., Paragraph 29: has an edge 54 surrounding the lower side, the left side and the right side of the reflection film 52; Fig. 3: 54, 55, 56, 57]
that projects toward the back of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50; Fig. 4(c): 55, 59, 0], and
an antireflective structure on that peripheral portion [e.g., Paragraph 34: the surface of each of the edges 55 to 57 is subjected to graining (composed of a roughened surface); Paragraph 34: the surfaces of the respective edge portions 55 to 57 are formed in an uneven shape; Paragraph 45: A black felt 61 (light absorbing material 61) is stretched over the surfaces of the lower edge portion 55 A, the left edge portion 56 A, and the right edge portion 57 A of the base body 50 A; Paragraph 45: or a black paint may be applied; Fig. 3: stippled edges 55-57; Fig. 5: 61],
for the stated purpose that [e.g., Paragraph 43: the display light L projected on the respective edge portions 55 to 57 is diffused and becomes difficult to face the windshield 15].
Hirata and Murasawa are analogous art because both are from the same field of endeavor, plastic concave mirrors for vehicle head-up displays, and both address the same problem of light reflected from the mirror’s peripheral end region reaching the viewer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Murasawa’s grained (roughened, uneven) surface -- or Murasawa’s black felt, foil or paint -- on the inclined or curved end surface of Hirata’s frame-like peripheral portion, so that display light and stray sunlight striking that surface are diffused or absorbed rather than returned toward the viewer, as Murasawa teaches, thereby further reducing the extraordinary light that Hirata itself identifies as degrading the virtual image.
The proposed modification applies a known surface treatment to a known peripheral surface for its known purpose, with predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Regarding claim 3, Hirata discloses the rib is inclined relative to a mirror axis of the mirror [e.g., Paragraph 75: two end surfaces at which mirror rotary shafts are respectively provided are also formed as the inclined surface; Paragraph 81: by causing a shape of the end surface to be an inclined surface or a curved surface by which reflected light does not return to a video light side; Fig. 8: end surface (inclined surface)].
Murasawa likewise discloses the peripheral portion inclined relative to the mirror axis [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50; Fig. 4(c): 0], and the combination stated for claim 1 carries the inclined peripheral portion of both references.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP 2020-046625 A) in view of Murasawa (WO 2017/208961 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taniguchi (US 2018/0348619 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hirata and Murasawa do not expressly disclose the rib formed as a circumferential rib (Murasawa’s edge portion 54 surrounds three sides).
Taniguchi discloses a head-up display mirror body of plate shape whose reflecting surface is a concave curved surface [e.g., Paragraph 52: reflecting surface A1 is a concave curved surface over substantially an entire surface; Fig. 5: 141, A1] and
a rib formed as a circumferential rib at the periphery on the side opposite the reflecting surface [e.g., Paragraph 88: Rib 146C is, for example, an annular rib provided in the outer peripheral portion of mirror body 141C so as to surround mirror body 141C; Paragraph 88: effectively increase rigidity of whole mirror body 141C; Fig. 11: 146C; Fig. 12: 146C, t32].
Hirata, Murasawa and Taniguchi are analogous art because all three are from the field of plate-shaped concave mirrors for vehicle head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to extend the frame-like peripheral portion of Hirata, as modified by Murasawa, around the entire periphery as a circumferential rib, as Taniguchi teaches, in order to increase the rigidity of the whole mirror body against the stresses of rotation and mounting, a predictable use of a known stiffening geometry. KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Ground II
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto (US 2022/0291506 A1).
Miyamoto was published 15 September 2022 from an application filed 18 February 2022 and claims foreign priority to JP 2021-039621, filed 11 March 2021. The subject matter relied upon below (base 16, end portion 21, rib 22, the rough surface and the black base) is described in that Japanese application, so Miyamoto was effectively filed 11 March 2021 as to that subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2)), before the 20 April 2021 effective filing date of the claims. Miyamoto names another inventor and is not commonly owned with the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses a mirror for a head-up display [e.g., Fig. 1: 10, 14], comprising:
a base body [e.g., Paragraph 33: base 16 may be made of a resin-molded product formed by injection molding a resin such as polycarbonate, or glass; Figs. 2-6: 16]
with a planar region which extends within an area formed on a surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 33: A reflection film is provided on a center portion of first surface 17 of base 16 to form reflection surface 20, and the reflection film is not provided on end portion 21 that is outside reflection surface 20; Figs. 2, 4: 17, 20], and
with a rib [e.g., Paragraph 37: Rib 22 is provided on the rear side (the second surface 18 side) of end portion 21 of first mirror 14; Figs. 3, 4, 6: 22] arranged at a periphery of the area,
the periphery encircling the planar region and being formed on the surface of the base body with an outer and inner edge disposed apart from each other [e.g., Paragraph 36: The inner perimeter and the outer perimeter of end portion 21 of first mirror 14 are parallel to each other; Paragraph 36: The shortest distance W between any side of the inner periphery and a side of the outer perimeter facing the side is the same in any regions of end portion 21; Paragraph 37: rib 22 is provided at a position that overlaps the region having the step shape and the region including the rough surface of end portion 21; Fig. 2: 21, W; Fig. 5: D]; and
a mirror layer arranged on the planar region and co-planar with the planar region which extends within the area formed on the surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 33: A reflection film is provided on a center portion of first surface 17 of base 16 to form reflection surface 20, and the reflection film is not provided on end portion 21 that is outside reflection surface 20; Figs. 2, 4: 20] -- the reflection film is deposited on, and lies in the surface of, the center portion of first surface 17 (the planar region), see the “Claim Interpretation” Section above;
wherein the rib has an anti-reflective structure [e.g., Paragraph 33: Base 16 is black in color; Paragraph 53: 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; Paragraph 35: emboss processing is performed on end portion 21, and minute projections and depressions are provided on the surface of end portion 21; Paragraph 46: providing rib 22 on the rear side of end portion 21 can make end portion 21 thicker and increase the rigidity] (e.g., see Paragraphs 26-62).
Rib 22 is part of the black base 16 (a black coating or a black material) and therefore itself has the light-absorbing, anti-reflective structure.
In the alternative, rib 22 and the stepped end portion 21 it backs together form a single thickened peripheral wall of base 16 (rib 22 “can make end portion 21 thicker”), whose front face carries the embossed rough surface, so that the peripheral rib has an anti-reflective microstructure.
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto discloses the rib is formed as a circumferential rib [e.g., Paragraph 52: rib 22 is also provided along the entire perimeter of second surface 18; Fig. 3: 22; Fig. 5: D].
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto discloses the rib is inclined relative to a mirror axis of the mirror [e.g., Paragraph 34: End portion 21 is inclined with respect to reflection surface 20; Paragraph 46: the entire end portion 21 is inclined with respect to reflection surface 20; Paragraph 62: The upper region of end portion 21 may be inclined in the same direction as the inclination direction of reflection surface 20; Figs. 4, 6: 21, 22] -- the peripheral wall (end portion 21 with rib 22 on its rear) is inclined relative to the normal at the center of reflection surface 20.
Ground III
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 2022/0291506 A1) in view of Murasawa (WO 2017/208961 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Miyamoto discloses the mirror as set forth in Ground II.
Should it be shown that a black base or a rough surface on the front of the peripheral end portion is not an anti-reflective structure of the rib as claimed:
Murasawa discloses a head-up display concave mirror in which the inclined peripheral portion of the base body itself carries an anti-reflective structure [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50; Paragraph 34: the surface of each of the edges 55 to 57 is subjected to graining (composed of a roughened surface); Paragraph 45: or a black paint may be applied; Fig. 4(c): 55, 0; Fig. 5: 61]
so that [e.g., Paragraph 43: the display light L projected on the respective edge portions 55 to 57 is diffused and becomes difficult to face the windshield 15], and
further discloses the stepped edge Miyamoto also uses [e.g., Paragraph 46: a step is formed between the lower end 52 a of the reflective film 52 and the lower edge 55 A; Fig. 6: 55A, 61].
Miyamoto and Murasawa are analogous art because both are from the field of injection-molded concave mirrors for vehicle head-up displays and both address unwanted reflection of light from the peripheral region outside the reflective film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend Miyamoto’s emboss (rough-surface) treatment, or Murasawa’s graining, black felt or black paint, onto the surfaces of rib 22 and the peripheral wall it forms with end portion 21, so that light striking any part of the inclined peripheral wall is diffused or absorbed rather than reflected toward the display medium, as both references teach for the peripheral region.
The result is the known anti-reflective treatment of a known peripheral surface with predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are met by Miyamoto as set forth in Ground II, and additionally Murasawa discloses the inclined peripheral portion of claim 3 [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50].
Ground IV
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2019-031121 A) in view of Taniguchi (US 2018/0348619 A1);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2019-031121 A) in view of Taniguchi (US 2018/0348619 A1) and Murasawa (WO 2017/208961 A1).
An English machine translation (via Espacenet) of the Miyake (JP 2019-031121 A) document has been provided and is relied upon in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Miyake discloses a mirror for a head-up display [e.g., Fig. 1: 1, 3, 34], comprising:
a base body [e.g., Paragraph 27: The base body 341 is resin-formed into a curved plate as a whole by a hard resin such as polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) or polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); Figs. 3-5: 341]
with a planar region which extends within an area formed on a surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 28: the base body 341 has a stepped portion 344 that protrudes thinner than the outer edge portion 343 on one side; Paragraph 28: The stepped portion 344 has a substantially rectangular outline smaller than the base body 341 by four side surfaces 344a; Paragraph 28: The protruding surface 344b surrounded by the outermost edges of the side surfaces 344a of the step portion 344 is curved in a concave shape; Fig. 3: 344, 344b; Fig. 4: 344b], and
with a periphery of the area,
the periphery encircling the planar region and being formed on the surface of the base body with an outer and inner edge disposed apart from each other [e.g., Paragraph 29: The outer edge portion 343 forms an outer edge surface 343 b in a portion surrounding the entire outer peripheral side of the step portion 344 in the base body 341; Paragraph 30: the width from the outermost edge 343c formed by the side surfaces 343a and the outer edge surface 343b at the outer edge portion 343 to the innermost edge 343d; Paragraph 30: the substantially constant width is defined as Wo; Fig. 3: 343, 343c, 343d, Wo; Fig. 4: 343b, 343c, 343d, Wo]; and
a mirror layer arranged on the planar region and co-planar with the planar region which extends within the area formed on the surface of the base body [e.g., Paragraph 36: a light reflective metal is deposited on the protruding surface 344b of the step portion 344 to form a reflective film 342; Paragraph 38: the reflective film body 342 covers the step portion 344 which protrudes thinner than the outer edge portion 343 in the base body 341 resin-molded into a plate shape; Figs. 3-5: 342];
wherein the e.g., Paragraph 27: when the base body 341 is formed of a black resin, the outer edge portion 343 functions as a reflection restricting portion 346 that restricts the reflection of light at the base body 341; Paragraph 50: at least one of a black-painted surface and an embossed surface may be provided on the outer peripheral surface 343 b of the outer peripheral portions 343 and 2343 of the base bodies 341 and 2341; Paragraph 49: the chamfered portion 1343 g is employed in place of the black base bodies 341 and 2341 to function as a reflection restricting portion 346; Fig. 3: 346; Figs. 10, 11: 1343g] (e.g., see Paragraphs 26-43, 48-52).
Miyake does not expressly disclose a rib arranged at the periphery.
Miyake does disclose that the outer edge portion is where sink marks concentrate in molding [e.g., Paragraph 36: sink marks tend to occur at the outer edge portion 343 of the base body 341] and that the outer edge portion is thinner than the film-carrying stepped portion.
Taniguchi discloses a plate-shaped head-up display mirror body with a concave reflecting surface [e.g., Paragraph 52: reflecting surface A1 is a concave curved surface over substantially an entire surface] and
a rib arranged at the periphery on the side opposite the reflecting surface, encircling the mirror body [e.g., Paragraph 88: mirror 140C has rib 146C projecting on the opposite side to a reflecting surface A1 side from an outer peripheral portion of mirror body 141C of mirror 140C; Paragraph 88: Rib 146C is, for example, an annular rib provided in the outer peripheral portion of mirror body 141C so as to surround mirror body 141C; Paragraph 88: effectively increase rigidity of whole mirror body 141C; Fig. 11: 146C; Fig. 12: 146C, t31, t32].
Miyake and Taniguchi are analogous art because both are from the field of resin plate-shaped concave mirrors for vehicle head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi’s annular rib on the rear side of Miyake’s outer edge portion 343 -- the thinner peripheral band surrounding the film-carrying stepped portion -- in order to increase the rigidity of the whole mirror body against deformation during rotation and mounting, as Taniguchi teaches, a predictable use of a known stiffening geometry.
In the resulting mirror the rib is molded integrally with Miyake’s black resin base body (or lies beneath the black-painted or embossed outer edge surface of Miyake’s second modification), so that the rib arranged at the periphery has the anti-reflective structure Miyake provides for the peripheral region. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
In the alternative, should it be shown that the black resin or the embossed outer edge surface of Miyake is not an anti-reflective structure of the rib so added:
Murasawa discloses forming the inclined peripheral portion of a head-up display mirror base body with a grained, roughened surface or a black light-absorbing covering [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50; Paragraph 34: the surface of each of the edges 55 to 57 is subjected to graining (composed of a roughened surface); Paragraph 45: or a black paint may be applied]
so that light striking it is diffused rather than reflected toward the windshield [for
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
example: Paragraph 43: the display light L projected on the respective edge portions 55 to 57 is diffused and becomes difficult to face the windshield 15].
Miyake, Taniguchi and Murasawa are analogous art for the reasons stated.
It would have been obvious to grain, or paint black, the surfaces of the rib added to Miyake’s outer edge portion for the same reason Miyake restricts reflection at the outer edge portion and Murasawa diffuses light at the edge portions -- so that no part of the
PNG
media_image2.png
1
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
peripheral region returns stray light to the viewer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Regarding claim 2, Taniguchi discloses the rib is formed as a circumferential rib [e.g., Paragraph 88: Rib 146C is, for example, an annular rib provided in the outer peripheral portion of mirror body 141C so as to surround mirror body 141C; Fig. 11: 146C], and
Miyake’s outer edge portion to which it is applied surrounds the stepped portion on all four sides [e.g., Paragraph 29: The outer edge portion 343 forms an outer edge surface 343 b in a portion surrounding the entire outer peripheral side of the step portion 344 in the base body 341; Fig. 3: 343, Wo].
Regarding claim 3, Miyake and Taniguchi do not expressly disclose the rib inclined relative to a mirror axis of the mirror (Taniguchi’s rib 146C projects rearward at the periphery of a curved body, Fig. 12).
Murasawa discloses the peripheral portion of the base body inclined relative to the mirror axis [e.g., Paragraph 32: The lower edge portion 55 is inclined from the lower end 52 a of the reflecting film 52 toward the back face 59 of the base body 50; Fig. 4(c): 0]
so that reflections are directed into the housing rather than toward the windshield [e.g., Paragraph 43: the display light L projected on the respective edge portions 55 to 57 is diffused and becomes difficult to face the windshield 15].
It would have been obvious to incline the rib provided on Miyake’s outer edge portion relative to the mirror axis, as Murasawa inclines its peripheral portion, so that any light reflected by the rib surface is directed away from the viewer, for the reasons stated for claim 1. KSR, 550 U.S. 398; Graham, 383 U.S. 1.
Evidence of record supporting the claim interpretation (not applied as grounds)
That a black (light-absorbing) surface and a roughened (sandblasted) surface are recognized, interchangeable anti-reflection treatments for surfaces inside a head-up display is documented by Yamazoe et al. (US 2019/0146218 A1) [e.g., Paragraph 65: The anti-reflection portion 45 can be formed of a black paint, a black film, a black tape, and if a base material is aluminum, the anti-reflection portion 45 can be formed of a black alumite. Alternatively, the anti-reflection portion 45 can be roughened by sandblasting a smooth surface], and
by Yamazoe et al. (EP 3220186 A1), [e.g., Paragraph 28: The anti-reflection treated film 27 is preferably a black paint, and black alumite is suitable if the base material is aluminum. Alternatively, the anti-reflection treatment may be a treatment of roughening by applying sandblast to a smooth surface]. MPEP § 2144.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 (entered with the RCE) have been fully considered but are not persuasive as to Ground II.
Applicant contends that in Miyamoto “the reflection surface 20… is arranged at a distance from the planar region” because end portion 21 is stepped, so that “the mirror layer and the periphery of Miyamoto are not co-planar.”
Claim 1 does not recite that the mirror layer is co-planar with the periphery. It recites that the mirror layer is co-planar with the planar region -- the region on which it is arranged.
In Miyamoto the reflection film is provided on the center portion of first surface 17 and forms reflection surface 20 there (Paragraph 33); the film lies in the surface of the region on which it is deposited and is co-planar with it.
The stepped end portion 21 is the claimed periphery, which claim 1 requires only to encircle the planar region and to have an outer and inner edge disposed apart (Paragraph 36); its step and inclination relative to reflection surface 20 are not excluded by any limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments as to Hirata and Hori, which were directed to claim 3 only, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
27 August 2026
Prosecution Insights