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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai (and/or Christmas) failing to disclose the picture generating unit is disposed outside the cavity and on a side of the polarizing beam splitter opposite the cavity, the examiner is unpersuaded. Looking at Amitai figure 21 the cavity defined by polarizing beam splitter (190L), fold mirror (194L) and heads-up display mirror (198) is on the left side of polarizing beam splitter (190L). The picture generating unit (180) is clearly outside the cavity and on the right side of the polarizing beam splitter (190L), i.e. the opposite side from the cavity.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai (and/or Christmas) failing to disclose a cavity defined by a polarizing beam splitter, a fold mirror and heads-up display mirror, the examiner is unpersuaded. Looking at Amitai figure 21 a cavity defined by polarizing beam splitter (190L), fold mirror (194L) and heads-up display mirror (198) is clearly visible.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai (and/or Christmas) disclosing additional elements not claimed does meet the requirements of anticipation, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner has provided a clear map of all of the claimed features in Amitai figure 21, i.e. meeting the anticipation requirement that each and every element be disclosed in a single reference, arranged as in the claim, NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), see MPEP §2131. Further, applicant uses the transitional term “comprising” that is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps, see Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004), see MPEP 2111.03 I. Thus, the claim construction, particularly "comprising", allows for other elements.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai (and/or Christmas) failing to disclose the specific ordered optical path as recited in claims 1 and 12, the examiner is unpersuaded. See annotated figure A below.
[AltContent: textbox ((5) light transmitted out through PBS)][AltContent: textbox ((3) light reflected from PBS &
(4) light reflected from mirror)][AltContent: textbox ((2) reflected light from fold mirror )][AltContent: textbox ((1) light passing in through PBS)][AltContent: textbox (display mirror)][AltContent: textbox (fold mirror)][AltContent: textbox (PBS)]
PNG
media_image1.png
276
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated version of pertinent portion of Amitai figure 21.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Figure A above is not a disclosure of Amitai and “[t]he annotation traces a possible route through selected portions of Amitai after the fact” the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner apologizes for any misunderstand. An unannotated version of the pertinent portion of Amitai figure 21 is below.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Unannotated version of pertinent portion of Amitai figure 21.
As can be seen in Figure B above, the pertinent portion of Amitai figure 21 discloses the claimed optical path. The examiner’s annotations in Figure A above are not tracing “a possible route” but labeling portions of the actual optical path disclosed by Amitai and is not “after the fact.”
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai’s reflecting surface 198 does not qualify as the claimed heads-up display mirror, the examiner is unpersuaded. Amitai’s reflecting surface 198 fulfils all of the functional and structural limitations of the claim, as set forth below. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the examiner does not explain how the cold mirror of Christmas is incorporated into Amitai figure 21 in the rejection of claims 2 and 13, the examiner is unpersuaded. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Regarding applicant’s statement that the examiner failed to identify a fold mirror arranged as claimed, the examiner has identified element converging lens 194L with a reflective surface (including indicating in annotated Figure A above) is commensurate with the claimed fold mirror and is positioned as claimed. Regarding applicant’s statement: “Nor does the rejection adequately explain how the proposed modification would be implemented in Amitai's cited structure while preserving the claimed arrangement now required by amended claims 1 and 12.” The examiner apologizes for assuming applicant did not require a more detailed explain how the proposed modification would be implemented. As set forth below, Amitai paragraph [0095] discloses element 194L has a “reflective surface.” One skilled in the art would interpret said disclosed “reflective surface” would be from a metallic or dielectric coating, as evidenced by Amitai paragraph [0016] and Wikipedia webpage “Dielectric mirror”, of record. A cold mirror, such as taught by Christmas, is a multilayer dielectric mirror1. One of ordinary skill, motivated to remove unwanted heat from an HUD would find it obvious to modify Amitai’s element 194L with a reflective surface from a metallic or dielectric coating use Christmas’s the multilayer dielectric coating of a cold mirror. If applicant needs more detail to “adequately explain how the proposed modification would be implemented” the examiner respectfully suggests initiating an interview following the procedure noted in the conclusion. It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the combination of Amitai as modified by Christmas failing to have the claimed functionality of a glare trap in claims 7 and 18, the examiner is unpersuaded. Regarding applicant’s comment that the examiner reference to a physical baffle and a layer “appears to treat these distinct structures interchangeably.” For clarity, a “glare trap” is interpreted to be any structure that reduces glare from external light, including a physical baffle and/or a layer. This is consistent with applicant’s specification, see page 3 lines 18-22, which states in part (emphasis added by examiner):
… In some embodiments, the glare trap may include a plurality of spaced-apart, substantially parallel slats extending along a first direction and arranged along a different second direction … to at least partially block light … In some embodiments, the heads-up display system may further include a louver layer which is separate from the glare trap … In some embodiments, the glare trap may be a multi-layer optical film …
Thus, using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, see MPEP 2111, a glare trap may include a physical barrier (e.g. slats/baffles) and/or a layer structure. Regarding applicant’s that Christmas’s “light trap/baffle is described as shielding or blocking sunlight, not as transmitting picture light in the manner presently claimed” somehow means that Christmas’s HUD does not transmit an image to a user. The examiner apologizes for assuming applicant did not require a more detailed explain how the baffle and/or layer in Christmas allows a HUD to be able to display an image. Image light within certain angles would be transmitted past a baffle, see Christmas figure 6B and paragraph [0093] explaining “volume 685 containing light rays from the lower housing 625 which form the HUD image” – similar to applicant’s explanation, see page 3 lines 18-29. Regarding the layer, at least paragraph [0097] makes it clear that mitigates the effect of external light that is not blocked by the baffle and paragraph [0104] that layers 772A & 772B are arranged to ensure the HUD image is not distorted. Further, the examiner notes the primary purpose of a HUD is transmitting image light and prior art is presumed to be operable2. If applicant needs more detail to regarding a HUD with a baffle and layer to reduce glare still being operable as a HUD the examiner respectfully suggests initiating an interview following the procedure noted in the conclusion.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the examiner’s rational that “at least one of the polarizing beam splitter, the fold mirror, and the heads-up display mirror is a multilayer optical film” is insufficient to make the feature obvious to one skilled in the art over the combination of Amitai as modified by Christmas, the examiner is unpersuaded. It is basic knowledge in the art that a coating may comprise one layer or multiple layers. This is evidenced in Christmas explicitly stating that this fact “is well-known in the art”, as set forth below. The examiner further has provided Wikipedia webpage “Dielectric mirror”, of record, as additional evidence that dielectric mirrors are understood to be multiple layers, see first sentence. To one skilled in the art, given the two options of a single layer and a multiple layer it would be prima facie obvious to try one of these two options, since basic knowledge is within the art it is within their technical grasp and yield predictable results. If applicant needs more detail to regarding basic knowledge in the art the examiner respectfully suggests initiating an interview following the procedure noted in the conclusion.
Regarding applicant’s request for rejoining the withdrawn claims, given the art rejections below rejoining at this time is premature.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a l/4 waveplate and a reflective polarizer. Particularly, there is no element that would make clear why the polarizing beam splitter to sometimes pass and sometimes reflect picture light. This makes the metes and bounds of claimed subject matter vague and indefinite. To overcome this rejection applicant could incorporate claim 3 & 4 into claim 1 and claims 14 & 15 into claim 12, since the combination of these claims further requires that the polarizing beam splitter combines a l/4 waveplate with a reflective polarizer. The combination of l/4 waveplate and a reflective polarizer further included in a polarization beam splitter and its relationship to the fold mirror and the heads-up display mirror makes the metes and bounds of claims 1 and 12 definite.
Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 4 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, due to its indirect dependency upon claim 1, since in combination with claim 3 it corrects the deficiency of claim 1.
Claims 13-14, 16-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 12 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 15 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, due to its indirect dependency upon claim 12, since in combination with claim 14 it corrects the deficiency of claim 1.
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amitai et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0202048, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Amitai discloses a heads-up display system (e.g. figure 21), comprising a polarizing beam splitter (e.g. polarizing beamsplitter 190L); a fold mirror (e.g. converging lens 194L paragraph [0095] notes 194L has a “reflecting surface”); a heads-up display mirror (e.g. reflecting surface 198); and a picture generating unit (e.g. display source 180) configured to emit a picture light (axiomatic); wherein the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. 190L), the fold mirror (e.g. 194L), and the heads-up display mirror (e.g. 198) define a cavity (e.g. see figure 21), the picture generating unit (e.g. 180) disposed outside the cavity (e.g. see figure 21) and on a side of the polarizing beam splitter opposite the cavity (e.g. the cavity region is on the left side of 190L and 180 is on the right side), such that the picture light emitted from the picture generating unit passes first through the polarizing beam splitter to enter the cavity (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected once from the fold mirror (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected by the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected off the heads-up display mirror (e.g. see annotated figure A above), and is finally transmitted out of the cavity through the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. see annotated figure A above).
Regarding claim 3 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 1, as set forth above. Amitai further discloses wherein the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. 190L) comprises a reflective polarizer (inter alia paragraph [0094] specifically notes s-polarized light being “reflection off the polarizing beam-splitter 190L” and p-polarized light “pass through the polarizing beamsplitter 190L” see figure 21 particularly dots and bars on light rays).
Regarding claim 4 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 3, as set forth above. Amitai further discloses wherein the polarizing beam splitter further comprises a quarter wave plate (e.g. retardation plate 196 that is necessarily a l/4-type since the light passes through twice and is converted from s to p polarization).
Regarding claim 5 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 3, as set forth above. Amitai further discloses wherein the reflective polarizer transmits at least 60% of an incident light having a first polarization state and reflects at least 60% of the incident light having an orthogonal second polarization state (implicit given paragraph [0068], figures 4-5 & paragraph [0100] “the polarizing beamsplitters totally reflect one polarization and totally transmit the other one. The operation of the beamsplitter is not perfect and there is cross-talk between the two states. As a result, a small fraction of the s-polarized light-waves pass through the beamsplitter and a small fraction of the p-polarized light-waves are reflected off the beamsplitter”).
Regarding claim 6 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 1, as set forth above. Amitai further discloses wherein at least one of the fold mirror (e.g. 194L) and the heads-up display mirror (e.g. 198) are curved (e.g. converging lens 194L has a curved surface, see figure 21).
Regarding claim 12 Amitai discloses a heads-up display (e.g. figure 21) for displaying an image to a viewer (axiomatic e.g. figure 21), comprising: a picture generating unit (e.g. 180) configured to emit a picture light (axiomatic); at least one mirror (e.g. 194L or 198); and a polarizing beam splitter (e.g. 190L); such that the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. 190L), the fold mirror (e.g. 194L), and the heads-up display mirror (e.g. 198) define a cavity (e.g. see figure 21), the picture generating unit (e.g. 180) disposed outside the cavity (e.g. see figure 21) and on a side of the polarizing beam splitter opposite the cavity (e.g. the cavity region is on the left side of 190L and 180 is on the right side), and the picture light emitted from the picture generating unit is displayed to the viewer (inter alia paragraph [0095] discloses images are “projected into the viewer's eyes” e.g. see figure 21) at least after it passes first through the polarizing beam splitter to enter the cavity (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected once from the fold mirror (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected by the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. see annotated figure A above), is reflected off the heads-up display mirror (e.g. see annotated figure A above), and is finally transmitted out of the cavity through the polarizing beam splitter (e.g. see annotated figure A above).
Regarding claims 14-17, it is noted that the limitations of claims 14-17 are the same as the limitations of claims 3-6, respectively, and claims 14-17 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0202048, of record, in view of Christmas et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0026077, of record.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 1 and the heads-up display of claim 12, as set forth above. Amitai does not disclose wherein the fold mirror transmits at least 40% of normally incident light for at least one wavelength in a range from about 700 nm to about 2500 nm, as required by claim 2; or wherein the at least one mirror transmits at least 40% of normally incident light for at least one wavelength in a second wavelength range from about 700 nm to about 2500, as required by claim 13.
Applicant’s stated reason to have a mirror where the infrared light passes (a.k.a. a cold mirror) is to remove unwanted heat (instant application page 2 line 33-page 3 line 3).
Christmas teaches a similar heads-up display (title e.g. figure 4), including a picture generating unit (e.g. picture generating unit/PGU 410), two mirrors (e.g. first and second mirrors 421 & 422) and displaying an image to a viewer (see figure 4); and further teaches that one of the mirrors may be a cold mirror (paragraph [0010]) for the purpose of using a known means to reduce heat (paragraph [0010]), thereby addressing applicant’s issue. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the heads-up display system and/or the heads-up display as disclosed by Amitai to have a cold mirror as taught by Christmas for the purpose of using a known means to reduce heat, thereby addressing applicant’s issue.
Regarding claims 7 and 18 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 1 and the heads-up display of claim 12, as set forth above. Amitai does not disclose it is further comprising a glare trap, disposed such that at least a portion of the picture light is transmitted by the glare trap before forming a virtual image for viewing by a viewer, as required by claims 7 and 18.
Christmas further discloses the upper housing (e.g. 470) includes a glare shield (a.k.a. light shield, a.k.a. light trap, see paragraph [0002] e.g. light trap 674 paragraph [0095] and/or layer 772B paragraph [0097]) for the purpose of having a physical baffle which shields other components of the HUD from some sunlight (paragraph [0095]) and/or deflect any rays of sunlight such that they do not intersect the eye-box. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the heads-up display system and/or the heads-up display as disclosed by Amitai to have a glare trap for the purpose of having a physical baffle which shields other components of the HUD from some sunlight and/or deflect any rays of sunlight such that they do not intersect the eye-box.
Regarding claims 11 and 22 Amitai discloses the heads-up display system of claim 1 and the heads-up display of claim 12, as set forth above. Amitai further discloses wherein at least one of the polarizing beam splitter, the fold mirror, and the heads-up display mirror is an optical film (inter alia paragraph [0065] reflective surfaces may be a “dielectric coating” & paragraph [0106] notes PBS may have a “layer of film” and it is implicit that the “dielectric coating” or the “layer of film” may be/include multilayers as evidenced by Christmas paragraph [0029] that recites “it is well-known in the art that each coating—e.g. a coating providing wavelength selectivity—may comprises a plurality of layers or individual coatings such as a plurality of dielectric layer or individual dielectric coatings.”)
Amitai does not explicitly disclose choosing a multilayer between the two choices of a single layer or a multilayer well, as is well-known in the art (as evidenced by Christmas paragraph [0029]). It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least one of the coating in the device disclosed by Amitai to be a multilayer coating since there are only two possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, as evidenced by Christmas, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, pages 20-2, 20-4, 20-60 and 20-61; as evidence that a cold mirror is a multilayer dielectric mirror known in the art, as noted above. For example, figure 20.2 showing a “Multilayer coating ‘cold mirror’”, section 20.1.2.7: “One type of a multilayer mirror, called a cold mirror, is used to reflect the visible light and transmit the infrared” and section 20.5.3: “The cold mirror is a multilayer composed: of dielectric materials …” (emphasis in original).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 10, 2026
1 As evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, e.g. see section 20.5.3
2 When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980. Also see In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP 2121.
Prosecution Insights