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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 2, 2026, with respect to claims 11 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, applicant argues that since the terms of art “dielectric coating” and “layer of film” are may comprises both/either a plurality of layers or individual coatings does not eliminate a single layer that the limitation that a multilayer optical film is not anticipated. The anticipation rejection of claims 11 and 22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Amitai (and/or Christmas) failing to disclose the specific ordered optical path now recited in claims 1 and 12, the examiner is unpersuaded. See annotated figure A below.
[AltContent: textbox (light passing in through PBS)][AltContent: textbox (light transmitted out through PBS)][AltContent: textbox (display mirror)][AltContent: textbox (light reflected from PBS)][AltContent: textbox (fold mirror)][AltContent: textbox (reflected light from 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.
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), 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), such that 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
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.
Wikipedia webpage “Dielectric mirror” as of 2021; in further evidence that dielectric mirrors are understood to be multiple layers, e.g. see first sentence.
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.
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 April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights