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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 8-9, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the partially transparent plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 4 presently depends from claim 1, but the partially transparent plate is recite in claim 3. Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 4, and are therefore also rejected based on the above deficiency of claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second heat sink" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 6 presently depends from claim 1, but the partially transparent plate is recite in claim 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the partially transparent plate" and “the first heat sink” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 10 presently depends from claim 1, but the partially transparent plate is recite in claim 3, and the first heat sink is recited in claim 4.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the same support" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and is therefore also rejected based on the above deficiency of claim 13.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asai (US 2018/0101007).
Regarding claim 1, Asai discloses an image generating device (see figures 1 and 6A-6B, for instance) comprising: a first light source (111a) configured to generate a first upstream light beam (see figure 6A, dotted lines corresponding to 111a), a second light source (111b) configured to generate a second upstream light beam (see figure 6B, dotted lines corresponding to 111b), and an array of variable transmittance elements (115) configured to selectively receive and transmit the first upstream light beam and to selectively receive and transmit the second upstream light beam so as to respectively form a first downstream light beam forming a first image (at area 600a) and a second downstream light beam forming a second image (at area 600b).
Regarding claim 12, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the direction of propagation of the first upstream light beam (corresponding to 111a) and the direction of propagation of the second upstream light beam (corresponding to 111b form an angle ranging between 0° and 45° (see figures 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 13, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first downstream light beam is reflected onto a first concave mirror (131) and the second downstream beam is reflected onto a second concave mirror (132), wherein the first concave mirror (131) and the second concave mirror (132) are fixed relative to each other and secured to the same support (140).
Regarding claim 14, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 13, wherein at least one of the first (131) and second mirrors (132) is a cold mirror ([0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Asai discloses a head-up display comprising: a device as claimed in claim 1; and a system for projecting downstream light beams (141) toward a partially transparent strip (230).
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.
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) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Grandclerc et al. (FR3030065; translation attached herewith).
Regarding claim 2, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the array of variable transmittance elements (115) is a liquid crystal display ([0026]). However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein the array of variable transmittance elements is a thin film transistor liquid crystal display.
Grandclerc discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the array of variable transmittance elements (12) is a thin film transistor liquid crystal display (see page 4 of attached translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a TFT-LCD as Grandclerc as the array of variable transmittance elements of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the formation of light with an image of good quality, that is to say substantially uniform brightness, as taught by Grandclerc (page 4 of attached translation).
Regarding claim 11, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first and second light sources is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to an optical diffuser through a reflector.
Grandclerc discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein at least one of the first and second light sources (20) is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to an optical diffuser (22) through a reflector (31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflector / diffuser structure as Grandclerc in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the formation of light with an image of good quality, that is to say substantially uniform brightness, as taught by Grandclerc (page 4 of attached translation).
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Hada et al. (US 2015/0092118).
Regarding claim 3, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein a downstream face of the array of variable transmittance elements is in contact with an at least partially transparent plate configured to limit heating of the array of variable transmittance elements.
Hada discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein a downstream face of the array of variable transmittance elements (40) is in contact with an at least partially transparent plate ([0110], “ceramic on the screen”) configured to limit heating of the array of variable transmittance elements (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transparent plate as Hada in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent burning and breakage of the screen by, as taught by Hada ([0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Asai in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, further comprising a first heat sink (17a) thermally coupled with the partially transparent plate (40; [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second light sources (111a, 111b) is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to the array of variable transmittance elements (115) through an optical diffuser (114). However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein the device further comprises a second heat sink configured to discharge the heat confined between the diffuser and the array of variable transmittance elements.
Hada discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the device further comprises a second heat sink (117b) configured to discharge the heat confined between the diffuser and the array of variable transmittance elements (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second heat sink structure as Hada in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent burning and breakage of the screen by, as taught by Hada ([0110]).
Regarding claim 6, Asai in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second heat sink (117b Hada) is in contact with the upstream face of the array of variable transmittance elements (40 Hada).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Barate (US 2020/0387030).
Regarding claim 7, Asai in view of discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein at least one heat sink is coupled to a forced convection cooling module.
Barate discloses a display device (see figure 2, for instance), wherein at least one heat sink (26) is coupled to a forced convection cooling module ([0121], “a fan”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the forced convection heat sink structure as Barate in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have to further enhance the cooling of the screen, as taught by Barate ([0122]).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Hada, and in further view of Xiao et al. (US 2021/0405435).
Regarding claim 8, Asai in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 4. However, Asai in view of Hada does not expressly disclose wherein the downstream face of the partially transparent plate is in contact with a cold face of a thermoelectric cooling module.
Xiao discloses a display device (see figures 1-4, for instance), wherein the downstream face of the partially transparent plate (10a) is in contact with a cold face of a thermoelectric cooling module (31; [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermoelectric heat sink structure as Xiao in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have increase the service life of the display device, as taught by Xiao ([0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Asai in view of Hada and in further view of Xiao discloses the device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first heat sink (30, Xiao) is in contact with a hot face of the thermoelectric module (31 Xiao).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Hada, and in further view of Barate.
Regarding claim 10, Asai discloses the device as claimed in claim 4. However, Asai in view of Hada does not expressly disclose wherein the downstream face of the partially transparent plate is in contact with the first heat sink.
Barate discloses a display device (see figure 2, for instance), wherein the downstream face of the partially transparent plate (21) is in contact with the first heat sink (at 254).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat sink structure as Barate in the device of Asai. The motivation for doing so would have to further enhance the cooling of the screen, as taught by Barate ([0122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 1/20/2026