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 filed 08 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
Regarding claim 1, that the element 102 of Ma does not selectively perform transmission or blocking of light (since it relies on diffraction and deflection instead), and further, that altering a diffraction angle via an SLM is structurally and physically distinct from modulating the actual transmittance; and that the individual lasers of Ma (211, 212, 213) cannot be considered distinct light sources, but one grouped light source;
Regarding claims 2 and 11, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Grandclerc in the device of Ma without the benefit of hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure;
Regarding claims 3-6, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hada in the device of Ma without the benefit of hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure;
Regarding claim 7, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barate in the device of Ma without the benefit of hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure;
Regarding claims 8-9, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Xiao in the device of Ma without the benefit of hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure;
Regarding claim 10, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hada and Barate in the device of Ma without the benefit of hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding i.), contra Applicant’s allegations that the SLM 102 of Ma does not selectively perform transmission or blocking of light (since it relies on diffraction and deflection instead), Ma clearly discloses the use of SLM to selectively modulate light (Ma uses the term modulation distinctively for this purpose, contra Applicant’s assertion). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation “an array of variable transmittance elements configured to selectively receive and transmit”, not “transmission or blocking of light” as per Applicant’s arguments. Thus, Applicant argues according to an interpretation of the claim that is not based on the clear language of the claim. Even so, in arguendo, Ma discloses in paragraph [0042], “In some embodiments, the light modulator is for example a spatial light modulator, e.g., comprising one of following:.. a liquid crystal light valve utilizing hybrid field effect…”, which is known as a device using transmission, deflection and blocking of light (see US Patent No. 4,019,807 as an example of a hybrid field effect LC light valve which modulates transmission of light). Furthermore, contra Applicant’s argument, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that altering a diffraction angle via an SLM is not necessarily structurally and physically distinct from modulating the actual transmittance, since transmittance is a function of liquid crystal structure, deflection angle, polarization, and index of refraction, all of which would necessarily be involved in the use of a liquid crystal light valve utilizing hybrid field effect structure, as disclosed by Ma. Finally, contra Applicant’s assertion that the individual lasers of Ma (211, 212, 213) cannot be considered distinct light sources, but one grouped light source, one of ordinary skill would interpret each light source 211, 212 and 213 as distinct by virtue of the function of the device of Ma, since SLM 102 modulates the light signal of each source 211, 212 and 213 in timing sequence via a time division manner (see paragraph [0045]), such that Ma treats each light source separately. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding ii.), iii.), iv.), v.) and vi.), in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the above references in ii.), iii.), iv.), v.) and vi.) set forth in the previous Office Action for the motivations as described therein. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2021/0360209).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses an image generating device (see figures 1-2, for instance) comprising: a first light source (211) configured to generate a first upstream light beam, a second light source (212) configured to generate a second upstream light beam, and an array of variable transmittance elements (102) configured to selectively receive and transmit (“modulate the light beams alternately”; [0038]) 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 (“virtual image 1”) and a second downstream light beam forming a second image (“virtual image 2”, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first downstream light beam (from 211) is reflected onto a first concave mirror (214) and the second downstream beam (from 212) is reflected onto a second concave mirror ([0011]), wherein the first concave mirror and the second concave mirror are fixed relative to each other and secured to the same support ([0011]).
Regarding claim 14, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 13, wherein at least one of the first and second mirrors (214) is a cold mirror ([0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Ma discloses a head-up display comprising: a device as claimed in claim 1; and a system for projecting downstream light beams toward a partially transparent strip (105).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagano et al. (CN109891300B; translation submitted herewith; reference is made to US 2019/0235240, which shares priority to the parent PCT/JP2017/045269).
Regarding claim 1, Nagano discloses an image generating device (see figures 1-4, for instance) comprising: a first light source (30a) configured to generate a first upstream light beam, a second light source (30b) configured to generate a second upstream light beam, and an array of variable transmittance elements (51; [0055]) configured to selectively receive and transmit (“The functional film 51 is a variable transmittance film having a transmittance (transparent/cloudiness) according to the applied voltage and is also called a functional liquid crystal film or a light control film”; [0055]) 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 (9a) and a second downstream light beam forming a second image (9b).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Grandclerc et al. (FR3030065; translation previously attached).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the array of variable transmittance elements (102) is a liquid crystal display ([0045]). However, Ma 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 Ma. 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, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Ma 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 Ma. 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) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Grandclerc.
Regarding claim 2, Nagano discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the array of variable transmittance elements (51) is a liquid crystal display ([0055]). However, Nagano 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 Nagano. 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, Nagano discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Nagano 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 Nagano. 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 Ma in view of Hada et al. (US 2015/0092118).
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Ma 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 Ma. 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, Ma in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 3, further comprising a first heat sink (17a, Hada) thermally coupled with the partially transparent plate (40; [0110], Hada).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Ma does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first and second light sources is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to the array of variable transmittance elements through an optical diffuser, 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 at least one of the first and second light sources (10) is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to the array of variable transmittance elements through an optical diffuser ([0046]), 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 diffuser and second heat sink structure as Hada in the device of Ma. 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, Ma in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 5, 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) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Hada.
Regarding claim 3, Nagano discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Nagano 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 Nagano. 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, Nagano in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 3, further comprising a first heat sink (17a, Hada) thermally coupled with the partially transparent plate (40; [0110], Hada).
Regarding claim 5, Nagano a discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Nagano does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first and second light sources is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to the array of variable transmittance elements through an optical diffuser, 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 at least one of the first and second light sources (10) is configured to transmit its upstream light beam to the array of variable transmittance elements through an optical diffuser ([0046]), 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 diffuser and second heat sink structure as Hada in the device of Nagano. 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, Nagano in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 5, 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 Ma in view of Barate (US 2020/0387030).
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Ma 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 Ma. The motivation for doing so would have to further enhance the cooling of the screen, as taught by Barate ([0122]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Barate.
Regarding claim 7, Nagano in view of discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. However, Nagano 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 Nagano. 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 Ma in view of Hada, and in further view of Xiao et al. (US 2021/0405435).
Regarding claim 8, Ma in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 4. However, Ma 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 Ma. The motivation for doing so would have increase the service life of the display device, as taught by Xiao ([0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Ma 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) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Hada, and in further view of Xiao.
Regarding claim 8, Nagano in view of Hada discloses the device as claimed in claim 4. However, Nagano 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 Nagano. The motivation for doing so would have increase the service life of the display device, as taught by Xiao ([0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Nagano 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 Ma in view of Hada, and in further view of Barate.
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses the device as claimed in claim 3. However, Ma 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 Ma. The motivation for doing so would have to further enhance the cooling of the screen, as taught by Barate ([0122]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Hada, and in further view of Barate.
Regarding claim 10, Nagano discloses the device as claimed in claim 3. However, Nagano 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 Nagano. The motivation for doing so would have to further enhance the cooling of the screen, as taught by Barate ([0122]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boswell (US 4,019,807) discloses a liquid crystal light valve, see Response to Arguments, above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 08 September 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 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 10/6/2026
Prosecution Insights