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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 10/21/2025.
Cancellation of claims 4-7, filed 10/21/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the abstract and to claims 1 and 3, filed 10/21/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments to the abstract, the previous objection to the abstract is now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 6-8 of the remarks, Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 10/21/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 7/31/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa (US 20150043081 A1) in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 20080151372 A1, hereinafter “Ouderkirk”) and Benson et al (US 20070257678 A1, hereinafter “Benson”).
Regarding claim 1, Segawa discloses (see FIGs. 27-28, ¶s 143-147) a head-up display device comprising:
a display unit (head up display 11) which emits display light;
a base material (first film base 370 with first adhesive layer 371) which includes an adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371); and
an optical film (reflection film 372) which is adhesively attached to the adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371) and reflects the display light,
a first direction and a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction defined in a plane of the adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371) (note that one is always free to define two orthogonal directions on any surface)
Segawa does not disclose:
a base material which is formed of a synthetic resin material containing a fiber filler
wherein, when the first direction coincides with a polarization direction of the display light and the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction, both the optical film and the base material exhibit anisotropic linear thermal expansion in and each have a larger linear expansion component in the second direction than in the first direction.
Segawa and Ouderkirk are commonly related to reinforced plastic display reflectors.
Ouderkirk discloses (see FIG. 2A, ¶s 38-40):
a base material (reinforced film 200) which is formed of a synthetic resin material (matrix 206) containing a fiber filler (fibers 204)
wherein, when the first direction (block direction/axis) coincides with a polarization direction of the display light and the second direction (pass direction/axis) is orthogonal to the first direction (block direction/axis), the optical film (polarizing layer 208) exhibits anisotropic linear thermal expansion and has a larger linear expansion component in the second direction (pass direction/axis) than in the first direction (block direction/axis).
(See also ¶s 125 onwards detailing various Examples, including Example 2 discussed in ¶s 134-136, in which reflective polarizer DBEF
(see ¶s 29-31 tying DBEF to reflective polarizer 124 of an exemplary embodiment detailed in FIG. 1 and ¶s 24-29. Note ¶ 38: “polarizing layer 208[= optical film] may include any of the polarizing layers [of] reflective polarizer 124” and thus corresponds to DBEF)
is directly attached to the composite layer
(corresponding to the base material or reinforced film 200 which “comprises a composite” – ¶ 38).
¶s 162-164 and Table IV goes on to provide some mechanical property measurements for Example 2, including CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) of the DBEF (optical film) with/without the composite (base material). In either case, “The CTE[=linear thermal expansion] in the pass axis[=second direction] is typically higher than in the block axis[=first direction]”)
Segawa and Benson are commonly related to reinforced optical films for displays.
Benson discloses that the base material (optical element 100, see FIGs 1(A,B)) exhibits anisotropic linear thermal expansion and has a larger linear expansion component in the second direction than in the first direction. (In ¶s 67-68, Benson discusses anisotropic mechanical properties – including rigidity, tensile strength, thermal expansion – and how in-plane fiber alignment/orientation affects these and may be adjusted as desired. Examiner also notes that alignment/matching of principal axes (e.g. of a base material and an optical film) associated with different thermal coefficients is already commonly considered and practiced for minimizing internal/inter-material stresses.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Segawa with Ouderkirk’s fiber reinforced layers, in order to increase strength and/or stiffness, reduce thermal expansion coefficients, and prevent warping, bending, sagging and undesirable thermal effects (Ouderkirk ¶s 22-32, 69, Tables IV-V).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Segawa with teachings of Benson which recognize and exploit fiber alignment/orientation and their effects on mechanical anisotropies (Benson ¶s 67-68), in order to achieve desired mechanical properties (e.g. directional rigidities, reduction of stress).
Regarding claim 2, modified Segawa discloses the head-up display device according to claim 1.
Ouderkirk further discloses wherein the optical film (polarizing layer 208) reflects, among beams of incident light, first direction (block direction/axis) visible polarized light, and transmits or absorbs second direction (pass direction/axis) visible polarized light.
(As previously established with respect to claim 1 above:
¶ 38 states “polarizing layer 208[= optical film] may include any of the polarizing layers [of] reflective polarizer 124”, in turn corresponding to reflective polarizer DBEF per ¶s 29-31.
¶s 162-164 and Table IV describe the DBEF’s thermal expansion CTE measurements in terms of the block (i.e. reflection) and pass (i.e. transmission) axes
See also ¶s 30-31, e.g.: “reflective polarizers provide a periodically or quasi-periodically varying refractive index function [...] to a first polarization state, while a second (typically orthogonal) polarization state encounters a relatively uniform refractive index. This results in substantial reflection of the first polarization state and transmission of the second”)
Regarding claim 9, modified Segawa discloses the head-up display device according to Claim 1.
Ouderkirk further discloses wherein the optical film (polarizing layer 208 ) is formed of a dielectric multilayer film. (¶ 38: “polarizing layer 208 may include any of the polarizing layers [of] reflective polarizer 124”. ¶ 31: “reflective polarizers rely on the difference in refractive index between at least two materials, usually polymeric [i.e. dielectric] materials, to selectively reflect light”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa (US 20150043081 A1) in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 20080151372 A1, hereinafter “Ouderkirk”), Nakase et al (WO 2019054406 A1, hereinafter “Nakase”), and Benson et al (US 20070257678 A1, hereinafter “Benson”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Segawa discloses a head-up display device comprising:
a display unit (head up display 11) which emits display light;
a mirror (reflection-type intermediate image screen 362) including:
a base material (first film base 370 with first adhesive layer 371) which includes an adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371)
an optical film (reflection film 372) which is adhesively attached to the adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371) and reflects the display light,
a first direction and a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction defined in a plane of the adhesive surface (first adhesive layer 371) (note that one is always free to define two orthogonal directions on any surface)
Segawa does not disclose:
a base material which is formed of a synthetic resin material containing a fiber filler; and
wherein, when the first direction coincides with a longitudinal direction of the mirror and the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction, both the optical film and the base material exhibit anisotropic linear thermal expansion in the plane of the adhesive surface and each have a larger linear expansion component in the second direction than in the first direction.
Segawa and Ouderkirk are commonly related to reinforced plastic display reflectors.
Ouderkirk discloses (see FIG. 2A, ¶s 38-40):
a base material (reinforced film 200) which is formed of a synthetic resin material (matrix 206) containing a fiber filler (fibers 204)
wherein, when the first direction (block direction/axis) coincides with a direction of the mirror and the second direction (pass direction/axis) is orthogonal to the first direction (block direction/axis), the optical film (polarizing layer 208) exhibits anisotropic linear thermal expansion and has a larger linear expansion component in the second direction (pass direction/axis) than in the first direction (block direction/axis).
(See also ¶s 125 onwards detailing various Examples, including Example 2 discussed in ¶s 134-136, in which reflective polarizer DBEF
(see ¶s 29-31 tying DBEF to reflective polarizer 124 of an exemplary embodiment detailed in FIG. 1 and ¶s 24-29. Note ¶ 38: “polarizing layer 208[= optical film] may include any of the polarizing layers [of] reflective polarizer 124” and thus corresponds to DBEF)
is directly attached to the composite layer
(corresponding to the base material or reinforced film 200 which “comprises a composite” – ¶ 38).
¶s 162-164 and Table IV goes on to provide some mechanical property measurements for Example 2, including CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) of the DBEF (optical film) with/without the composite (base material). In either case, “The CTE[=linear thermal expansion] in the pass axis[=second direction] is typically higher than in the block axis[=first direction]”)
Segawa and Nakase are commonly related to reinforced optical films for displays.
Nakase discloses that the direction of the mirror is a longitudinal direction. (see ¶ 48: “a polarizer is usually produced by stretching in the machine direction, and therefore has an absorption axis [i.e. a blocking axis, analogous to a reflective polarizer’s reflection axis] in the MD and a transmission axis [i.e. a passing axis] in the TD.” When considered with the mapped aspects of Ouderkirk above, one can directly associate Ouderkirk’s blocking axis, corresponding to the (first) direction of the mirror, with the MD or “machine direction” which “may be referred to as the […] longitudinal direction” (Nakase ¶ 39)).
Segawa and Benson are commonly related to reinforced plastic display reflectors.
Benson discloses that the base material (optical element 100, see FIGs 1(A,B)) exhibits anisotropic linear thermal expansion and has a larger linear expansion component in the second direction than in the first direction. (In ¶s 67-68, Benson discusses anisotropic mechanical properties – including rigidity, tensile strength, thermal expansion – and how in-plane fiber alignment/orientation affects these and may be adjusted as desired. Examiner will also note that alignment of principal axes and hence matching of thermal coefficients (e.g. between a base material and an optical film) is already commonly considered and practiced for minimizing internal/inter-material stresses.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Segawa with Ouderkirk’s fiber reinforced layers, in order to increase strength and/or stiffness, reduce thermal expansion coefficients, and prevent warping, bending, sagging and undesirable thermal effects (Ouderkirk ¶s 22-32, 69, Tables IV-V).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Segawa and Nakase and form the mirror by stretching in a machine/longitudinal direction, in accordance with typical industrial workflows (Nakase ¶ 39) that facilitate mass production.
It would have then been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Segawa with teachings of Benson which recognize and exploit fiber alignment/orientation and their effects on mechanical anisotropies (Benson ¶s 67-68) in order to achieve desirable mechanical properties (e.g. directional rigidities, reduction of thermal stress).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa in view of Ouderkirk and Benson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akiyama et al (US 20220236560 A1, hereinafter “Akiyama”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Segawa discloses the head-up display device according to Claim 1.
Modified Segawa does not disclose wherein the optical film transmits or absorbs incident infrared light.
Segawa and Akiyama are related as being directed towards reflectors in head-up displays.
Akiyama discloses (see ¶s 34-42, FIGs. 2-3) wherein the optical film (reflective layer 41) transmits or absorbs incident infrared light (infrared light B).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Segawa with teachings of Akiyama, in order to provide heat insulation against external light without introducing a large number of components (Akiyama Abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa in view of Ouderkirk and Benson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Romeo (US 20060092535 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Segawa discloses the head-up display device according to Claim 1.
Modified Segawa does not disclose wherein the fiber filler comprises a carbon fiber or a glass fiber.
Segawa and Romeo are related as being directed towards reinforced plastic display reflectors.
Romeo discloses (see ¶s 24-27) wherein the fiber filler (“carbon fiber”) comprises a carbon fiber or a glass fiber.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Segawa with Romeo’s carbon-fiber materials, in order to produce lightweight mirrors that withstand considerable stress and strain without cracking or breaking (Romeo ¶ 6).
Conclusion
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872