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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed October 9, 2025. Claims 1-13 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that the mask part of Arai et al. is not on the transparent cover that closes the opening (see e.g. page 6 of the Remarks). However, applicant’s claim requires “a mask part having a light-shielding property and disposed on the cover” in claim 1. Arai et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2): a mask part (i.e. region outside opening 7 have a change in color or reflectance, see e.g. paragraph [0011]) having a light-shielding property (i.e. gradation of black color, see e.g. paragraph [0032]) and disposed on the cover 5 (see e.g. paragraph [0011] where a change in color or reflectance is provided outside opening 7, thus shielding at least some of the light). Applicant further asserts that Arai et al. is silent as to the opening cover is transparent and that it closes the opening. It is noted that said limitation is taught by Sonobe, as cited below.
Applicant further asserts that the office action fails to provide motivation for combining the teachings of the Sonobe with Arai et al. references. However, as cited below, providing a masking portion (i.e. change in color or reflectance in Arai et al.,) would prevent unwanted light leakage from behind the cover, thus providing a higher quality view experience.
Further, applicant argues that the widened portions of Arai et al. do not satisfy the claim limitations. However, as set forth below, Arai et al. discloses wherein the through hole 7 has a passage area and a widened portion expanding outward from the passage area (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below for passage area and widened portion), the display light traveling toward the eye point passes through the passage area (see e.g. Figure 1 of Arai et al.), and
the mask part is provided in an area of the cover 5 opposing the widened portion (see e.g. Figure 1, where the gradation of black color is provided at the horizontal ends of the cover 5, corresponding to the edge or widened portion).
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 13 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonobe (US 2005/0040940 A1) in view of Arai et al. (US 2018/0335623 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sonobe et al. discloses a vehicle display device comprising (see e.g. Figure 3, paragraph [0009]):
an image display device 3, 11 including an upper display area 11 and a lower display area 3 for displaying an image and disposed so that the upper display area 11 faces an eye point ER of a vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0024]);
a hood part I that covers the upper display area 11 from a front side of the vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0026]);
a combiner 10 (denoted “half mirror”) disposed on a side of the eye point ER with respect to the upper display area 11;
an accommodating part 7 (denoted “holder unit’) that accommodates the lower display area 3 and has an opening (i.e. unlabeled, overlapped with element 8) facing upward, the opening being located on a side of the eye point ER with respect to the image display device (i.e. at least with respect to portion 11 of the image display device) (see e.g. paragraphs [0025]-[0026]);
a transparent cover 8 (denoted “cover window”) that closes the opening (see e.g. paragraph [0025]);
a panel member (see e.g. annotated Figure 3) disposed on a side of the combiner 10 with respect to the cover 8 and having a through hole facing the cover 8;
a reflective member 5 disposed inside the accommodating part 7, facing the combiner 10 through the through hole, and reflecting display light of the lower display area 3 toward the combiner 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0025]).
Sonobe et al. fails to disclose
a mask part having a light-shielding property and disposed on the cover,
wherein the through hole has a passage area and a widened portion expanding outward from the passage are, the display light traveling toward the eye point passes through the passage area, and
the mask part is provided in an area of the cover opposing the widened portion.
However, Arai et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a mask part (i.e. region outside opening 7 have a change in color or reflectance, see e.g. paragraph [0011]) having a light-shielding property (i.e. gradation of black color, see e.g. paragraph [0032]) and disposed on the cover 5 (see e.g. paragraph [0011] where a change in color or reflectance is provided outside opening 7, thus shielding at least some of the light),
wherein the through hole 7 has a passage area and a widened portion expanding outward from the passage area (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below for passage area and widened portion), the display light traveling toward the eye point passes through the passage area (see e.g. Figure 1 of Arai et al.), and
the mask part is provided in an area of the cover 5 opposing the widened portion (see e.g. Figure 1, where the gradation of black color is provided at the horizontal ends of the cover 5, corresponding to the edge or widened portion).
Given the teachings of Arai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe with a mask part having a light-shielding property and disposed on the cover, wherein the through hole has a passage area and a widened portion expanding outward from the passage are, the display light traveling toward the eye point passes through the passage area, and the mask part is provided in an area of the cover opposing the widened portion.
Providing a masking portion (i.e. change in color or reflectance in Arai et al.,) would prevent unwanted light leakage from behind the cover, thus providing a higher quality view experience.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a range of the widened portion is determined so that the panel member is not reflected in the combiner when viewed from the eye point.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the vehicle display such that a range of the widened portion is determined so that the panel member is not reflected in the combiner when viewed from the eye point, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with wherein a range of the widened portion is determined so that the panel member is not reflected in the combiner when viewed from the eye point.
Selecting the shape/size of the widened portion to prevent unwanted reflections in the eye would be advantageous to minimize distraction to the driver of the vehicle as well as provide a more aesthetically pleasing image.
In regard to claim 3, Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the widened portion is provided so that the shape of the through hole reflected in the combiner corresponds to a shape of the combiner when viewed from the eye point.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the vehicle display such that the widened portion is provided so that the shape of the through hole reflected in the combiner corresponds to a shape of the combiner when viewed from the eye point, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with
wherein the widened portion is provided so that the shape of the through hole reflected in the combiner corresponds to a shape of the combiner when viewed from the eye point.
Selecting the shape of the widened portion correspond to the shape of the combiner would be advantageous to minimize distraction to the driver of the vehicle as well as provide a more aesthetically pleasing image.
In regard to claim 4, Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the vehicle display such that the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (in re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
Placement of the mask part on the inside of the cover would prevent exposure to the atmosphere and thus degradation, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 5, Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the vehicle display such that the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (in re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
Placement of the mask part on the inside of the cover would prevent exposure to the atmosphere and thus degradation, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 6, Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the vehicle display such that the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (in re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with wherein the mask part is disposed on a surface of the cover opposite to a surface of the cover facing the combiner.
Placement of the mask part on the inside of the cover would prevent exposure to the atmosphere and thus degradation, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 7, Sonobe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the accommodating part 7 is accommodated in an instrument panel I of the vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0026]).
Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., fails to disclose
the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the vehicle display such that the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
Making the pieces separable or detachable without interference in other components would have an advantage of easy part replacement, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 8, Sonobe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein the accommodating part 7 is accommodated in an instrument panel I of the vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0026]).
Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., fails to disclose
the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the vehicle display such that the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
Making the pieces separable or detachable without interference in other components would have an advantage of easy part replacement, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 9, Sonobe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein the accommodating part 7 is accommodated in an instrument panel I of the vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0026]).
Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., fails to disclose
the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the vehicle display such that the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe et al., in view of Arai et al., with the panel member is detachable from the accommodating part without interfering with the instrument panel.
Making the pieces separable or detachable without interference in other components would have an advantage of easy part replacement, as is known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonobe (US 2005/0040940 A1) in view of Arai et al. (US 2018/0335623 A1) and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0052372 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Sonobe, in view of Arai et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the panel member includes a first surface, a first inclined portion, a second inclined portion, and a third inclined portion,
each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion are inclined relative to the first surface,
each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion extends from the first surface and toward the cover, and
the first inclined portion is inclined relative to each of the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion.
However, Takahashi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1, 2):
wherein the panel member 5 (denoted “bezel body”) includes a first surface, a first inclined portion, a second inclined portion, and a third inclined portion (see e.g. annotated Figure 1, attached below),
each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion are inclined relative to the first surface (see e.g. annotated Figure 1, attached below),
each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion extends from the first surface and toward the cover 4 (see e.g. annotated Figure 1, attached below), and
the first inclined portion is inclined relative to each of the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion (see e.g. annotated Figure 1, attached below and note that the first inclined portion has a different inclination, thus satisfying the limitation).
Given the teachings of Takahashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sonobe, in view of Arai et al., with wherein the panel member includes a first surface, a first inclined portion, a second inclined portion, and a third inclined portion, each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion are inclined relative to the first surface, each of the first inclined portion, the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion extends from the first surface and toward the cover, and the first inclined portion is inclined relative to each of the second inclined portion and the third inclined portion.
Providing an opening with sizing that allows for the light to travel towards the reflective surface while blocking unwanted stray light provides an improved display quality.
PNG
media_image3.png
430
1025
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to dependent claims 10 and 11, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 10, including the combination of limitations, “the through hole has a hexagonal shape, the passage area of the through hole is smaller than the hexagonal shape and has a shape that is different from the hexagonal shape, and the widened portion is located between the passage area and the hexagonal shape and expands in a direction that is away from the passage area and toward the hexagonal shape.”
In regard to dependent claim 12, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 12, including the combination of limitations, “wherein the panel member includes a first surface and an inclined portion that is inclined relative to the first surface, the inclined portion extends from the first surface and toward the cover, and the inclined portion includes a plurality facing surfaces that are arranged in steps.”
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871