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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Amended claims 1-15 are considered to be allowable.
Amended claims 16-20 introduce limitations into claims 16 and 17 which are not conveyed by the Application’s written disclosure. A 35 USC 112(a) rejection of those claims is set forth below.
Amended claim 16 introduce limitations into claim 16 in the last lines which are objected to, refer to the newly claimed “wherein the first display technology is different that the second display technology” (emphasis added). A claim objection of claim 16 is set forth below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and the amendments overcome the objection and rejections set forth in the office action having notification date of 03/03/2026.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amended claim 16 in the two last lines claims “wherein the first display technology is different that the second display technology” (emphasis added) in which “that” does not fit the claim phrase well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 was amended to claim:
“wherein the one or more panes comprises a vehicle display pane configured to allow augmented reality across the one or more panes and wherein the one or more panes comprises a plurality of regions, one or more regions of the plurality of regions being associated with a first display technology and one or more regions being associated with a second display technology, wherein the first display technology is different that the second display technology.”.
The BRI of this claim limitation with “that” corrected to “than” is:
wherein the one pane comprises a vehicle display pane configured to allow augmented reality across the one pane and wherein the one pane comprises a plurality of regions, one region of the plurality of regions being associated with a first display technology and one region being associated with a second display technology, wherein the first display technology is different than the second display technology in which the “one region” may be considered to be the same.
Applicants written description fails to convey in one pane “one region” having first display technology and second display technology, wherein the first display technology is different than the second display technology. Refer to paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0035]-[0037], and [0048].
Claim 17 was amended to claim:
“wherein the display comprises multiple display technologies integrated to provide the visual representation across multiple regions of at least one pane of the one or more panes”.
The BRI of this claim limitations is:
wherein the display comprises multiple display technologies integrated to provide the visual representation across multiple regions of one pane of the one or more panes.
Applicants written description fails to convey having multiple display technologies integrated to provide the visual representation across multiple regions of one pane. Refer to paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0035]-[0037], and [0048].
Dependent claims 18-20 inherit this issue.
Applicant’s written description with reference to FIG. 1 describes in paragraph [0033] “For example, regions near the dashboard (e.g., regions 112, 114, 116) may be provided by a heads-up display based on a projector or otherwise and regions (e.g., regions 108, 110, 118) near the top of the pane 102 or on a roof portion of the pane 102 may be provided by a technology based on an organic light emitting diode (OLED) array, liquid crystal display, transparent display, microLED, neoQLED, or otherwise.” and with reference to FIGs 1, 2A, and 2B describes in paragraph [0039] “For example, the instructions 304 may cause the one or more processors 306 to output a visual representation 120 from the projector 202 or light emitting diodes 220 for depiction on the display 104.”. These portions of Applicant’s written description as well as the written description as a whole fails to convey the claimed invention claimed in claims 16-20. The claims need to be amended to claim that which is conveyed by Applicant’s written description. For example Applicant’s written description describes regions such as regions 112, 114, 116 in pane 102 may be provided by a heads-up display based on a projector or otherwise and regions such as regions 108, 110, 118 in pane 102 may be provided by a technology based on an organic light emitting diode (OLED) array, liquid crystal display, transparent display, microLED, neoQLED, or otherwise.” Additionally, any amendments need to take into consideration the prior art of record.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byrne et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0055454, describes vehicular augmented reality display, refer to FIGs. 11 and 12 and paragraph [0052], comprising a plurality of regions configured to display the augmented reality.
Karafin et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0290513, describes vehicular augmented reality display, refer to FIGs. 8 and 12 and paragraphs [0171]-[0175] and [0195]-[0200], comprising a plurality of regions configured to display the augmented reality. This document also discusses with regard to FIG. 12 and paragraphs [0198] a LF display system and a 2D display 1236 and “The 2D display 1236 may be placed in front of the light field display surface 1235, directly in the optical path of projected rays from the display surface 1235.”. The LF display system and the 2D display 1236 are different multiple display technologies forming the display.
Any amendments to claims 16-20 need to consider “The 2D display 1236 may be placed in front of the light field display surface 1235, directly in the optical path of projected rays from the display surface 1235.” which in FIG. 12 is shown to cover more than the area of the LF display system’s display surface 1235. While 2D display 1236 “may be placed in front of the light field display surface 1235” an anticipation/obvious analysis of having 2D display 1236 cover more than the area of the LF display system’s display surface 1235 thereby forming two regions in the same display pane would be needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of “a replacement for a vanity mirror” in the context of independent claim 1:
“depicting the visual representation at the first location, wherein the depiction of the visual representation is triggered by detecting, using a sensor of the vehicle, a physical movement of the occupant while the occupant is within the vehicle, wherein the physical movement comprises a gesture of the occupant, and wherein the gesture comprises the occupant touching a face of the occupant or looking up as if looking into a mirror.”.
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 JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights