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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities.
In line 5, the limitation “at said (22)” should be replaced with “at said channel (22)” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 16 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-12, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/556430 (see e.g. attached PGPUB US 2024/0210685 A1) (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
In regard to claims 1-12, 15, and 16, the limitations are identical and directly correspond to the claims of 18/556430.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/556430 (see e.g. attached PGPUB US 2024/0210685A1) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons set forth below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
In regard to claim 13, US 18/556430 discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 identically, except the limitation, “a direction-selective light filter (20) according to claim 1.”
However, US 18/433055 discloses “a direction-selective light filter (20) according to any one of claims 1-12” (see e.g. claim 13 of 18/556430, US 2024/0210685 A1), which overlaps the claimed limitation in scope.
In regard to claim 14, US 18/556430 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 (see e.g. claim 14 of 18/556430, US 2024/0210685 A1).
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 12-14 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.
In regard to claim 12, the limitation, “the direction-selective light filter (20) is coated with a light absorbing surface thin” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely it is not clear to what “a light absorbing surface thin” is referring. For examination purposes, it is presumed that is referring to a light absorbing surface coating, layer, or material.
In regard to claim 13, the limitation, “a direction-selective light filter (20) according to any one of claims 1 to 12” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, claims 1-12 are drawn to a HUD system that includes “a direction-selective light filter”. For examination purposes, it is assumed that the claim is a method of reducing the reflection of a HUD system according to claim 1”. Further, it is presumed that “an image display device”, “a reflective element”, and “a direction-selective light filter”, etc. refer back to the structures as recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
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, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE-102018213061, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Kreipe et al. discloses HUD system (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 1, second and third full paragraphs for HUD system) where the with reduced reflection (see e.g. page 2, fifth full paragraph of translation for reduction of stray light) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5-12):
an image display device 100 (denoted “imaging unit”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5) and a reflecting element 3/31 (denoted “mirror unit”/”windshield” see e.g. page 4, last paragraph and Figures 1, 5), which are fixed and angled relative to each other (see e.g. Figures 5 and note that the windshield 3/31 is at a fixed angle to the image display device 100),
the image display device 100 being adapted to generate imaging light cones L1 (denoted “beam of light” and note the image display plus associated lenses in Figure 5 would generate light cones) radiating from points of an image generated thereby and reflected from the reflecting element 3/31 (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5),
which imaging light cones L1/L4 have their axes pointing towards a designed detection point 61 (denoted “eye of viewer”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5), after reflection from the reflecting element 3/31 (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5 and note that the light cones will be pointing towards the detection point/viewer after reflection from the windshield), and
wherein the imaging light cones L1/L4 illuminate a designed detection area in a plane passing through the detection point (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that at least the area corresponding to the virtual image VB satisfies the limitation), and
wherein the HUD system comprises:
a direction-selective light filter 97 (denoted “light direction selector”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5) arranged in the light path between the image display device 100 and the reflecting element 3/31 (see e.g. Figure 5),
in which direction-selective light filter 97 a plurality of light guiding channels 971 (denoted “slanted slats”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5) passing through the direction-selective light filter 97 are arranged such that each of the channels is configured in such a way as to substantially pass imaging light cones entering that channel 971 (see e.g. Figure 5 for light passing through the channel/direction selective filter 971/97), and
to substantially block reflection light cones reflected by the image display device towards the reflecting element 3/31, which have axes at different angles to the axes of the imaging cones L1/L4 (see e.g. Figures 5 and 6 and note that the slats are designed to block the light cones that are not arranged according to the desired direction, thus satisfying the limitation),
characterized in that the image display device 100 is configured as a screen (i.e. front surface of image display device 100) defining an angle α with the reflecting element 3/31 (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that there is an angle between the image display device and the windshield 3/31).
Kreipe et al. fails to disclose
the light guiding channels are arranged in the direction-selective light filter in such a way that the period distance defined by the width and the wall thickness of the light guiding channels is at most one fifth or at least five times the pixel size of the screen.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the light guiding channels are arranged in the direction-selective light filter in such a way that the period distance defined by the width and the wall thickness of the light guiding channels is at most one fifth or at least five times the pixel size of the screen, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kreipe et al. with the light guiding channels are arranged in the direction-selective light filter in such a way that the period distance defined by the width and the wall thickness of the light guiding channels is at most one fifth or at least five times the pixel size of the screen.
Selecting the period distance, width and the wall thickness of the light guiding channels based on the size of the LCD and the desired viewing region would be within ordinary skill in the art and have predictable results. Namely, pixel size and distribution would directly affect the size of the light cones and thus the physical characteristics of the light guiding channels.
In regard to claim 3, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the screen (i.e. front surface of image display device 100) and the reflecting element 3/31 are arranged relative to each other in such a way that the axis of each of the imaging light cones L1 makes an angle other than a right angle with a plane of the screen (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that the image display device 100 and the reflecting element 3/31 are at a non-perpendicular angle and therefore the axis of the imaging light cone will be arranged non-perpendicular).
In regard to claim 4, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the light guiding channels are configured such that an angle of inclination of a given channel with the plane of the screen makes an angle Ω = α + θ and
a width (h) in a direction of inclination (J) of said channel and a thickness (d) of the direction-selective light filter at said are such that d ≥ h - tan (α + θ) where θ is an angle between the axis (T) of the imaging light cone passing through the given channel and the reflecting element.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the light guiding channels are configured such that an angle of inclination of a given channel with the plane of the screen makes an angle Ω = α + θ and a width (h) in a direction of inclination (J) of said channel and a thickness (d) of the direction-selective light filter at said are such that d ≥ h - tan (α + θ) where θ is an angle between the axis (T) of the imaging light cone passing through the given channel and the reflecting element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 Kreipe et al. with the light guiding channels are configured such that an angle of inclination of a given channel with the plane of the screen makes an angle Ω = α + θ and a width (h) in a direction of inclination (J) of said channel and a thickness (d) of the direction-selective light filter at said are such that d ≥ h - tan (α + θ) where θ is an angle between the axis (T) of the imaging light cone passing through the given channel and the reflecting element
Selecting the period distance, width and the wall thickness of the light guiding channels, and the relative angles of the components based on the size of the LCD and the desired viewing region would be within ordinary skill in the art and have predictable results. Namely, pixel size and distribution would directly affect the size of the light cones and thus the physical characteristics of the light guiding channels.
In regard to claim 6, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the light guiding channels 973 (see e.g. embodiment of Figure 11 and page 7, first full paragraph) have a circular cross-section (see e.g. embodiment of Figure 11 and page 7, first full paragraph for circular base/cross section).
In regard to claim 7, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the direction-selective light filter 97 is configured to absorb light rays incident on a surface opposite to the image display device 100 (see e.g. Figure 6 and page 3, sixth full paragraph and page 6, second full paragraph).
In regard to claim 8, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and
the direction-selective light filter 97 is coated with a light absorbing material on a surface opposite to the image display device 100 (see e.g. Figure 6 and page 3, sixth full paragraph and page 6, second full paragraph).
In regard to claim 9, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an inner wall of the light guiding channels 971 is coated with a light absorbing material (see e.g. Figure 6 and page 3, sixth full paragraph and page 6, second full paragraph where it is noted that that the cylindrical space is enclosed by light-absorbent material).
In regard to claim 10, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the light guiding channels 971 are etched in the direction selective light filter 97.
Note that the product by process limitation, “ . . . the light guiding channels are etched in the direction selective light filter . . . ” has been fully considered by the examiner. However, it is further noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see e.g. MPEP 2113).
In regard to claim 12, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the direction-selective light filter 97 is coated with a light absorbing surface thin (see e.g. 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection for interpretation and page 3, sixth full paragraph for the absorbing material surround the direction selective light filter/channels 97/971).
In regard to claim 13, Kreipe et al. discloses a method of reducing the reflection of a HUD system (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 1, second and third full paragraphs for HUD system and page 2, fifth full paragraph of translation for reduction of stray light), the HUD system comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5-12):
an image display device 100 (denoted “imaging unit”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5) and a reflective element 3/31 3/31 (denoted “mirror unit”/”windshield” see e.g. page 4, last paragraph and Figures 1, 5) fixed relative thereto (see e.g. Figures 5 and note that the windshield 3/31 is at a fixed angle to the image display device 100), the method comprises the steps of:
using the image display device 100, generating imaging light cones L1 (denoted “beam of light” and note the image display plus associated lenses in Figure 5 would generate light cones) radiating from points of an image generated by the image display device 100 in such a way that axes (T) of the imaging light cones L1 see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5), reflected from the reflecting element 3/31, point in the direction of a designed detection point 61 (denoted “eye of viewer”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5), and
the shape of the imaging light cones L1 is chosen to illuminate a designed detection area 61 in a plane passing through the detection point 61 (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that at least the area corresponding to the virtual image VB satisfies the limitation),
characterized in that the image display device 100 is configured as a screen (i.e. front surface of image display device 100), and in the light path between the image display device 100 and the reflecting element 3/31, blocking the propagation of reflecting light cones L2 reflected from the image display device 100 in the direction of the reflecting element 3/31 (see e.g. Figures 5 and 6 and note that the slats are designed to block the light cones that are not arranged according to the desired direction, thus satisfying the limitation) and having an axis (D) at a different angle to the axes (T) of the imaging light cones (11) by means of a direction-selective light filter 97 (denoted “light direction selector”, see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and Figure 5) according to claim 1 (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that the light cone will have an axis at an angle to the light cones after the light passes 97 and see 35 U.S.C. 112 interpretation set forth above).
In regard to claim 15, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the light guiding channels 971 have a square cross-section (see e.g. page 3, last paragraph continuing on page 4 of the translation).
In regard to claim 16, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the light guiding channels 971 have a rectangular cross-section (see e.g. page 3, last paragraph continuing on page 4 of the translation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE-102018213061) in view of Chen (US 2014/0063359 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the screen is configured as a direction-selective light emitting screen configured to generate the imaging light cones.
However, Chen discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
the screen is configured as a direction-selective light emitting screen (i.e. comprising components 114, 114, 113, 112, 111 for controlling directivity of light) configured to generate the imaging light cones (see e.g. paragraph [0011] where it is noted that the image device includes a directional lens unit).
Given the teachings of Chen, 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 Kreipe et al. with the screen is configured as a direction-selective light emitting screen configured to generate the imaging light cones.
Using a direction-selective light emitting screen allows homogenizing the light beams and have uniform illumination while having all images shown on the eyebox of a driver be distinct (see e.g. abstract of Chen).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE-102018213061) in view of Huber (WO 2019243250, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 5, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the direction-selective light filter is fixed to a surface of the screen.
However, Huber discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the direction-selective light filter 9 (denoted “front prism”, see e.g. Figure 1 and page 10, first full paragraph) is fixed to a surface of the screen (i.e. surface of flat pixel arrangement 2).
Given the teachings of Huber, 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 Kreipe et al. with the direction-selective light filter is fixed to a surface of the screen.
Fixing the light filter to the screen would prevent unwanted movement between the components, preventing unwanted misalignment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE-102018213061) in view of Zhou (CN 209231705, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 11, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose
the direction-selective light filter is made of a light absorbing microscopically rough material.
However, Zhou discloses using a roughened microstructure surface 21 to increase absorption of ambient light (see e.g. page 7, paragraph 6 of the translation and Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Zhou, 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 Kreipe et al. with the direction-selective light filter is made of a light absorbing microscopically rough material.
Providing such a surface would improve absorption of unwanted stray light, thus improving the display image.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe et al. (DE-102018213061) in view of Waldern et al. (US 2019/0212588 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Kreipe et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
inclination angles of the light guiding channels of the direction-selective light filter are determined by numerical modelling based on inverse ray tracing.
However, Waldern et al. discloses using inverse ray tracing to optimize the light path in a HUD (see e.g. paragraphs [0111]-[0112]).
Given the teachings Waldern 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 Kreipe et al. with inclination angles of the light guiding channels of the direction-selective light filter are determined by numerical modelling based on inverse ray tracing.
Using such a method to optimize the device would allow a more precise image to be displayed to the user.
Conclusion
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