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 April 27, 2026. Claims 1-16 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Namely, applicant asserts that the Kreipe et al reference fails to disclose pixels and thus it would not be a matter of routine optimization to use a configuration in which 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, it is noted that image source 100 would have a light distribution that may be divided into pixels. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize optimizing the period of the light guiding channels are five times the pixel size of the screen in order to achieve the highest quality device. Further, as set forth in the previous office action and below, 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.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 13.
In response to applicant's argument that the Kreipe et al. reference seeks to solve a different problem than the instant application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In regard to dependent claim 3, applicant asserts that the claimed features cooperate to “prevent ambient light reflection at any angle of incidence”. However, it is noted that this is not a limitation currently required by claim 3.
In regard to dependent claim 4, applicant asserts that it would not be obvious to optimize the device in order to achieve the limitations as claimed. However, it is noted that the various angles of the optical system may be optimized, as is known in the art and would have predictable results. Namely, finding the optimal angles that result in the highest quality device would be within ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 6, applicant asserts that the light guiding channels of the instant application have a different purpose than the Kreipe et al. reference. However, it is noted that this is not a limitation of current claim 6.
In regard to dependent claims 7 and 8, applicant asserts that the Kreipe et al. reference doesn’t disclose applicant’s specific reflection profile. However, this is not currently required by the claims.
In regard to dependent claim 2, applicant asserts that Chen reference is not combinable with the Kreipe et al. reference. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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.
In regard to dependent claim 5, applicant asserts that the Huber reference functions differently than the Kreipe et al. reference and thus these are not combinable to reach applicant’s claimed limitations. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, fixing the light filter to the screen would prevent unwanted movement between the components, preventing unwanted misalignment.
In regard to dependent claim 11, applicant asserts that there is no motivation for combining the Zhou reference with the Kreipe et al. reference. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, providing such a surface would improve absorption of unwanted stray light, thus improving the display image.
In regard to dependent claim 14, applicant asserts that there is no motivation for combining the Waldern et al. reference with the Kreipe et al. reference. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, using such a method to optimize the device would allow a more precise image to be displayed to the user
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is multiple paragraphs and greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 channel 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 channel 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 channel 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 coating (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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights