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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 04/30/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akiyoshi et al. (USP No. 12,043,116), hereinafter “Akiyoshi”.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Akiyoshi discloses a display device (2) for use in a head-up display (see Fig. 4), the display device comprising: a display panel (3) that includes a display area (32) that displays an image on a front surface (30) and a peripheral area located outside the display area (see Fig. 9, Col. 5, Lines 36-46), and that projects light incident on a back surface (31) from the display area (32) as display light that represents the image (Col. 5, Lines 49-53); a heat sink (26) disposed to face the back surface (31) of the display panel (3) (see Fig. 9); a light-transmitting member (22/27) held between the display panel (3) and the heat sink (26) (see Fig. 9); and a temperature sensor (28) disposed in the peripheral area of the display panel (3) to detect a temperature of the display panel (3) (see Fig. 9, Col. 12, Lines 8-12), wherein when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the front surface (30) of the display panel (3), the temperature sensor (28) does not overlap with at least one of the heat sink (26) or the light-transmitting member (22) (see Figs. 7, 9).
Regarding claim 2, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the display panel (3) includes a plurality of optical members (21, 22) stacked (see Figs. 7, 9), and when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the front surface of the display panel (3), a predetermined area including the temperature sensor (28) is an area expanded outward from an outermost shape of the temperature sensor (28) by more than or equal to a thickness of one or more optical members of the plurality of optical members (21, 22), and is disposed at a position where the predetermined area does not overlap with at least one of the heat sink (26) or the light-transmitting member (27) (see Figs. 7, 9).
Regarding claim 3, Akiyoshi discloses when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the front surface of the display panel (3), the peripheral area of the display panel (3) protrudes outward beyond an outer peripheral part of the light-transmitting member (22) (see Figs. 7, 9).
Regarding claim 9, Akiyoshi discloses further comprising: a heat dissipation sheet (25) held between the heat sink (26) and the light-transmitting member (27) (Col. 7, Lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 10, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the heat sink (26) is in a frame shape including four sides, and the heat dissipation sheet (255) is held between the light- transmitting member (27) and each of three sides other than one side corresponding to the position of the temperature sensor (28) among the four sides of the heat sink (26) (see Fig. 7, Col. 8, Lines 29-38, Col. 9, lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 12, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the temperature sensor (28) is a thermistor (Col. 12, Line 8).
Regarding claim 13, Akiyoshi discloses a head-up display (1) (see Figs. 4, 5) comprising: the display device (2) according to claim 1; and a mirror (61/62) that reflects the display light projected from the display device (2) toward a display medium (83) (see Figs. 4, 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi (USP No. 12,043,116) in view of Kumano et al. (JP 2022130236 A), hereinafter “Kumano”.
Regarding claim 4, Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to condensation of sunlight from an outside is present on the front surface of the display panel, a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Kumano discloses when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to condensation of sunlight from an outside is present on the front surface of the display panel (15), a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor (27) is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor (Pg. 7, Paragraph 2 of the translation provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to condensation of sunlight from an outside is present on the front surface of the display panel, a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor of Kumano for the purpose of providing a display unit with improved cooling efficiency (Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. There is no new and unexpected result produced.
Regarding claim 5, Akiyoshi discloses further comprising: a light source (20) that emits light onto the back surface of the display panel (3) (see Fig. 9). Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to emission of the light from the light source onto the back surface of the display panel is present on the front surface of the display panel, a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Kumano discloses wherein when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to emission of the light from the light source (26) onto the back surface of the display panel (15) is present on the front surface of the display panel, a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor (27) is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor (Pg. 7, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 8, Paragraph 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with wherein when a highest temperature region where a temperature is highest due to emission of the light from the light source onto the back surface of the display panel is present on the front surface of the display panel, a distance between the highest temperature region and the temperature sensor is longer than a distance between a center of the display area and the temperature sensor of Kumano for the purpose of providing a display unit with improved cooling efficiency (Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. There is no new and unexpected result produced.
Regarding claim 6, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the heat sink (26) is in a frame shape including four sides (see Fig. 9), and among the four sides of the heat sink (26) (see Fig. 9). Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify a thickness of one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor is thinner than a thickness of each of other three sides. In the same field of endeavor, Kumano discloses a thickness of one side of the heat sink (19 or 20) corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor (27) is thinner than a thickness of each of other three sides (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with a thickness of one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor is thinner than a thickness of each of other three sides of Kumano for the purpose of providing a display unit with improved cooling efficiency (Abstract). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the heat sink (26) is in a frame shape including four sides (see Fig. 9). Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and among the four sides of the heat sink, a thermal conductivity of one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor is lower than a thermal conductivity of each of other three sides. In the same field of endeavor, Kumano discloses and among the four sides of the heat sink (19 or 20), a thermal conductivity of one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor (27) is lower than a thermal conductivity of each of other three sides (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with and among the four sides of the heat sink, a thermal conductivity of one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor is lower than a thermal conductivity of each of other three sides of Kumano for the purpose of providing a display unit with improved cooling efficiency (Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein a thermal conductivity of the light-transmitting member is 3 W/mK or less. In the same field of endeavor, Kumano discloses wherein a thermal conductivity of the light-transmitting member is 3 W/mK or less (Pg. 3, Paragraph 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with wherein a thermal conductivity of the light-transmitting member is 3 W/mK or less of Kumano for the purpose of providing a display unit with improved cooling efficiency (Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi (USP No. 12,043,116) in view of Winter et al. (USP No. 10,845,854), hereinafter “Winter”.
Regarding claim 8, Akiyoshi discloses wherein the heat sink (26) is in a frame shape including four sides (see Fig. 9), and among the four sides of the heat sink (26) (see Fig. 9). one side corresponding to a position of the temperature sensor is not anodized (Col. 7, Lines 2-5). Akiyoshi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and each of other three sides is anodized. In the same field of endeavor, Winter discloses and each of other three sides is anodized (Col. 5, Lines 53-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Akiyoshi with and each of other three sides is anodized of Winter for the purpose of providing improved heat dissipation (Col. 5, Lines 54-55).
Prior Art Citations
Misawa et al. (WO 2018/008236 A1) is being cited herein to show a display device relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/24/2026