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 amendments to Claims 7-13, 15-16, 18-19 in the preliminary amendment filed 11/2/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 11/2/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1, line 14- ‘at least portion a’ should read ‘at least the portion’
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 17 recites the limitation ‘a portion of the image projector’. However, Claim 1, lines 8 and 14 each also recite the limitation ‘a portion of the image projector’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the portion in line 17 is to refer back to the portion in line 8, line 14, or to a separate portion not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as ‘the portion of the image projector’. Correction is required.
Claims 2-19 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the curved windscreen" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, line 2 recites the limitation ‘there are four or more.’ This appears to be incomplete. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘there are four or more positions of the image projector.’. Correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the extent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the extent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20, line 12 recites the limitation ‘a portion of the image projector’. However, Claim 20, line 3 also recite the limitation ‘a portion of an image projector’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the portion in line 12 is to refer back to the portion in line 3, or to a separate portion not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as ‘the portion of the image projector’. Correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sum" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 13-19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urey et al. (WO 2020/167263 A1) in view of Bibelgae et al. (CN 104166238 A).
Urey et al. discloses a head-up display system (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-26) comprising an eye-box (See for example eye-box adjacent ‘Driver’ in Figure 1) having a first dimension and a second dimension and further comprising an image projector (See for example 10, 105, 18, 102 in Figure 1) comprising a picture generating unit (See for example 105 in Figure 1) and an optical system (See for example 18 in Figure 1), the picture generating unit comprising a spatial light modulator (See for example 105 in Figure 1; 12 in Figure 2; 13 in Figure 3; Figures 11a, 11b, 11c) arranged to display a hologram such that light incident on the spatial light modulator is spatially modulated in accordance with the hologram, the optical system being arranged to relay spatially modulated light from the picture generating unit to an optical combiner (See for example 101 in Figures 1-2, 11a, 11b, 11c). Urey et al. further discloses the picture generating unit comprises a light receiving surface arranged such that a holographic reconstruction is formed or displayed on the light receiving surface (See for example 105 in Figure 1; 151 in Figure 4; 15 in Figure 5); the optical system comprises a mirror (See for example 112 in Figures 1-5) arranged to relay the spatially modulated light of the picture generating unit to a curved windscreen; the picture generating unit further comprises a light source and a light receiving member (See for example 11, 15, 151 in Figures 4-5); a display system comprising the above head-up display system and an optical combiner (See for example 10, 101 in Figure 1); the optical combiner has a curved shape (See for example 101 in Figure 1); and the optical combiner is a window or windscreen of a vehicle (See for example 101 in Figure 1).
Urey et al. does not specifically disclose a movement assembly arranged to move at least a portion of the image projector rectilinearly between a plurality of positions such that at least one component of the picture generating unit is moved together with the optical system when the at least portion of the image projector is moved between the plurality of positions; wherein the head-up display is arranged such that the spatially modulated light relayed to the optical combiner forms a virtual image viewable from a sub-eye-box having a position in the first dimension that is dependent on the position of the at least the portion of the image projector; and wherein the eye-box is a sum of the sub-eye-boxes associated with each of the plurality of positions of the at least a portion of the image projector. However, Bibelgae et al. teaches a conventional image information projection system for use in a vehicle (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-12), wherein the image information projection system includes an image generator (See for example 110 in Figures 1-5) to generate image light, a pair of optical elements (See for example 112 in Figures 1-5) to route the image light toward a windshield (See for example 104 in Figures 1-4), and the windshield routes the image light toward the eyebox at the eye position (See for example 122 in Figures 1-5). Additionally, Bibelgae et al. discloses a movement mechanism (See for example 114 in Figure 1; 328 in Figure 4), eye tracking detector (See for example 118, 124 in Figure 1), and a control mechanism (See for example 116 in Figure 1) that allows for linear translation of the image generator and pair of optical elements based on the movement of the eyes, thus allowing for the eyebox at the eye position to follow the eyes as they move (See for example Paragraphs 0033-0041). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-up display system of Urey et al., to have a movement assembly arranged to move at least a portion of the image projector rectilinearly between a plurality of positions such that at least one component of the picture generating unit is moved together with the optical system when the at least portion of the image projector is moved between the plurality of positions; wherein the head-up display is arranged such that the spatially modulated light relayed to the optical combiner forms a virtual image viewable from a sub-eye-box having a position in the first dimension that is dependent on the position of the at least the portion of the image projector; and wherein the eye-box is a sum of the sub-eye-boxes associated with each of the plurality of positions of the at least a portion of the image projector, as taught by Bibelgae et al., to allow the image information projected by the head-up display system to adapt to the position of the eye of the user, while utilizing more compact optics.
The combined teachings of Urey et al. and Bibelgae et al. disclose the at least one component of the picture generating unit that is moved by the movement assembly is the light receiving surface (See for example 105 in Figure 1; 151 in Figure 4; 15 in Figure 5 of Urey et al.; 114 in Figure 1; 328 in Figure 4 of Bibelgae et al.); the movement assembly is arranged such that there are four or more positions of the image projector (See for example 328 in Figure 4 of Bibelgae et al., wherein there are an infinite number of positions along track 328 to which 108 can be positioned); a controller configured to control the movement assembly to move the image projector to one of the plurality of positions based on an input related to the position of a viewing system (See for example 114, 116, 118, 124 in Figure 1); an eye-tracker arranged to monitor the position of the viewing system, wherein the input is an output of the eye-tracker (See for example 124, 118 in Figure 1); and the optical combiner substantially lies in a first plane and wherein the movement assembly is arranged to move the image projector linearly in a first direction that is angled relative to the first plane (See for example 104, 328 in Figure 4 of Bibelgae et al.).
Claim(s) 10-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al.
Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the extent of the eye-box in the first dimension is 100 millimetres or more, or the extent of each sub-eye-box in the first dimension is 50 millimetres or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extent of the eye-box in the first dimension is 100 millimetres or more, or the extent of each sub-eye-box in the first dimension is 50 millimetres or less, since 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. One would have been motivated to have the extent of the eye-box in the first dimension is 100 millimetres or more, or the extent of each sub-eye-box in the first dimension is 50 millimetres or less, to adjust the sizes of both the eye-boxes and sub-eye-boxes based on the particular field of view of each individual using the head-up display. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim(s) 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al.
Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the movement assembly comprises a stepper motor. However, the use of a stepper motor for translating an optical element or device is well known and conventional in the art. Official Notice is taken. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the movement assembly comprises a stepper motor, in the system of Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al., to take advantage of the precise positioning and repeatability of movement provided by such stepper motors.
Claim(s) 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al.
Urey et al. discloses a method (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-26) of forming a virtual image viewable from an eye-box (See for example eye-box adjacent ‘Driver’ in Figure 1) having a first dimension and a second dimension, the method comprising the picture generating unit (See for example 10, 105, 18, 102 in Figure 1; 12 in Figures 4-5) comprises a spatial light modulator (See for example 13 in Figures 4-5) arranged to display a hologram such that light incident on the spatial light modulator is spatially modulated in accordance with the hologram, the optical system (See for example 18 in Figure 1) being arranged to relay spatially modulated light from the picture generating unit to an optical combiner; and forming a virtual image viewable from a first sub-eye-box in a first position in the first dimension (See for example Figures 1, 4-5). Urey et al. does not specifically disclose moving at least a portion of an image projector comprising a picture generating unit and an optical system to a first position of a plurality of positions of the at least portion of image projector such that at least one component of the picture generating unit is moved together with the optical system; wherein the at least the portion of the image projector is arranged such that a virtual image is viewable from a sub-eye-box in each position of the image projector, the eye-box being a sum of the sub-eye-boxes. However, Bibelgae et al. teaches a conventional image information projection system for use in a vehicle (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-12), wherein the image information projection system includes an image generator (See for example 110 in Figures 1-5) to generate image light, a pair of optical elements (See for example 112 in Figures 1-5) to route the image light toward a windshield (See for example 104 in Figures 1-4), and the windshield routes the image light toward the eyebox at the eye position (See for example 122 in Figures 1-5). Additionally, Bibelgae et al. discloses a movement mechanism (See for example 114 in Figure 1; 328 in Figure 4), eye tracking detector (See for example 118, 124 in Figure 1), and a control mechanism (See for example 116 in Figure 1) that allows for linear translation of the image generator and pair of optical elements based on the movement of the eyes, thus allowing for the eyebox at the eye position to follow the eyes as they move (See for example Paragraphs 0033-0041). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Urey et al., to include moving at least a portion of an image projector comprising a picture generating unit and an optical system to a first position of a plurality of positions of the at least portion of image projector such that at least one component of the picture generating unit is moved together with the optical system; wherein the at least the portion of the image projector is arranged such that a virtual image is viewable from a sub-eye-box in each position of the image projector, the eye-box being a sum of the sub-eye-boxes, as taught by Bibelgae et al., to allow the image information projected by the head-up display system to adapt to the position of the eye of the user, while utilizing more compact optics.
Claim(s) 21, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urey et al. in view of Bibelgae et al.
Urey et al. discloses an image projector (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-26) comprising an eye-box (See for example eye-box adjacent ‘Driver’ in Figure 1) having a first dimension and a second dimension and further comprising a picture generating unit (See for example 10, 105, 18, 102 in Figure 1; 12 in Figures 4-5) comprising a spatial light modulator (See for example 13 in Figures 4-5) arranged to display a hologram such that light incident on the spatial light modulator is spatially modulated in accordance with the hologram; an optical system (See for example 18 in Figure 1) arranged to relay spatially modulated light from the picture generating unit towards the eye-box of the image projector. Urey et al. does not specifically disclose a movement assembly arranged to move at least one component of the picture generating unit together with the optical system between a plurality of positions relative to a housing of the image projector; wherein the image projector is arranged such that the spatially modulated light is relayed to a sub-eye-box having a position in the first dimension that is dependent on the position of optical system relative to the housing, wherein the eye-box is the sum of the sub-eye-boxes associated with each of the plurality of positions of the optical system. However, Bibelgae et al. teaches a conventional image information projection system for use in a vehicle (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-12), wherein the image information projection system includes an image generator (See for example 110 in Figures 1-5) to generate image light, a pair of optical elements (See for example 112 in Figures 1-5) to route the image light toward a windshield (See for example 104 in Figures 1-4), and the windshield routes the image light toward the eyebox at the eye position (See for example 122 in Figures 1-5). Additionally, Bibelgae et al. discloses a movement mechanism (See for example 114 in Figure 1; 328 in Figure 4), eye tracking detector (See for example 118, 124 in Figure 1), and a control mechanism (See for example 116 in Figure 1) that allows for linear translation of the image generator and pair of optical elements based on the movement of the eyes, thus allowing for the eyebox at the eye position to follow the eyes as they move (See for example Paragraphs 0033-0041). Additionally, the image information projection system includes a housing to protect the optics from dust and damage, even during movement of the optics (See for example Paragraphs 0014-0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Urey et al., to include a movement assembly arranged to move at least one component of the picture generating unit together with the optical system between a plurality of positions relative to a housing of the image projector; wherein the image projector is arranged such that the spatially modulated light is relayed to a sub-eye-box having a position in the first dimension that is dependent on the position of optical system relative to the housing, wherein the eye-box is the sum of the sub-eye-boxes associated with each of the plurality of positions of the optical system, as taught by Bibelgae et al., to allow the image information projected by the head-up display system to adapt to the position of the eye of the user, while utilizing more compact optics that are protected from dust and damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a head-up display system as generally set forth in Claim 4, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 4, the spatial light modulator of the picture generating unit is fixed such that the movement assembly is arranged to move the light receiving surface relative to the spatial light modulator when the portion of the image projector is moved between the plurality of positions. Claims 5-6 are dependent on Claim 4, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 4 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
12/19/2025
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872