Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/560,721

HEAD UP DISPLAY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
CHIEN, LUCY P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Agc Glass Europe
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 898 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
932
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 898 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-9,11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al (US 20190064516) in view of Kim (US 20200379152) Regarding Claim 1, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted below) a coated substrate (42), comprising a transparent substrate (42) provided with a p-polarized light reflective coating (36)[0052], wherein the p-polarized light reflective coating (36) comprises comprising, in sequence starting from a substrate surface (42), optionally a first coating (this is optional to have so will not point out if Wagner et al has this or not), composed of comprising one or more layers of a high refractive index material materials, the first coating having a thickness of from 1 to 100 nm, optionally a second coating (this is optional), composed-of comprising one or more layers of a low refractive index material, the second coating having a thickness of from 1 to 220 nm, a third coating (44), composed of comprising one or more layers of a high refractive index material ([0062] zinc is a high refractive material), the third coating (44) having a thickness of from 40 to 150 nm (400-1500 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 387-427 angstrom which overlaps the claims 400-1500 angstrom), a fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50), composed of comprising one or more layers of a low refractive index material ([0090], oxides, nitrides, oxynitrides are all low refractive materials), the fourth coating having a thickness of from 40 to 200 nm (400-2000 angstrom) (See TABLE 1, 879-1048 angstrom which are overlapping ranges of the claimed 400-2000 angstrom), and further comprising at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 46), said at least one first layer of absorbent material having a thickness of from 0.2 to 15 nm (2-150 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 66 angstrom which overlaps the claimed 2-150 angstrom), and said absorbent material having an average refractive index n above 1 ([0093], refractive indices around 2 which is above the claimed n above 1) and with the averages n and k calculated over values at wavelengths of 450 nm, 550 nm and 650 nm. Wagner et al does not disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1, Kim et al disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wagner et al to include Kim et al’s average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) motivated by the desire to absorb light of a wavelength. PNG media_image1.png 372 314 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein the high refractive index material of the first optional coating and of the third coating (44) are independently selected from at least one oxide of the oxides of Zn, Sn, Ti, Nb, Zr, Ni, In, Al, Si, Ce, W, Mo, Sb, Bi and mixtures thereof, or the and nitrides of Si, Al, Zr, B, Y, Ces La and mixtures thereof [0010]. Regarding Claim 3, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein the high refractive index material of the first optional coating and of the third coating (44) are independently selected from an oxide of Zr, Nb, Sn, Zn and Tia mixed oxide of two or more of Ti, Zr, Nb, Si, Sb, Sn Zn and In a nitride of Si, Zr Al and B ,and a mixed nitride of two or more of Si, Zr, Al, and B [0010]. Regarding Claim 4, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein the low refractive index material of the second optional coating and of the fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50) are independently selected from silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxycarbide, aluminum oxide, mixed silicon aluminum oxide, mixed silicon zirconium oxide, aluminum doped zinc oxide, and mixtures thereof [0090]. Regarding Claim 5, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) the at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 46) is selected from Ni Cr, W, Nb, Zr, Ta, Pd, Si, Ti, alloys based on Ni and/or Cr and/or W, alloys based on Cr and Zr, or on W and Zr or Cr, or on W and Ta, optionally including an additional element selected from Ti, Nb, Ta, Ni and Sn; and from TiN, CrN, WN, NbN, TaN, ZrN, NiCrN, NiCrWN, and a mixture of these nitrides [0074]. Regarding Claim 6, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein the at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 46) is provided with at least one barrier layer (48). Regarding Claim 7, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein the at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 46) is either inserted between at least two adjacent coatings of the said first, second, third (44) or fourth coatings (50) coating, or inserted within at least one of the said first, second, third or fourth coatings coating. Regarding Claim 8, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) second layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 52), distinct from the at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 46), wherein the second layer of absorbent material (52) is either inserted between two adjacent layers of dielectric of at least one of the said first, second, third (44) or fourth (50) coatings or inserted within at least one of the said first, second, third or fourth coatings coating, wherein a location of the second layer of absorbent material is being different from a location of the at least one first layer of absorbent material. Regarding Claim 9, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) A laminated glazing, comprising an outer pane (68) having a first surface (side of 42 facing 44) and a second surface and an inner pane (66)[0053] having a first surface and a second surface, wherein both panes the outer pane and inner pane are bonded by at least one sheet of interlayer material (44, 68) providing contact between the first surface (side of 42 facing 44) of the inner pane and the second surface of the outer pane, wherein the inner pane is a coated substrate comprising a transparent substrate (42) provided with a p-polarized light reflective coating (36) on its second surface, wherein the p-polarized light reflective coating comprises comprising, in sequence starting from a substrate surface, optionally a first coating, composed of comprising one or more high refractive index layers, the first coating having a thickness of from 1 to 100 nm, optionally a second coating, composed-of comprising one or more low refractive index layers, the second coating having a thickness of from 1 to 220 nm, a third coating, composed of comprising one or more high refractive index layers (first and second coating are optional), the third coating (44) having a thickness of from 40 to 150 nm (400-1500 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 387-427 angstrom which overlaps the claims 400-1500 angstrom), a fourth coating, composed of comprising one or more low refractive index layers, the fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50) having a thickness of from 40 to 200 nm ([0090], oxides, nitrides, oxynitrides are all low refractive materials), and further comprising at least one first layer of absorbent material (First Metal Functional Layer 52), said at least one first layer of absorbent material having a thickness of from 0.2 to 15 nm (2-150 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 66 angstrom which overlaps the claimed 2-150 angstrom), and said absorbent material having an average refractive index n above 1 ([0093], refractive indices around 2 which is above the claimed n above 1) and with the averages n and k calculated over values at wavelengths of 450 nm, 550 nm and 650 nm. Wagner et al does not disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1, Kim et al disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wagner et al to include Kim et al’s average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) motivated by the desire to absorb light of a wavelength. Regarding Claim 11, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) a head up display (HUD) system (ABSTRACT) comprising: a light source projecting p-polarized light towards a laminated glazing,nt wherein said laminated glazing comprises an outer pane (68) having a first surface and a second surface, and an inner pane (66)[0053] having a first surface and a second surface, wherein both panes the outer pane and inner pane are bonded by at least one sheet of interlayer material (44, 68) providing contact between the first surface of the inner pane and the second surface of the outer pane, wherein the inner pane is a coated substrate comprising a transparent substrate (42) provided with a p-polarized light reflective coating (36)[0052]on its second surface, wherein the p-polarized light reflective coating (36)[0052] comprises comprising, in sequence starting from a substrate surface, optionally a first coating, composed-of comprising one or more high refractive index layers, the first coating having a thickness of from 1ito 100 nm, optionally a second coating, cemposed of comprising one or more low refractive index layers, the second coating having a thickness of from 1 to 220 nm (these are optional layers so examiner isn’t pointing out if this reference discloses the first or second coating), a third coating (44), composed of comprising one or more high refractive index layers ([0062] zinc is a high refractive material), the third coating having a thickness of from 40 to 150 nm (400-1500 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 387-427 angstrom which overlaps the claims 400-1500 angstrom), a fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50), composed-of comprising one or more low refractive index layers ([0090], oxides, nitrides, oxynitrides are all low refractive materials), the fourth coating having a thickness of from 40 to 200 nm (400-2000 angstrom) (See TABLE 1, 879-1048 angstrom which are overlapping ranges of the claimed 400-2000 angstrom), and said absorbent material having an average refractive index n above 1 ([0093], refractive indices around 2 which is above the claimed n above 1) and with the averages n and k calculated over values at wavelengths of 450 nm, 550 nm and 650 nm. Wagner et al does not disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1, Kim et al disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wagner et al to include Kim et al’s average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) motivated by the desire to absorb light of a wavelength. Regarding Claim 12, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) wherein a projected light is incident to the laminated glazing at an angle of 42 to 72 degrees.[0120] Regarding Claim 13, In addition to Wagner et al and Kim et al, Wagner et al discloses (Fig. 3A, also pasted above) ) a method of providing information with a HUD system (ABSTRACT), comprising: projecting p-polarized light at an angle of incidence on a glazing of 42 to 72 [0120] to reflect the p-polarized light, wherein the HUD system comprises a coated substrate comprising a transparent substrate (42) provided with a p-polarized light reflective coating (36), and a p-polarized light source, wherein the p-polarized light reflective coating (36) comprises comprising, in sequence starting from a substrate surface, optionally a first coating, composed of comprising one or more high refractive index layers, the first coating having a thickness of from 1 to 100 nm, optionally a second coating, composed of comprising one or more low refractive index layers, the second coating having a thickness of from 1 to 220 nm, a third coating, composed-of comprising one or more high refractive index layers (first and second coating is optional so examiner is not indicating if this reference discloses is or not), the third coating (44) having a thickness of from 40 to 150 nm (400-1500 angstrom) (see TABLE 1, 387-427 angstrom which overlaps the claims 400-1500 angstrom), a fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50), composed of comprising one or more low refractive index layers ([0090], oxides, nitrides, oxynitrides are all low refractive materials), the fourth coating (First Phase Adjustment Layer 50) having a thickness of from 40 to 200 nm (400-2000 angstrom) (See TABLE 1, 879-1048 angstrom which are overlapping ranges of the claimed 400-2000 angstrom), and said absorbent material having an average refractive index n above 1 ([0093], refractive indices around 2 which is above the claimed n above 1) and with the averages n and k calculated over values at wavelengths of 450 nm, 550 nm and 650 nm. Wagner et al does not disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1, Kim et al disclose the average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wagner et al to include Kim et al’s average extinction coefficient k above 0.1 ([0083], range of about 0.01 to about 0.5 which are overlapping ranges of the claimed k above 0.1) motivated by the desire to absorb light of a wavelength. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al (US 20190064516) and of Kim (US 20200379152) in view of Veerasamy et al (US 20200039874) Regarding Claim 10, Wagner et al and Kim discloses everything as disclosed above. Wagner et al and Kim do not disclose an infrared reflective coating comprising n IR reflective functional layer based layers and n+1 dielectric layers, wherein each IR reflective functional layer based layer being is located between two dielectric layers on at least one of the first surface of the inner pane the second surface of the outer pane, or embedded in the at least one sheet of interlayer material. Veerasamy et al discloses an infrared reflective coating comprising n IR reflective functional layer based layers and n+1 dielectric layers, wherein each IR reflective functional layer based layer being is located between two dielectric layers on at least one of the first surface of the inner pane the second surface of the outer pane, or embedded in the at least one sheet of interlayer material [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wagner et al and Kim to include Veersamy et al’s infrared reflective coating comprising n IR reflective functional layer based layers and n+1 dielectric layers, wherein each IR reflective functional layer based layer being is located between two dielectric layers on at least one of the first surface of the inner pane the second surface of the outer pane, or embedded in the at least one sheet of interlayer material [0004] motivated by the desire to find ways to post-process stacks containing thin silver-based films with a view to optimizing sheet resistance, emissivity, silver thickness, and deposition speed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601944
DISPLAY MODULE, DRIVING METHOD, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592204
STACKED-SCREEN DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591159
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585049
ACHROMATIC OPTICAL RELAY ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585113
LAMINATED GLASS AND HEAD-UP DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 898 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month