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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 3 or 4 be found allowable, claims 5 or 6, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-6 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 recites “a range of the wedge angle” for each S region. It is unclear what is required by one S range being greater than or lesser than another S range. Is the entire range required to be greater or lesser? Is only one end point required to be greater or lesser? For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that any wedge angle value that is greater or lesser than another will satisfy the claim. Claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “vertical center of both sides.” It is unclear to which sides this is referring. A display region has four sides. It is further unclear what a vertical center is. Is the center in the vertical direction? Or are the sides in the vertical direction? For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the center is a horizontal line drawn through the center of two opposing vertical sides of the display region, as Examiner believes is intended. Claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 4 and 6 recite “large radius.” Is it unclear what “large” requires. It is unclear what radius value would satisfy “large” and what would not. For purposes of examination, any radius value will satisfy “large.”
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0285339 Spangler et al.
Regarding claim 1, Spangler teaches a windshield including an HUD device (paragraph 0009) switching a plurality of display regions (paragraph 0096) in a vertical direction (figure 12a),
the windshield comprising a glass plate (paragraph 0041) which has a first main surface and a second main surface opposite from the first main surface and in which the display region is formed (figure 13a), wherein
the glass plate is configured such that an upper end portion is formed so as to have a greater thickness than a lower end portion (figure 13a), and the first main surface and the second main surface form a wedge angle α (figure 4); and
S_Center <S-_Upper and S_Center <S_Lower are satisfied (figure 15, W-3 interlayer where the wedge angle value starts higher in the S_Lower region, decreases in the center S_Center region, and returns to a higher value in the S_Upper region).
Spangler does not disclose the Y height with the specific region sizes. Spangler does, however, teach that the interlayers may have any combination of increasing, decreasing and constant wedge angles (paragraph 0063). Spangler further teaches that the variable angle interlayers provide lower double image separation for drivers of different heights (paragraph 0146), which would be the different S regions of the claim. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to delineate S regions of the display based on the heights of different drivers, where different wedge angles will provide lower double images at different points of viewing.
Regarding claim 2, Spangler teaches that the plurality of display regions overlap in a vertical direction (figure 12a).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Spangler teaches that the windshield is curved (paragraph 0048) so as to be convex outward from a vehicle in a horizontal direction (figure 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Spangler teaches a plurality of regions having different radii of curvature in the horizontal direction (paragraph 0048), wherein the display region is provided in a region having a large radius of curvature in the horizontal direction (figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781