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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “This limitation presupposes the existence of a real image at a defined physical location in space. Because the retroreflector produces a real image at a specific coordinate in air, that image has a geometrically definable "rear side", i.e., a direction behind the image as seen by the user. The second display panel is physically placed outside the light path (so it does not interfere with image formation)”
Examiner notes that the claims do not define a real image or a physical location in space, or even a space with know dimensions and orientation, or the relationship of a user to the space, or define what the user is using. So, there is not a clear location of a rear side, and there is not a singular clear location outside of a light path of the first display. Examiner suggests claiming a housing that holds each display component in a particular part of the housing, claiming the part of the housing that is designed for user viewing and/or interface, and further claiming if and how the first and second display panels cooperate in presenting an image or two images to the user through the interface part of the housing.
Applicant argues: “This structural arrangement is geometrically impossible in a virtual image system. A virtual image has no physical position in space, i.e., it has no "rear side" that could be occupied by a separate physical panel.”
Examiner notes that Applicant argues that a floating image system is different from a virtual image, however, neither image appears to have a physical position in space. Materially, the claims offer few structural details and an unclear distinction from the structures and combinations of the various displays available in prior art.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claims with the structural details of the intended apparatus that provide sufficient detail and nexus to the advantages Applicant expects over the prior art.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 12-15 recite “An air floating video display apparatus comprising: … a first display panel configured to display a video; … ” generic terms (panel) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification defines a display panel as a “liquid crystal display panel” See Specification, Paragraph 23.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. These claims are omnibus type claims.
Claims 12-15 recite “a second display panel, wherein the second display panel is located at a position, … so as to make a display area of the second display panel, which is not an optical image, be able to be seen on a rear side of a display area of the air floating video, which is a real image, from the user” in independent Claim 12, however it is not clear what is the limitation of “a display area of the second display panel, which is not an optical image,” because an image is not a component of a display panel, and it is not clear which is the “rear side of a display area of the air floating video” since a floating video is not a component claimed to be fixed to a particular location with respect to other components or with respect to the user. For the remainder of this Office Action, this element will be treated as being directed to a second display panel having a display surface or a housing surface that is located differently than the first display, such as in another location on a dashboard or windshield of a vehicle.
Claim 15 recites: “a display area of the second display panel, which is not an optical image, be able to be seen on display a video from a rear side of a display area of the air floating video, which is a real image,” This claim does not define a particular structural limitation on the video display apparatus. Further, Applicant’s belief of what a user would subjectively be able to see does not provide an objective standard by which a structural limitation of the display can be ascertained. Further it is not clear what applicant means by stating that a display or a display area is not an optical image; a display is not an image, an image is by definition an optical concept, and say if the display area is not displaying an optical image what is able to be seen from a rear side? For the remainder of this action this element is interpreted to be an additional display such as a dashboard display that is differentiated from a head up display.
Examiner suggests clarifying these claimed features.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030122930 to Schofield (“Schofield”) in view of US 20140285429 to Simmons (“Simmons”).
Regarding Claim 12: “An air floating video display apparatus comprising :
a first display panel configured to display a video; (“in FIG. 15, a display device 120 is a view-through heads-up display” Schofield, Paragraph 55. Note that the display device can be an LCD display device. Schofield, Paragraph 53 and similarly in Simmons, Paragraph 15.)
a retroreflector configured to reflect video light from the display apparatus and display an air floating video in air, which is a real image, by the reflected light ; and (For example, “The rays X are reflected off a first surface of windshield 72 in the direction of the driver. Windshield 72 acts as a combiner which combines the image displayed by display 120 with a portion of the forward field of view 70 … a combiner other than the windshield may be used. Examples may be holographic or diffractive optical film elements or beam splitters of metal or dielectric thin films. … a mirror …” Schofield, Paragraphs 55, 56.
Cumulatively, where Schofield does not provide an example of a retroreflector plate as a mirror array (which appears to be a relevant embodiment of this claim), Simmons teaches that this is one of the known substitute structures along with mirrors and beam splitters in the context of reflective displays. See Simmons, Paragraph 2. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Schofield to use a mirror array for as taught in Simmons, in order to reflect the video display toward the viewer. See Simmons, Paragraph 2.)
a second display panel, wherein the second display panel is located at a position, which is not on a light path of a video light from the first display panel to the air floating video in air via reflection by the retroreflector, and is arranged so as to make a display area of the second display panel, which is not an optical image, be able to be seen on a rear side of a display area of the air floating video, which is a real image, from the user.” (For example, this arrangement can be used “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays arranged on the side and thus not on a light path of video light from the first display panel. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78. For example, a second display panel can correspond to “Display 20 may be a direct view flat panel display, such as a back-lit or reflective liquid crystal display,” wherein “a virtual image may be displayed on an opaque display adjacent the forward field of view” such as a field of view of the first panel being a “ view-through heads-up display in which the image is superimposed on the forward field of view.” See Schofield, Paragraph 53.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12: wherein a brightness of the video of the second display panel is reduced when a first state in which the video of the second display panel displayed without displaying the air floating video is switched to a second state in which both the air floating video and the video of the second display panel are displayed.” (See additional displays in Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 60, 78
For example, “Additionally, a comfort level setting may be provided to allow the driver to adjust to a preferred brightness at one ambient light condition. Thereafter, the system automatically adjusts display brightness according to ambient light changes.” Thus, if another display provides ambient illumination at the same time, the first and the second display is configured to adjust is brightness in response and according to user configuration.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein an absorptive polarizer is provided on a surface of a cover glass of a video display surface of the second display panel.” (“Light rays of the image generated by image generator 74 next pass through an anti-reflective coated cover glass 120 which is joined with a left-hand circular polarizer 122 which is bonded to this cover glass.” Schofield, Paragraph 62.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12, comprising
an image processor configured to perform an image processing to the video displayed on the first display panel, (For example, “image processor 18 may generate a line in the shape of a polygon, such as a rectangle, around rear image 42 …” Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
wherein, when an air floating video including a display of an object is displayed as the air floating video displayed by the air floating video display apparatus, the image processor performs an image processing to an image of the object to be displayed on the first display panel, and (For example, “Furthermore, image processor 18 may generate a line in the shape of a polygon, such as a rectangle, around rear image 42. This provides a border around the image to differentiate the rear view from the view forward of the vehicle.” Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
the image processing has input/output characteristics that convert an input image having a pixel with low luminance into an output image having a pixel with increased luminance.“ (“image processor 18 would typically provide a signal on luminance intensity line 102 that would switch the intensity level of display 20 between two intensity levels,” providing pixels with increased on decreased luminance for improved visibility. See Schofield, Paragraph 60.)
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights