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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 01/04/2024 is entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… actively operated LEDs of the micro-LED matrix is reflected at the foreign object located on top and is detectable by the LEDs operated for sensing” should read “actively operated LEDs of the micro-LED matrix is reflected at the foreign object located on top of the display surface and is detectable by the LEDs operated for sensing” for clarity.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (US PUB 2019/0204592) in view of Knox et al. (US PUB 2018/0366570; herein after “Knox”).
FUJITA and Knox disclose a projection display device, and an operation method of projection display device, and to detect particles such as dust, dirt etc. in a display surface or the like. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 12, FUJITA teaches a method for operating a reflection display system (HUD 100, FIG. 1) for displaying a display image for a vehicle occupant (a driver) of a motor vehicle (an automobile 1) by way of reflection of the display image at a windshield (2) (see para. [0013], [0025] and [0045]), wherein the reflection display system comprises a display unit (100) which is configured with a micro-LED display in order to output the display image via a display surface (cover 9) of the display unit (see para. [0033], [0034], [0040]-FIG. 2), and the display unit is arranged on an upper side of an instrument panel (a dashboard 4, FIG. 1 and 4) such that a reflection of the display image is perceivable via the windshield in an eye region (E) of the vehicle occupant (i.e., The image light reflected by the concave mirror 7 passes through the opening portion K of the housing 3 and a hollow portion of the connecting portion 8 and is projected toward the projection surface of the windshield 2, para. [0031] and as shown at least in FIG. 1, also see para. [0027] and [0032]), the method comprising: operating at least one part of LED diodes of the micro-LED display for sensing to detect a respective light intensity (e.g., light modulation) of incident light (i.e., a projection display device including: a light modulation unit that spatially modulates, in accordance with image data that is input, light emitted by a light source (e.g., sensing to detect a respective light intensity), para. [0092], also see para. [0028] and [0039]-[0042]); detecting a presence of a foreign object (dust, dirt etc.) on the display surface depending on the measured light intensities in the LED diodes which are operated for sensing (i.e., a retro-reflective sensor that detects an object (e.g., a foreign object like dust, dirt etc.), para. [0033]) in accordance with the presence/absence of reflected light of light emitted by a light transmitting unit toward a reflection plate, a diffuse-reflective sensor that detects an object in accordance with the presence/absence of reflected light of light emitted by a light transmitting unit toward the object, or the like, for example, para. [0056], also see para. [0052]-0055]); and signaling a disruption (e.g., projected light is blocked by the object, para. [0008]) of the display of the display image during the detection of the foreign object on the display surface (i.e., The object detecting unit 12 detects the presence/absence of an object (signaling a disruption) that falls from the inside of the automobile 1 into the hollow portion of the connecting portion 8 and approaches a front surface of the cover 9 (e.g., display surface), para. [0052], also see para. [0045], [0063] and [0072]-[0073]).
FUJITA teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of detecting a presence of a foreign object on the display surface depending on the measured light intensities in the LED diodes which are operated for sensing, and operating at least one part of LED diodes of the micro-LED display for sensing to detect a respective light intensity.
However, in a related field of endeavor Knox teaches the controller can then be configured to separate the intensity values in one group (i.e. relating to one wavelength band) from the other, e.g. the outputs of the sensor elements can be selectively “read out” to obtain the two wavelength band signals, see para. [0638].
Most preferably the light emitters are LEDs. Over time the output of the LEDs may vary in either absolute or comparative intensity or both. With the dual wavelength system variations in absolute intensity can be tolerated to a certain extent so long as the relative measure of intensity used by the system for detecting particles remains substantially constant, see para. [0034].
a foreign body detection system adapted to detect a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and including a light source adapted to illuminate the outer surface and any foreign body on or near the outer surface, see para. [0248].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of FUJITA such that a controller can separate the intensity values in one group (i.e. relating to one wavelength band) from the other (to detect a respective light intensity), to detect a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and over time the output of the LEDs (such as micro-LEDs) may vary in either absolute or comparative intensity or both as taught by Knox, for the purpose of detecting a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and including a light source adapted to illuminate the outer surface and any foreign body on or near the outer surface.
Regarding claim 13, FUJITA according to claim 12 further teaches the incident light is incident ambient light (i.e., light emitted by a light source, see para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, FUJITA according to claim 12 further teaches the at least one part of the LED diodes of the micro-LED display is operated actively and for sensing in alternation (i.e., a light emitting element, such as a laser or a light emitting diode (LED), is used as each of the R light source 41r, the G light source 41g, and the B light source 41b (alternation), see para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, FUJITA fails to teach the at least one part of the LED diodes is operated for sensing for a time period which is not perceivable by a user.
However, in a related field of endeavor Knox teaches a time period in which a light emitter element is illuminated, para. [0577] … the sensor 200 of the receiver 104 includes a multiplicity of sensing elements 202 which can independently detect received light intensity at distinct spatial positions, para. [0451, FIG. 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of FUJITA such that a time period in which a light emitter element is illuminated, and a multiplicity of sensing elements 202 which can independently detect received light intensity at distinct spatial positions may not be perceivable by a user as taught by Knox, for the purpose of having spatial resolution of the light sensor that is particularly high in the direction of a plane defined by the direct beam and the reflected beam.
Regarding claim 19, FUJITA according to claim 12 further teaches a reflection display system (HUD 100, see FIG. 1) for displaying a display image for a vehicle occupant (a driver) of a motor vehicle (1) by way of reflection of the display image at a windshield (2), the reflection display system comprising: a display unit (100), which is configured with a micro-LED display in order to output the display image via a display surface of the display unit, wherein the display unit is arranged on an upper side of an instrument panel such that a reflection of the display image is perceivable via the windshield in an eye region of the vehicle occupant, and a control unit, which is configured: to operate at least one part of the LED diodes of the micro-LED display for sensing to detect a light intensity of incident light; to detect a presence of a foreign object on the display surface depending on the measured light intensities in the LED diodes which are operated for sensing; and to signal a disruption of the display of the display image during the detection of the foreign object on the display surface (see para. [0012], [0025]-[0028], [0031]-[0034] and as set forth in claim 12 above).
FUJITA teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of detecting a presence of a foreign object on the display surface depending on the measured light intensities in the LED diodes which are operated for sensing, and operating at least one part of LED diodes of the micro-LED display for sensing to detect a respective light intensity.
However, in a related field of endeavor Knox teaches the controller can then be configured to separate the intensity values in one group (i.e. relating to one wavelength band) from the other, e.g. the outputs of the sensor elements can be selectively “read out” to obtain the two wavelength band signals, see para. [0638].
Most preferably the light emitters are LEDs. Over time the output of the LEDs may vary in either absolute or comparative intensity or both. With the dual wavelength system variations in absolute intensity can be tolerated to a certain extent so long as the relative measure of intensity used by the system for detecting particles remains substantially constant, see para. [0034].
a foreign body detection system adapted to detect a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and including a light source adapted to illuminate the outer surface and any foreign body on or near the outer surface, see para. [0248].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of FUJITA such that a controller can separate the intensity values in one group (i.e. relating to one wavelength band) from the other (to detect a respective light intensity), to detect a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and over time the output of the LEDs (such as micro-LEDs) may vary in either absolute or comparative intensity or both as taught by Knox, for the purpose of detecting a foreign body on or near an outer surface of the optically transmissive wall portion, and including a light source adapted to illuminate the outer surface and any foreign body on or near the outer surface.
Regarding claim 20, FUJITA according to claim 19 further teaches the incident light is incident ambient light (i.e., light emitted by a light source, see para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 21, FUJITA according to claim 19 further teaches the display unit is arranged in a recess such that the display image which is represented on the display surface of the display unit is not directly perceivable in the eye region (as shown at least in FIG. 1, The HUD 100 is built in a dashboard 4 of the automobile 1 such that a part of the HUD 100 is exposed, see para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 22, FUJITA according to claim 19 further teaches the micro-LED display has a matrix of LEDs (i.e., the light source control unit 46 controls each of the R light source 41r, the G light source 41g, and the B light source 41b (e.g., controllable LEDs), para. [0040] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, FUJITA fails to teach an external light source which increases a light intensity of the ambient light (i.e., a light emitting element, such as a laser or a light emitting diode (LED), is used … and may be constituted by one light source, two light sources, or four or more light sources (e.g., external light sources for increasing intensity), see para. [0040] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 24, FUJITA according to claim 23 further teaches the external light source is configured for emitting infrared light, and at least the LEDs of the micro-LED display which are operated for sensing are configured to detect incident infrared light (i.e., a light emitting element, such as a laser (infrared) or a light emitting diode (LED), is used … and may be constituted by one light source, two light sources, or four or more light sources, see para. [0040] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 25, FUJITA teaches a motor vehicle (an automobile 1) comprising: the instrument panel (4) between the windshield (2) of the motor vehicle and a steering column (as shown in FIG. 4); and the reflection display system according to claim 19 (as set forth in claim 19 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 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:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding a part of the LEDs of the micro-LED display is at least temporarily operated actively to emit light and, simultaneously, neighboring LEDs are operated for sensing to detect incidence of light, and the LEDs which are operated for sensing are distributed over an area of the display surface of the micro-LED display between the actively operated LEDs, so that light that is provided by the actively operated LEDs of the micro-LED matrix is reflected at the foreign object located on top and is detectable by the LEDs operated for sensing.
Claims 17-18 depend upon allowable claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoki (US PUB 20200225472) teaches “the HUD part 220A of the vehicle display device 201A may further include a cover member 231A. As shown in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, and an intrusion of foreign objects and a deposition of dust into the HUD housing 21 through the optical-path aperture 21a”, para. [0049].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
January 6, 2026