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
Claims 12-15 and 17-25 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-11 and 16 are canceled; claim 12 is currently amended; claims 13-15 and 17-23 are previously presented; and claims 24-25 are newly added. The amendment dated March 26, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that “However, Ochiai does not disclose that the heating device 100 is provided "in order to heat the display screen to remove condensation or frost from the display screen," as recited in amended claim 12. Ochiai does not include the recited display screen, and discloses that the PTC heater layer 21 radiates thermal energy that heats the window glass portion Wa, such that clouding due to condensation and frost adhesion is suppressed in the window glass portion Wa” (Remarks, Pages 8-9).
The examiner respectively disagrees, because radiating thermal energy to heat the window glass teaches heating an optical element, or a display screen. See Para. [0039] of Ochiai, “The thermal energy directly heats the window glass portion Wa … As a result, clouding due to condensation and frost adhesion is suppressed in the window glass portion Wa”. The examiner considers that the applicant does not claim “a display screen is a screen of a display”. Rather, the applicant acknowledges a display unit 2 is a light-emitting display unit, such as an LCD display, and the display screen 5 merely reflects the image from the display unit, as an optical elment (Paras. [0041]-[0042], [0045]).
The applicant further argues that “Ochiai does not disclose that the heating device 100 is arranged parallel to the recited reflection layer” (Remarks, Page 9).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly amended claim 12 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection set forth below. The new ground of rejection cites the prior art of Ochiai, Figs. 1-2 and Paras. [0032] and [0036].
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.
Claims 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammenga (US 20210208426), of record, in view of Ochiai (US 20200275533), of record.
Regarding claim 12, Cammenga discloses a display screen for a reflection display system (124 for 100 in Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) in a motor vehicle (Fig. 3 and Para. [0020]), the display screen comprising:
a reflection layer (147; Para. [0021] “Viewing screen 124 may be configured to display the projected images and may comprise a reflective layer. In some embodiments, reflective layer may comprise a reflective linear polarizer 147”) to be arranged in front of or on a lower area of a windshield of the motor vehicle (147 arranged in front of or on a lower area of 125) in order to reflect a display image in a display area (Para. [0020] and [0026]), wherein:
the display screen is formed separately from the windshield (Fig. 1).
Cammenga does not necessarily disclose a heating layer is provided in order to heat the display screen to remove condensation or frost from the display screen, and
the heating layer is arranged parallel to the reflection layer.
However, Ochiai teaches providing a heating layer (20 in Figs. 1-2; Para. [0036]) in order to heat an optical element to remove condensation or frost from the optical element (Paras. [0033], [0039]), and
the heating layer is arranged parallel to a reflection layer (30 in Figs. 1-2; Para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Ochiai, wherein a heating layer is provided in order to heat the display screen to remove condensation or frost from the display screen, and the heating layer is arranged parallel to the reflection layer, for the purpose of further providing a heating layer to suppress condensation or frost, while suppressing the heating layer reflected on the window glass (Ochiai: Paras. [0032]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and Cammenga further discloses wherein the display screen extends over more than half of a width of the windshield in order to enable a panoramic display (see the viewing screen 224 in Fig. 3; Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Cammenga does not explicitly disclose the display screen has a height of between 5 and 30 cm.
However, Cammenga teaches the display screen has a limited height, and the display screen is disposed on the lower side of the windshield (see Fig. 3).
Because a windshield generally has a limited height to accommodate the upper body of a driver, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga, wherein the display screen has a height of between 5 and 30 cm, for the purpose of displaying or reflecting image while not disrupting driving (Cammenga: Para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Cammenga does not explicitly disclose at least one of an upper edge or a lower edge of the display screen is curved.
However, Ochiai teaches laminated panes for a windshield can be curved (Para. [0046]).
Because Cammenga already suggests the display screen be incorporated with the windshield itself, which has an upper edge or a lower edge (Fig. 3 and Para. [0030]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Ochiai, wherein at least one of an upper edge or a lower edge of the display screen is curved, for the purpose of considering a curved windshield (Ochiai: Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and Cammenga further discloses a reflection display system for a motor vehicle (100 in Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0020]-[0021]), the reflection display system comprising:
the display screen according to claim 12;
the windshield; and
a display unit (120) for displaying a display image (Para. [0020]), wherein:
the display screen and the display unit are arranged so that a display image is perceptible in an ocular area of a user (Fig. 3 and Para. [0031]), and
the display screen is arranged on or in front of the lower area of the windshield (see the viewing screen 124 in Fig. 1 and 224 in Fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammenga in view of Ochiai, and in further view of Huber (US 20210263311), of record.
Regarding claim 13, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Cammenga does not explicitly disclose a black layer is provided to form an opaque display area.
However, Huber teaches providing a black layer to form an opaque display area (see Figs. 1-2 where a black matt coating 14 is provided; Para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Huber, wherein a black layer is provided to form an opaque display area, for the purpose of covering an unwanted surface of a display (Huber: Para. [0062]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammenga in view of Ochiai, and in further view of Chen (US 20170192233), of record.
Regarding claim 14, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Cammenga does not explicitly disclose a holding device is provided to fasten the display screen on the windshield.
However, Chen teaches a holding device for a vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 4; Paras. [0002], [0010]) for fastening a reflection layer on a windshield (Fig. 4; the reflection sheet 3 fastened on the windshield W; Para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Chen, wherein a holding device is provided to fasten the display screen on the windshield, for the purpose of providing a holding device for the display screen (Chen: Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
Cammenga does not necessarily disclose the display screen has openings for receiving holding pins, which are part of the holding device.
However, Chen teaches a holding device for a vehicle (Figs. 1 and 4; Paras. [0002], [0010]), wherein a reflection layer has openings for receiving holding pins, which are part of the holding device (Fig. 1; 3 includes 302 for receiving 317; Para [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Chen, wherein the display screen has openings for receiving holding pins, which are part of the holding device, for the purpose of providing a holding device for the display screen (Chen: Para. [0048]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammenga in view of Ochiai, and in further view of Hasegawa (US 20220371440), of record.
Regarding claim 21, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 20 above.
Cammenga does not disclose the lower area of the windshield is formed as a black print area or corresponds to the black print area, and
the display screen is configured so that an upper edge of the display screen terminates flush with the black print area with respect to a horizontal direction or lies below the black print area.
However, Hasegawa teaches providing a darkly colored area on the lower side of a windshield (210b below 210a in Figs. 4 and 7; Para. [0061]), and an attachment area for a display device is configured so that an upper edge of the attachment area terminates flush with the darkly colored area with respect to a horizontal direction or lies below the darkly colored area (see the upper edge of 211 and the lower edge of 210b in Figs. 4 and 7; Para. [0025]) (regarding the term “an upper edge of the display screen terminates flush with the black print area”, the examiner considers Fig. 1b of the present application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display screen as disclosed by Cammenga with the teachings of Hasegawa, wherein the lower area of the windshield is formed as a black print area or corresponds to the black print area, and the display screen is configured so that an upper edge of the display screen terminates flush with the black print area with respect to a horizontal direction or lies below the black print area, for the purpose of providing the non-transmissive area as needed (Hasegawa: Para. [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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 22, Cammenga as modified by Ochiai discloses the limitations of claim 20 above.
Chen further teaches the display screen is held in guides by holding elements fastened on the windshield (Fig. 4; the reflection sheet 3 fastened on the windshield W by holding elements 5, 21, 22, 31; Para. [0042]), and the guides are arranged so that upon receiving the holding elements, the guides hold the display screen under surface tension (see Para. [0042] teaching the elastic torque generated and the reflection sheet 3 touching the windshield W).
However, Cammenga and Chen fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “so that the display screen is curved in a direction of the windshield”. The examiner further considered Nakamura et al. (US 20020166273, hereinafter “Nakamura”) and Riebe (US 20180356634). For example, Nakamura teaches providing a curved reflector (53 in Fig. 1), but fails to disclose the reflector curved in a direction of the windshield and the holding elements as recited in claim 22. Cammenga, Huber, Chen, Ochiai, Hasegawa, Nakamura and Riebe, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Cammenga discloses the limitations of claim 20 above.
Chen further teaches the display screen is held in guides by holding elements fastened on the windshield (Fig. 4; the reflection sheet 3 fastened on the windshield W by holding elements 5, 21, 22, 31; Para. [0042]), and the guides are arranged so that upon receiving the holding elements, the guides hold the display screen under surface tension (see Para. [0042] teaching the elastic torque generated and the reflection sheet 3 touching the windshield W).
However, Cammenga and Chen fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “so that the display screen is curved in a direction of the windshield and is pressed against or presses on the windshield”. The examiner further considered Nakamura and Riebe. For example, Nakamura teaches providing a curved reflector (53 in Fig. 1), but fails to disclose the reflector curved in a direction of the windshield and the holding elements as recited in claim 23. Cammenga, Huber, Chen, Ochiai, Hasegawa, Nakamura and Riebe, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 23.
Claims 24-25 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24, Cammenga discloses a reflection display system for a motor vehicle (100 in Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0020]-[0021]), the reflection display system comprising: a windshield (125); a display screen (124) comprising a reflection layer (147; Para. [0021]) to be arranged in front of or on a lower area of the windshield (147 arranged in front of or on a lower area of 125) in order to reflect a display image in a display area (Para. [0020] and [0026]); and a display unit (120) for displaying a display image (Para. [0020]), wherein: the display screen is formed separately from the windshield (Fig. 1), the display screen and the display unit are arranged so that a display image is perceptible in an ocular area of a user (Fig. 3 and Para. [0031]), the display screen is arranged on or in front of the lower area of the windshield (see the viewing screen 124 in Fig. 1 and 224 in Fig. 3).
Chen further teaches the display screen is held in guides by holding elements fastened on the windshield (Fig. 4; the reflection sheet 3 fastened on the windshield W by holding elements 5, 21, 22, 31; Para. [0042]), and the guides are arranged so that upon receiving the holding elements, the guides hold the display screen under surface tension (see Para. [0042] teaching the elastic torque generated and the reflection sheet 3 touching the windshield W).
However, Cammenga and Chen fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “so that the display screen is curved in a direction of the windshield”. The examiner further considered Nakamura and Riebe. For example, Nakamura teaches providing a curved reflector (53 in Fig. 1), but fails to disclose the reflector curved in a direction of the windshield and the holding elements as recited in claim 24. Cammenga, Huber, Chen, Ochiai, Hasegawa, Nakamura and Riebe, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Cammenga discloses a reflection display system for a motor vehicle (100 in Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0020]-[0021]), the reflection display system comprising: a windshield (125); a display screen (124) comprising a reflection layer (147; Para. [0021]) to be arranged in front of or on a lower area of the windshield (147 arranged in front of or on a lower area of 125) in order to reflect a display image in a display area (Para. [0020] and [0026]); and a display unit (120) for displaying a display image (Para. [0020]), wherein: the display screen is formed separately from the windshield (Fig. 1), the display screen and the display unit are arranged so that a display image is perceptible in an ocular area of a user (Fig. 3 and Para. [0031]), the display screen is arranged on or in front of the lower area of the windshield (see the viewing screen 124 in Fig. 1 and 224 in Fig. 3).
Chen further teaches the display screen is held in guides by holding elements fastened on the windshield (Fig. 4; the reflection sheet 3 fastened on the windshield W by holding elements 5, 21, 22, 31; Para. [0042]), and the guides are arranged so that upon receiving the holding elements, the guides hold the display screen under surface tension (see Para. [0042] teaching the elastic torque generated and the reflection sheet 3 touching the windshield W).
However, Cammenga and Chen fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “so that the display screen is curved in a direction of the windshield and is pressed against or presses on the windshield”. The examiner further considered Nakamura and Riebe. For example, Nakamura teaches providing a curved reflector (53 in Fig. 1), but fails to disclose the reflector curved in a direction of the windshield and the holding elements as recited in claim 25. Cammenga, Huber, Chen, Ochiai, Hasegawa, Nakamura and Riebe, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 25.
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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (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 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871