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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on March 13th, 2023 (JP 2023-038883). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 3rd 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onda et al. (US 2017/0329134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Onda teaches a head-up display device comprising:
a housing including an opening at a top (See, e.g., housing 35 with opening 45 in Figs. 1-2);
a cover that is light-transmissive and closes the opening (See, e.g., the combination of cover 40 and first transmission member 54 in Figs. 1 and 2);
a display element housed in the housing (See, e.g., image generation unit 5 in Fig. 1);
a first optical element disposed on an optical path of display light emitted from the display element (See, e.g., the combination of concave mirror 15 and windshield 21 Fig. 1); and
a second optical element that is disposed ahead of the first optical element on a portion of the optical path of the display light after the first optical element, and reflects the display light toward the opening (See, e.g., the combination of mirror 18 and transmission member 55 in Figs. 1 and 2 which is “ahead” of the first optical element depending on where you consider the start/end of the optical path and note Fig. 1 shows the reflection), wherein
the cover has a downward convex shape and includes a curved surface portion that descends in a direction from a front end portion of the cover toward a rear end portion of the cover (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows this as the “front end” corresponds to the rightmost and the “rear end” corresponds to the leftmost end of transmissive member 54, so the front end descends along the curve towards the rear end as cited herein),
the first optical element has an effect of converging the display light (Note this is how concave mirrors work and the claim does not require all of the sub elements of the first optical element to be converging), and
among display light emitted from one end portion, among end portions of the display element, that is closer in distance to the first optical element, light incident on an upper end portion of the first optical element travels toward a point below an upper edge of the second optical element (Note that given the cited elements above, in the view shown in Fig. 2 this limitation is met because light from element 10 is incident on the upper part of mirror 15 and travels to the bottom part of element 55, which meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Onda teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein among the display light emitted from the one end portion of the display element, light incident on a lower end portion of the first optical element travels with an upward vector to the second optical element (See, e.g., light paths in Fig. 1 which show light from mirror 15 traveling up to element 55 which has been taken to be part of the second optical element).
Regarding claim 4, Onda teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the rear end portion of the cover is located below the front end portion of the cover (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows this as the “front end” corresponds to the rightmost and the “rear end” corresponds to the leftmost end of transmissive member 54, so the front end descends along the curve towards the rear end as cited herein).
Regarding claim 5, Onda teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first optical element is a concave mirror (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above and Fig. 1 which shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Onda teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first optical element is a convex lens (See, e.g., windshield 21 in Fig. 1 which is shown to curve and acts as a lens as it is transmissive to light).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda et al. (US 2017/0329134 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Onda teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein D > |fv| is satisfied, where D is a distance from a center of the display element to a center of the first optical element, and fv is a focal length of the first optical element.
However, the ratio of D to fv corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case there are a finite number of solutions, (D is either higher, the same, or lower than fv) and the ratio directly impacts the quality of the image as the focal length changes. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify this ratio to be within the claimed range for optimizing image quality, among other things.
Regarding claim 7, Onda teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein at least part of the display element is located above a lower edge of the second optical element.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to change the physical orientation of the elements of the device such that a part of the cited display element would be located above a lower edge of the second optical element, for the purpose of optimizing the interior configuration of the device and to optimize the compactness of the device. Note depending on the view shown in a given drawing this limitation can also be met, as “above” and “below” are arbitrary terms without a frame of reference. Further, note that the normal operation of the device would not change because the physical locations of the optical elements can be structured such that the light paths/image passed still reach the same locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872