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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 03/06/2025 and 03/05/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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 12-13 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 12 recites the limitation "a value of a" and “a value of b” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "a value of a" and “a value of b” will be interpreted as color values.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a value of a" and “a value of b” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "a value of a" and “a value of b” will be interpreted as color values.
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 1-4, 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sadakane discloses in at least figures 1-2B and 12, Head-up display glass (HUD system 1 fig. 1) comprising laminated glass (laminated glass 10 fig. 1), wherein the laminated glass (laminated glass 10 fig. 1) has a first surface (vehicle exterior side 12 fig. 2B) and a second surface (vehicle interior side 11 fig. 2B) opposite to the first surface (sides 11 and 12 are opposite each other fig. 2B), and the second surface (vehicle interior side 11 fig. 2B) comprises a display region (display region R fig. 2A) and a non-display region (glass plate 11 has an area outside the display region R fig. 2A);
a first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 fig. 12 is 50-500nm in thickness pg. 74 para. 3 of translation) is disposed in (the coating 25 is in the region R fig. 12) the display region (display region R fig. 2A), the first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 fig. 12) comprises at least one first high-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a high refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) and at least one first low-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a low refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) that are alternately stacked from the second surface outwards (the first coating may include alternating layers of high and low refractive indices pg. 74 para. 5 of translation stacked on the vehicle interior side 11 fig. 12), the at least one first high-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging 1.9 to 2.7 (the refractive index of the high refractive index layer of can be 2.1 pg. 74 para. 7 of translation), and the at least one first low-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 (the refractive index of the low refractive index layer can be 1.6 1 pg. 74 para. 7 of translation); and
the display region (the display region R is on the interior surface 11 fig. 12 and reflects the p polarized light pg. 66 para. 1 of translation) has a reflectivity greater than or equal to 10% (Rp_pol (%) is 10.2 example 1 fig. 15) for P-polarized light incident at an angle ranging from 55° to 75° (Rp_pol (%) = reflection of the vehicle interior surface in the visible range of p-polarized light at an incident angle close to the Brewster angle (57°) pg. 79 para. 1 of translation).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose, for visible light incident at an angle ranging from 0° to 10° a reflectivity of the non-display region is less than a reflectivity of the display region,
a reflectivity of the non-display region is less than a reflectivity of the display region.
Additionally Hirano discloses in a least figure 1, for visible light incident at an angle ranging from 0° to 10° (light reflectance with incident angle of approximately zero degrees col. 3 lines 15-16) a reflectivity (the non-coated windshield glass 2 has an Rv = 8.5% col. 5 lines 64-66) of the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) is less than (the reflectivity of the non-coated windshield glass 2 is less than the reflectivity of the reflective coating 1 col. 3 lines 60-66) a reflectivity (the reflective coating 1 has an Rv of 14.5% col. 5 lines 60-61) of the display region (reflective coating 1 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a reflectivity of the non-display region less than the reflectivity of the display region as taught by Hirano in the HUD of Sadakane. When the visible light reflectance is below 9 %, there is apprehension such that an image to be projected becomes unable to be seen clearly (col. 3 lines 17-24).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10°, a difference between the reflectivity of the display region and the reflectivity of the non-display region is greater than or equal to 2%.
However Hirano further discloses, wherein for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10° (light reflectance with incident angle of approximately zero degrees col. 3 lines 15-16), a difference between the reflectivity (the reflective coating 1 has an Rv of 14.5% col. 5 lines 60-61) of the display region (reflective coating 1 fig. 1) and the reflectivity (the non-coated windshield glass 2 has an Rv = 8.5% col. 5 lines 64-66) of the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 2% (the difference is 6% as a result of the values above).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a reflectivity of the non-display region less than the reflectivity of the display region as taught by Hirano in the HUD of Sadakane. When the visible light reflectance is below 9 %, there is apprehension such that an image to be projected becomes unable to be seen clearly. On the contrary, when the visible light reflectance exceeds 18%, the visible light transmittance (Tv) or 70% or higher, which is required to be the transmittance of the windshield glass becomes unable to be obtained (col. 3 lines 17-24).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10°, the reflectivity of the display region ranges from 10% to 30%, and the reflectivity of the non-display region ranges from 1% to 15%.
However Hirano discloses in at least figure 1, wherein for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10° (light reflectance with incident angle of approximately zero degrees col. 3 lines 15-16), the reflectivity of the display region (reflective coating 1 fig. 1) ranges from 10% to 30% (the reflective coating 1 has an Rv of 14.5% col. 5 lines 60-61), and the reflectivity of the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) ranges from 1% to 15% (the non-coated windshield glass 2 has an Rv = 8.5% col. 5 lines 64-66).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a reflectivity of the non-display region less than the reflectivity of the display region as taught by Hirano in the HUD of Sadakane. When the visible light reflectance is below 9 %, there is apprehension such that an image to be projected becomes unable to be seen clearly. On the contrary, when the visible light reflectance exceeds 18%, the visible light transmittance (Tv) or 70% or higher, which is required to be the transmittance of the windshield glass becomes unable to be obtained (col. 3 lines 17-24).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sadakane further discloses, wherein for the P-polarized light incident at the angle ranging from 55° to 75° P polarized light incident at 57 deg pg. 76 para. 10), a reflectivity (the reflectivity of the laminated glass LG1 which is the windshield glass of example 1 at 57° is 3% pg. 77 para. 1) of the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) is less than (the reflectivity of the windshield glass is less than the p polarized reflective film as shown in the values of ex. 1) the reflectivity (Rp_pol (%) is 10.2 example 1 fig. 15 where (Rp_pol (%) = reflection of the vehicle interior surface in the visible range of p-polarized light at an incident angle close to the Brewster angle (57°) pg. 79 para. 1 of translation) of the display region (P-polarized light-reflecting coat 25 is part of display region R fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the non-display region is bare laminated glass.
However Hirano further disclose, wherein the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) is bare laminated glass (the windshield glass 2 is a laminated glass col. 5 lines 25-30 has a portion not covered by the transparent increased reflective film 1 which is formed at a predetermined portion on the surface of the windshield glass 2 col. 2 lines 28-31 as described as “the nano coating is only disposed on the display region of the second surface of the laminated glass, and the nano coating only covers a local region of the second surface” in paragraph [0061] of the current application).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a laminated glass for the non-display region as taught by Hirano in the HUD of Sadakane. The laminated glass is used for safety (col. 5 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Sadakane further discloses, wherein the head-up display glass (HUD system 1 fig. 1) further comprises one or more of an anti-fingerprint coating (optional feature not required by claim), a thermal insulation coating (optional feature not required by claim), an electric heating coating (optional feature not required by claim), an anti-ultraviolet (UV) coating (glass plate 11 a coating including a film having ultraviolet ray blocking pg. 69 para. 7 of translation), or an anti-fog coating (optional feature not required by claim).
Regarding claim 20, Sadakane discloses in at least figures 1-2B and 12, A head-up display system (HUD system 1 fig. 1) comprising a projection unit (light source 50 fig. 1) and head-up display glass (HUD system 1 fig. 1);
Head-up display glass (HUD system 1 fig. 1) comprising laminated glass (laminated glass 10 fig. 1), wherein the laminated glass (laminated glass 10 fig. 1) has a first surface (vehicle exterior side 12 fig. 2B) and a second surface (vehicle interior side 11 fig. 2B) opposite to the first surface (sides 11 and 12 are opposite each other fig. 2B), and the second surface (vehicle interior side 11 fig. 2B) comprises a display region (display region R fig. 2A) and a non-display region (glass plate 11 has an area outside the display region R fig. 2A);
a first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 fig. 12 is 50-500nm in thickness pg. 74 para. 3 of translation) is disposed in (the coating 25 is in the region R fig. 12) the display region (display region R fig. 2A), the first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 fig. 12) comprises at least one first high-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a high refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) and at least one first low-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a low refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) that are alternately stacked from the second surface outwards (the first coating may include alternating layers of high and low refractive indices pg. 74 para. 5 of translation stacked on the vehicle interior side 11 fig. 12), the at least one first high-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging 1.9 to 2.7 (the refractive index of the high refractive index layer of can be 2.1 pg. 74 para. 7 of translation), and the at least one first low-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 (the refractive index of the low refractive index layer can be 1.6 1 pg. 74 para. 7 of translation); and
the display region (the display region R is on the interior surface 11 fig. 12 and reflects the p polarized light pg. 66 para. 1 of translation) has a reflectivity greater than or equal to 10% (Rp_pol (%) is 10.2 example 1 fig. 15) for P-polarized light incident at an angle ranging from 55° to 75° (Rp_pol (%) = reflection of the vehicle interior surface in the visible range of p-polarized light at an incident angle close to the Brewster angle (57°) pg. 79 para. 1 of translation).
wherein the projection unit (light source 50 fig. 1) is configured to produce P-polarized light (the light source 50 is a light source that emits p-polarized visible light pg. 64 para. 7 of translation), and the P-polarized light is incident onto (the p-polarized light is emitted from light source 50 and incident on to film 15 fig. 1 in display region R fig. 2B ) the display region (display region R fig. 2A).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose,
for visible light incident at an angle ranging from 0° to 10° a reflectivity of the non-display region is less than a reflectivity of the display region,
a reflectivity of the non-display region is less than a reflectivity of the display region.
Additionally Hirano discloses in a least figure 1, for visible light incident at an angle ranging from 0° to 10° (light reflectance with incident angle of approximately zero degrees col. 3 lines 15-16) a reflectivity (the non-coated windshield glass 2 has an Rv = 8.5% col. 5 lines 64-66) of the non-display region (windshield glass 2 fig. 1) is less than (the reflectivity of the non-coated windshield glass 2 is less than the reflectivity of the reflective coating 1 col. 3 lines 60-66) a reflectivity (the reflective coating 1 has an Rv of 14.5% col. 5 lines 60-61) of the display region (reflective coating 1 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a reflectivity of the non-display region less than the reflectivity of the display region as taught by Hirano in the HUD of Sadakane. When the visible light reflectance is below 9 %, there is apprehension such that an image to be projected becomes unable to be seen clearly (col. 3 lines 17-24).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Schiavoni et al. (US 20200096854 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the second surface further comprises a transition region located between the display region and the non-display region; and
for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10°, a reflectivity of the transition region is greater than the reflectivity of the non-display region and less than the reflectivity of the display region.
However Schiavoni discloses in at least figure 1, wherein the second surface (transparent glazing 1 fig. 1) further comprises a transition region (transition zone ZT fig. 1) located between (the transition zone ZT is between the screen zone ZE and the peripheral zone ZP fig. 1) the display region (screen zone ZE fig. 1) and the non-display region (peripheral zone ZP fig. 1); and
for the visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10° (specular reflection is when a given angle of incidence is reflected with an angular deviation less than or equal to 2.5° and diffuse reflection is when a given angle of incidence is reflected with an angular deviation greater than or equal to 2.5° paragraph [0018]), a reflectivity of the transition region (the transition zone ZT is between the screen zone ZE and the peripheral zone ZP fig. 1) is greater than (the diffuse light reflection can decrease continuously from the screen zone along a gradient paragraph [0020] resulting in a higher diffuse reflection in the transition region than the peripheral region closer to the screen region) the reflectivity of the non-display region (peripheral zone ZP fig. 1) and less than (the diffuse light reflection at any point of the transition zone is less than or equal to the diffuse light reflection at any point of the screen zone paragraph [0011]) the reflectivity of the display region (screen zone ZE fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a transition zone to with a reflection gradient as taught by Schiavoni in the HUD of Sadakane. Advantageously, on each side of the layered element and in any direction joining the screen zone to the peripheral zone, the change in diffuse light reflection in the transition zone is less than or equal to (20%)RL(ZE)/mm, where RL(ZE) is the mean total light reflection of the screen zone paragraph [0053]).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (visible light incident at the angle ranging from 0° to 10° required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Schiavoni (diffuse reflection is when a given angle of incidence is reflected with an angular deviation greater than or equal to 2.5°). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claims 7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Baloukas et al. (US 20200156992 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Sadakane further discloses, wherein a second coating (a coating having a function of water repellency, ultraviolet rays or infrared rays, or a coating having low reflection characteristics and low radiation characteristics pg. 69 para. 7 of translation) is disposed (the coating may be provided on the outside of the glass plate 11 pg. 69 para. 7 of translation) in the non-display region (glass plate 11 has an area outside the display region R fig. 2A),
wherein the second coating (a coating having a function of water repellency, ultraviolet rays or infrared rays, or a coating having low reflection characteristics and low radiation characteristics 11 pg. 69 para. 7 of translation),
a thickness of the first nano-coating (the thickness of the p-polarized light reflecting coating 25 is, for example, at least 50 nm and at most 500 nm paragraph [0132]).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose, a second nano-coating comprising at least one second high-refractive-index layer and at least one second low-refractive-index layer that are alternately stacked from the second surface outwards,
the at least one second high-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.9 to 2.7, and
the at least one second low-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8; and
a thickness of the second nano-coating is smaller than a thickness of the first nano-coating.
However Baloukas discloses in at least figure 1, a second nano-coating (protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film with a thickness greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 100nm paragraph [0083], and can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films paragraph [0107] such as the second coating of Sadakane above)) comprising at least one second high-refractive-index layer (high refractive index material ZrO2 paragraph [0107]) and at least one second low-refractive-index layer (low refractive index material SiO2 paragraph [01017]) that are alternately stacked (there are layers of high index and low index material paragraph [0107]) from the second surface outwards (the protective film has a thickness 94 extending from the primary surface 12 on the substrate 10 to the outer surface 92B paragraph [0066]),
the at least one second high-refractive-index layer (high refractive index material ZrO2 paragraph [0107]) each has a refractive index ranging from 1.9 to 2.7 (ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.21 table 1), and
the at least one second low-refractive-index layer (low refractive index material SiO2 paragraph [01017]) each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 (SiO2 has a refractive index of 1.47table 1); and
a thickness (the thickness 94 between about 200 nm and 2,000 nm paragraph [0083]) of the second nano-coating (protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film paragraph [0083]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coating as taught by Baloukas as the second nano coating in the HUD of Sadakane. The protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films (Baloukas paragraph [0107]) similar to the coating film having a function for water repellency, UV or IR cut, or a coating film having low reflection or low radiation properties (Sadakane paragraph [0084]).
Additionally, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (a thickness of the second nano-coating is smaller than a thickness of the first nano-coating required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by the Sadakane (the thickness of the p-polarized light reflecting coating 25 is, for example, at least 50 nm and at most 500 nm) and Baloukas (the thickness 94 between about 200 nm and 2,000 nm). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Sadakane further discloses, wherein a second coating (a coating having a function of water repellency, ultraviolet rays or infrared rays, or a coating having low reflection characteristics and low radiation characteristics pg. 69 para. 7 of translation) is disposed (the coating may be provided on the outside of the glass plate pg. 69 para. 7 of translation) in the non-display region (glass plate 11 has an area outside the display region R fig. 2A),
and the second coating (a coating having a function of water repellency, ultraviolet rays or infrared rays, or a coating having low reflection characteristics and low radiation characteristics pg. 69 para. 7 of translation) is different from (the second coating has a function of water repellency, ultraviolet rays or infrared rays, or a coating having low reflection characteristics and low radiation characteristics pg. 69 para. 7 of translation and is different from a p polarized light reflective coating 25 pg. 76 para. 2) the first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 with light reflecting properties related to the HUD system pg. 76 para. 2).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose, the second nano-coating comprises at least one second high-refractive-index layer and at least one second low-refractive-index layer that are alternately stacked from the second surface outwards,
the at least one second high-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.9 to 2.7, and
the at least one second low-refractive-index layer each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8.
However Baloukas discloses in at least figure 1, the second nano-coating (protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film paragraph [0083] and can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films paragraph [0107] such as the second coating of Sadakane above) comprises at least one second high-refractive-index layer (high refractive index material ZrO2 paragraph [0107]) and at least one second low-refractive-index layer (low refractive index material SiO2 paragraph [01017]) that are alternately stacked (there are layers of high index and low index material paragraph [0107]) from the second surface outwards (the protective film has a thickness 94 extending from the primary surface 12 on the substrate 10 to the outer surface 92B paragraph [0066]),
the at least one second high-refractive-index layer (high refractive index material ZrO2 paragraph [0107]) each has a refractive index ranging from 1.9 to 2.7 (ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.21 table 1), and
the at least one second low-refractive-index layer (low refractive index material SiO2 paragraph [01017]) each has a refractive index ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 (SiO2 has a refractive index of 1.47 table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coating as taught by Baloukas as the second nano coating in the HUD of Sadakane. The protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films (Baloukas paragraph [0107]) similar to the coating film having a function for water repellency, UV or IR cut, or a coating film having low reflection or low radiation properties (Sadakane paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the second nano-coating and the first nano-coating are different in at least one of a material of each layer, an arrangement of each layer, or a thickness of each layer.
However Baloukas further discloses, wherein the second nano-coating (protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film paragraph [0083] and can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films paragraph [0107] such as the second coating of Sadakane above) and the first nano-coating (first nano-coating taught above by Sadakane) are different in at least one of a material of each layer (first nano-coating taught above by Sadakane can be made from silver, gold, copper, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and tin oxide Sadakane paragraph [0132] which is different from the materials ZrO2, SiO2 and Al2O3 of the protective film 90 Baloukas paragraph [0107]), an arrangement of each layer (not required by claim), or a thickness of each layer (first nano-coating taught above by Sadakane has a thickness of, at least 50 nm and at most 500 nm Sadakane paragraph [0132] which is different from the thickness 94 of the protective film 90 between about 200 nm and 2,000 nm Baloukas paragraph [0083]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coating as taught by Baloukas as the second nano coating in the HUD of Sadakane. The protective film 90 can be a multi-layer film can be an anti-reflective coatings, IR blocking films, UV blocking films (Baloukas paragraph [0107]) similar to the coating film having a function for water repellency, UV or IR cut, or a coating film having low reflection or low radiation properties (Sadakane paragraph [0084]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) and Baloukas et al. (US 20200156992 A1) as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Hart (US 20200101692 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and Sadakane further discloses, a thickness of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the first layer of the high refractive index material may optionally be made of one or a plurality of sublayers and may be within a range of from 50 to 100 nm pg. 75 para.2 of translation).
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein a thickness of each of the at least one second high-refractive-index layer is smaller than a thickness of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer.
However Hart discloses in at least table 1, wherein a thickness of each of the at least one second high-refractive-index layer (first portion high index total thickness is 2075.11 nm as a result of the sum of all ALOxNy layers in table 1) is smaller than (the thickness of the first portion high refractive index layers is smaller than the second portion high refractive index layers table 1) a thickness of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer (second portion high index total thickness is 2105.11 nm as a result of the sum of all ALOxNy layers in table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coatings as taught by Hart as the coatings in the HUD of Sadakane. A difference in the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the first portion 201 relative to the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the second portion 203 can offset the thickness of an additional sub-layer in the second portion 203 paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and Sadakane further discloses, a thickness of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the first layer of the low refractive index material may optionally be made of one or a plurality of sublayers and may be within a range of from 70 to 160 nm pg. 75 para.2 of translation).
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein a thickness of each of the at least one second low-refractive-index layer is smaller than a thickness of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer.
However Hart discloses in at least table 1, wherein a thickness of each of the at least one second low-refractive-index layer (first portion low index total thickness is 106.19 nm as a result of the sum of all SiO2 layers in table 1) is smaller than (the thickness of the first portion low refractive index layers is smaller than the second portion high refractive index layers table 1) a thickness of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer (second portion high index total thickness is 205.19 nm as a result of the sum of all SiO2 layers in table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coatings as taught by Hart as the coatings in the HUD of Sadakane. A difference in the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the first portion 201 relative to the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the second portion 203 can offset the thickness of an additional sub-layer in the second portion 203 paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and Sadakane further discloses, wherein the at least one first low-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a low refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) each comprises at least two first low-refractive-index sub-layers (the first coating may include two or more layers of a low refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation),
a thickness of a first low-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the first layer of the low refractive index material may optionally be made of one or a plurality of sublayers and may be within a range of from 70 to 160 nm paragraph [0145]) farthest from (any of the low-index layers has a thickness from 70 to 160 nm paragraph [0145]) the laminated glass (glass plate 11 fig. 12).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose, the at least one second low-refractive-index layer each comprises at least two second low-refractive-index sub-layers, and
a thickness of a first low-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer farthest from the laminated glass is larger than a thickness of a second low-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one second low-refractive-index layer farthest from the laminated glass.
However Hart discloses in at least example 1, the at least one second low-refractive-index layer (sum of all first portion -SiO2 layers table 1) each comprises at least two second low-refractive-index sub-layers (individual first portion SiO2 layers table 1), and
a thickness of a first low-refractive-index sub-layer (individual second portion SiO2 layers table 1) of each of the at least one first low-refractive-index layer (individual second portion SiO2 layers table 1) farthest from (the SiO2 layer in the second portion furthest from the glass is 99 nm thick table 1) the laminated glass (substrate glass table 1) is larger than (the SiO2 layer in the second portion furthest from the glass is larger than the thickness of the SiO2 layer in the first portion furthest from the glass table 1) a thickness of a second low-refractive-index sub-layer (individual first portion SiO2 layers table 1) of each of the at least one second low-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the SiO2 layer in the first portion furthest from the glass is 0 nm table 1) farthest from the laminated glass (substrate glass table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coatings as taught by Hart as the coatings in the HUD of Sadakane. A difference in the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the first portion 201 relative to the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the second portion 203 can offset the thickness of an additional sub-layer in the second portion 203 paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and Sadakane further discloses, wherein the at least one first high-refractive-index layer (the first coating includes at least one layer of a high refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation) each comprises at least two first high-refractive-index sub-layers (the first coating may include two or more layers of a high refractive index material pg. 74 para. 5 of translation),
a thickness of a first high-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the first layer of the high refractive index material may optionally be made of one or a plurality of sublayers and may be within a range of from 50 to 100 nm paragraph [0145]) closest to (any of the high-index layers has a thickness from 50 to 100 nm paragraph [0145]) the laminated glass (glass plate 11 fig. 12).
Sadakane does not explicitly disclose, the at least one second high-refractive-index layer each comprises at least two second high-refractive-index sub-layers, and a thickness of a first high-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer closest to the laminated glass is larger than a thickness of a second high-refractive-index sub-layer of each of the at least one second high-refractive-index layer closest to the laminated glass.
However Hart discloses in at least example 1, the at least one second high-refractive-index layer (sum of all first portion ALOxNy layers table 1) each comprises at least two second low-refractive-index sub-layers (individual first portion ALOxNy layers table 1), and
a thickness of a first low-refractive-index sub-layer (individual second portion ALOxNy layers table 1) of each of the at least one first high-refractive-index layer (individual second portion ALOxNy layers table 1) farthest from (the ALOxNy layer in the second portion furthest from the glass is 30 nm thick table 1) the laminated glass (substrate glass table 1) is larger than (the ALOxNy layer in the second portion furthest from the glass is larger than the thickness of the ALOxNy layer in the first portion furthest from the glass table 1) a thickness of a second high-refractive-index sub-layer (individual first portion ALOxNy layers table 1) of each of the at least one second high-refractive-index layer (the thickness of the ALOxNy layer in the first portion furthest from the glass is 0 nm table 1) farthest from the laminated glass (substrate glass table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coatings as taught by Hart as the coatings in the HUD of Sadakane. A difference in the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the first portion 201 relative to the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the second portion 203 can offset the thickness of an additional sub-layer in the second portion 203 paragraph [0076]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Masuda (CN 103198203 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein a color of each of the display region and the non-display region has a value of a less than or equal to 2 and a value of b less than or equal to 2 in a color space Lab.
However Masuda discloses in at least table 6, wherein a color of each of the display region (a coating film is in a predetermined area of the display device paragraph [0029] of translation, design color DN-60 table 6) and the non-display region (substrate color DN-85 table 6) has a value of a less than or equal to 2 (DN-60 has an a value of -0.10 at 100% and DN-85 has an a value of -0.56 at 100% table 6) and a value of b less than or equal to 2 (DN-60 has an b value of -0.29 at 100% and DN-85 has an b value of 0.58 at 100% table 6) in a color space Lab (The so-called tristimulus value refers to the psychophysical quantity that represents color in a way that is compatible with human perception, expressed through numerical values such as L*a*b* values paragraph [0090]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a film and substate with the color values as taught by Masuda for the display and non-display regions in the HUD of Sadakane. The RGB values form the pixels can be converted in to L*a*b* values (paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sadakane and Hirano discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a value of a of a color of the display region and a value of a of a color of the non-display region is less than or equal to 2;
and an absolute value of a difference between a value of b of the color of the display region and a value of b of the color of the non-display region is less than or equal to 2.
However Masuda discloses in at least table 6, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a value of a of a color of the display region (a coating film is in a predetermined area of the display device paragraph [0029] of translation, design color DN-60 has an a value of -0.10 at 100% table 6) and a value of a of a color of the non-display region (substrate color DN-85 table 6 has an a value of –0.56 at 100% table 6) is less than or equal to 2 (the absolute value of the difference is 0.46 as a result of the values above);
and an absolute value of a difference between a value of b of the color of the display region (a coating film is in a predetermined area of the display device paragraph [0029] of translation, design color DN-60 has an b value of 0.29 at 100% table 6) and a value of b of the color of the non-display region (substrate color DN-85 has a b value of 0.58 at 100% table 6) is less than or equal to 2 (the absolute value of the difference is 0.29 as a result of the values above).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a film and substate with the color values as taught by Masuda for the display and non-display regions in the HUD of Sadakane. The RGB values form the pixels can be converted in to L*a*b* values (paragraph [0145]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) and Baloukas et al. (US 20200156992 A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Hart (US 20200101692 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and Sadakane further discloses a first nano-coating (p polarized light reflective coating 25 fig. 12) with a layers of TiO2/SiO2 that are alternating and a thickness of 73.2/99.5 for each layer (ex. 1 fig. 14).
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the second nano-coating and the first nano-coating are the same in a material of each layer and an arrangement of each layer, and are different in a thickness of at least one layer.
However Hart discloses in at least table 1, wherein the second nano-coating (first portion table 1) and the first nano-coating (second portion) are the same in a material of each layer (the first and second portions both alternate AlO2 layers and SiO2 layers table 1) and an arrangement of each layer (the arrangement of the AlO2 layers and SiO2 layers is the same in the first and second portions table 1), and are different in a thickness of at least one layer (the last AlO2 and SiO2 layers have different thicknesses from the second portion to the first portion table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer coatings as taught by Hart as the coatings in the HUD of Sadakane. A difference in the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the first portion 201 relative to the thickness of one or more sub-layers in the second portion 203 can offset the thickness of an additional sub-layer in the second portion 203 paragraph [0076]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane (WO 2021145387 A1) in view of Hirano (US 5066102 A) and Baloukas et al. (US 20200156992 A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Burch et al. (US 20100078808 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the first nano-coating or the second nano-coating is manufactured by a coating removal method or a non-uniform coating method, and the coating removal method comprises one or more of a dry etching method, a wet etching method, or a mask method.
However Burch discloses in at least figure 3, wherein the first nano-coating (second dielectric material 24 fig. 3) or the second nano-coating (not required by claim) is manufactured by a coating removal method (the second dielectric material is etched to expose the devices 14-17 paragraph [0020]) or a non-uniform coating method (not required by claim), and the coating removal method (the second dielectric material is etched to expose the devices 14-17 paragraph [0020]) comprises one or more of a dry etching method (the removal method can be laser drilling paragraph [0020]), a wet etching method (the removal method chemical etching paragraph [0020]), or a mask method (not required by claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the etching process for the dialectic coating as taught by Burch in the HUD device of Sadakane. The packages can be used in heads up display devices for high speed data transmission paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sadakane, Hirano and Baloukas discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Sadakane does not disclose, wherein the first nano-coating is obtained by forming a second nano-coating in the display region and the non-display region first, removing the second nano-coating in the display region by a coating removal method, and then forming the first nano-coating in the display region; or
the second nano-coating is obtained by forming a first nano-coating in the display region and the non-display region first, removing the first nano-coating in the non-display region by the coating removal method, and then forming the second nano-coating in the non-display region.
However Burch discloses in at least figure 3, wherein the first nano-coating is obtained by forming a second nano-coating in the display region and the non-display region first, removing the second nano-coating in the display region by a coating removal method, and then forming the first nano-coating in the display region (not required by claim); or
the second nano-coating (first dielectric material 22 fig. 3 is part of the sacrificial coating paragraph [0016]) is obtained by forming (the second dielectric material 24 covers the active regions 18-21 and carrier 12 fig. 3) a first nano-coating (second dielectric material 24 fig. 3 is part of the sacrificial coating formed over devices 14-17 paragraph [0012]) in the display region (the second device 15 comprises an active display paragraph [0029] and has an active surface 19 fig. 3) and the non-display region first (carrier 12 fig. 3), removing the first nano-coating coating (second dielectric material 24 fig. 3) in the non-display region (carrier 12 fig. 3) by the coating removal method (the second dielectric material is etched to expose the devices 14-17 paragraph [0020]), and then forming (the first dielectric material 22 is formed over the carrier 12 fig. 3) the second nano-coating (first dielectric material 22 fig. 3) in the non-display region (carrier 12 fig. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the etching process for the dialectic coating as taught by Burch in the HUD device of Sadakane. The packages can be used in heads up display devices for high speed data transmission paragraph [0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim (US 20220087357 A1) discloses a Helmen shield with a reflective heads up display.
Kubota et al. (US 20180277610 A1) discloses an electrooptical device with display and non-display areas.
Aoki et al. (US 20180017789) discloses a laminated glass with two display areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872