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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/8/2024. These drawings are NOT acceptable.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 8 includes “two individual glare trap curves” that are shown in red (as described in Paragraph 0027 of the specification). All drawings for photographs must be shown in black and white (see MPEP 608.01(f)). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0027 of the specification describes Fig. 8 as including “two individual glare trap curves” that are shown in red. All drawings for photographs must be shown in black and white (see MPEP 608.01(f)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2019/0265468) in view of Schardt et al. (US 2023/0085544).
Regarding Claim 17, Hirata discloses
a head up display arrangement for presenting virtual images to a human driver of a motor vehicle, the arrangement comprising:
at least one picture generation unit (11, Fig. 1) configured to:
emit a first light field (path from Q1 to V1, Fig. 1) such that the first light field follows a first optical path (path of Q1 to V1, Fig. 1), is reflected by a windshield (6, Fig. 1) of the motor vehicle, and is visible to the human driver as a first virtual image (e.g., V1, Fig. 1); and
emit a second light field (path from Q2 to V2, Fig. 1) such that the second light field follows a second optical path (path of Q2 to V2, Fig. 1), is reflected by a windshield (6, Fig. 1) of the motor vehicle, and is visible to the human driver as a second virtual image (V2, Fig. 1);
a first optical elements (21, Fig. 1) positioned in the first optical path ( path from Q1 to V1, Fig. 1) between the at least one picture generation unit ( 11, Fig. 1) and the windshield ( 6, Fig. 1) and configured to pass the first light field (path from Q1 to V1, Fig. 1) , the first optical elements ( 21, Fig. 1) being configured to improve an optical characteristic of the first virtual image as seen by the human driver ( see [0044] 21 can improve aberration correction) ; and
a second optical elements ( 22, Fig. 1) positioned in the second optical path (Q2, Fig. 1) between the at least one picture generation unit ( 11, Fig. 1) and the windshield (6, Fig. 1) and configured to pass the second light field ( path from Q2 to V2, Fig. 1), the second optical elements being configured to improve an optical characteristic of the second virtual image as seen by the human driver( see [0044] 22 can improve aberration correction).
Hirata does not teach the optical elements are glare trap lens.
However, Schardt teaches the optical elements are glare trap lens (Fig. 7B 142 between the at least picture generation unit 200, Fig. 7A and windshield 120 configured to pass the light and improve an optical characteristic of the virtual image as seen by human (see [0044] reduce the ambient light).
It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirata, to replace the optical elements in Hirata with glare trap lens, in order to reduce the ambient light.
Regarding Claim 20, Hirata in view of Schardt discloses as is set forth above and Hirata further discloses wherein the first light field comprises a near field light field that is visible to the human driver as a near field virtual image (Fig. 1, position V1), and the second light field comprises a far field light field that is visible to the human driver as a far field virtual image (Fig. 1, position V2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 18, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a head up display arrangement including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein each said glare trap lens is curved and transparent.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a head up display arrangement including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising: at least one first mirror positioned in the first optical path between the at least one picture generation unit and the first glare trap lens and configured to reflect the first light field; and at least one second mirror positioned in the second optical path between the at least one picture generation unit and the second glare trap lens and configured to reflect the second light field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, Chang et al. (US 2020/0371351) discloses a head-up display arrangement for presenting a virtual image to a human driver of a motor vehicle (Fig. 1, abstract), the arrangement comprising:
a picture generation unit (Fig. 1, projector 14, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-4) configured to emit a light field such that the light field follows an optical path (Fig. 1, path 18, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-4), is reflected by a windshield (Fig. 1, windshield 12, Paragraph 0034, lines 5-10) of the motor vehicle, and is visible to the human driver as the virtual image (Fig. 1, eye-box 20, Paragraph 0032, lines 11-17); and
a glare trap lens positioned in the optical path between the picture generation unit and the windshield and configured to pass (Fig. 1, path 18) the light field (Fig. 1, glare trap lens 26, Paragraph 0036, lines 1-6), the glare trap lens being configured to improve an optical characteristic of the virtual image as seen by the human driver (Paragraph 0038, lines 1-8, prevents reflected sunlight from interfering with the HUD image).
Jose et al. (US 2025/0189784) further discloses the glare trap lens including an outer surface having an elongate rib thereon (Fig. 4A, glare trap 50 with slats 52, Paragraph 0036, lines 1-20).
Neither Chang et al. (US 2020/0371351), Jose et al. (US 2025/0189784), nor the prior art of record specifically disclose a head up display arrangement comprising “… the rib being positioned and configured to block stray light that has been reflected off of the outer surface of the glare trap lens.”.
Regarding Claim 9, Chang et al. (US 2020/0371351) discloses a method for presenting a virtual image to a human driver of a motor vehicle (Fig. 1, abstract), the method comprising:
emitting a light field from a picture generation unit (Fig. 1, projector 14, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-4) such that the light field follows an optical path (Fig. 1, path 18, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-4), is reflected by a windshield of the motor vehicle (Fig. 1, windshield 12, Paragraph 0034, lines 5-10), and is visible to the human driver as the virtual image (Fig. 1, eye-box 20, Paragraph 0032, lines 11-17);
positioning a glare trap lens (Fig. 1, glare trap lens 26, Paragraph 0036, lines 1-6) in the optical path between the picture generation unit and the windshield (Fig. 1, path 18),
passing the light field through the glare trap lens to thereby improve an optical characteristic of the virtual image as seen by the human driver (Paragraph 0038, lines 1-8, prevents reflected sunlight from interfering with the HUD image).
Jose et al. (US 2025/0189784) further discloses the glare trap lens including an outer surface having an elongate rib thereon (Fig. 4A, glare trap 50 with slats 52, Paragraph 0036, lines 1-20).
Neither Chang et al. (US 2020/0371351), Jose et al. (US 2025/0189784), nor the prior art of record specifically disclose a method comprising “… and using the rib on the glare trap lens to block stray light that has been reflected off of the outer surface of the glare trap lens.”.
Reasons for Allowance/Examiner’s Comments
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding the allowability of independent claim 1: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a head up display arrangement comprising “… the rib being positioned and configured to block stray light that has been reflected off of the outer surface of the glare trap lens.”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 2-8 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Specifically, regarding the allowability of independent claim 9: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a method comprising “… and using the rib on the glare trap lens to block stray light that has been reflected off of the outer surface of the glare trap lens.”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 10-16 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugiyama et al. (US 2024/0345393), Sugiyama et al. (US 2020/0201043), Sugiyama et al. (US 2019/0219821), Nestorovic et al. (US 2010/0053753), Nestorovic et al. (US 2010/0053758), Naradikian (US 2020/0143184), Misawa et al. (US 2025/0123487), Mizushima et al. (US 2024/0427138), Bates et al. (US 2024/0219719), Tamada et al. (US 2019/0235304), Jose et al. (US 2024/0385441), Wolf (US 2023/0176375), Wille et al. (US 2024/0167913), Willie et al. (US 2023/0341680), Yamada (US 2021/0370775), nor the prior art of record remedy the deficiencies of Jose et al. (US 2025/0189784), Schardt et al. (US 2023/0350217), and Chang et al. (US 2020/0371351) are cited to show similar head up displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872