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
This office action is in response to communications filed 11/11/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant argued the reference Urano which was not used. See new rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawata et al (US 2021/0043151 and hereafter referred to as “Nawata”) in view of Zhang et al (US 20210200028 and hereafter referred to as “Zhang”), and Surnilla et al (US 2018/0096668 and hereafter referred to as “Surnilla”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nawata discloses a vehicle optical system, configured to emit an image to a windshield of a vehicle, the vehicle optical system comprising:
a processor (Page 2, paragraph 0030, Figure 2, 50);
a display device, electrically connects to the processor (Page 3, paragraph 0026-0028), the display device comprising:
a display panel (Page 3, paragraph 0026-0028, Figure 3, 11); and
a plurality of light emitting units (Figure 2, 22, Page 2, paragraph 0027), configured to emit a first light to the display panel (Page 3, paragraph 0052, Figure 3, 11, 12).
Nawata is silent on wherein the display panel is configured to output a second light having the image, wherein a prism is disposed between the display panel and the plurality of light emitting units, and the first light is emitted from the plurality of light emitting units to the display panel through the prism; an external sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the external sensor detecting an intensity of ambient light; and an internal sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the internal sensor detecting an information of a driver; wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to adjust the second light having the image based on the intensity of the ambient light or based on the information of the driver.
Zhang discloses the display panel is configured to output a second light having the image (Page 4, paragraph 0039), wherein a prism and a heat dissipation layer are disposed between the display panel and the plurality of light emitting units, and the first light is emitted from the plurality of light emitting units to the display panel through the prism and a heat dissipation layer (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 5, 3500, see also Page 4, paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Nawata to include the missing limitations as taught by Zhang in order to improve quality (Page 1, paragraph 0031) as disclosed by Zhang.
The combination does not disclose an external sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the external sensor detecting an intensity of ambient light, and an internal sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the internal sensor detecting an information of a driver; wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to adjust the second light having the image based on the intensity of the ambient light or based on the information of the driver.
Surnilla discloses the display panel is configured to output a second light having the image (Page 2, paragraph 0017 – the second light is light from the display panel/screen), an external sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the external sensor detecting an intensity of ambient light (Page 6, paragraph 0026, Figure 2, 130), an internal sensor, electrically connects to the processor, the internal sensor detecting an information of a driver (Page 3, paragraph 0024, 0026, Figure 2, 136, 102, 218, Figure 3, 135, 218); wherein the processor is configured to control the display device to adjust the second light having the image based on the intensity of the ambient light or based on the information of the driver (Page 1-2, paragraph 0014, 0017, Page 3, paragraph 0026, Page 4, paragraph 0033, Page 3, paragraph 0039, Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Surnilla in order to prevent eye strain or distraction of driver (paragraph 0026) as disclosed by Surnilla.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, Nawata, Zhang and Surnilla disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Surnilla discloses the internal sensor is configured to output a bio-sensing signal, wherein the processor is configured control the display device to adjust the second light based on the bio-sensing signal (paragraph 0017, 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Surnilla in order to affect the attentiveness of the driver (paragraph 0017, 0026) as disclosed by Surnilla.
Regarding Claim 5, Nawata, Zhang and Surnilla disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Surnilla discloses the external sensor is configured to sense environmental information as the ambient light (paragraph 0024, 0033).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawata in view of Zhang and Surnilla as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kweon (US 2019/00512333 and hereafter referred to as “Kweon”).
Regarding Claim 2, Nawata, Zhang and Surnilla disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose second light projected to the windshield. Kweon discloses wherein the second light is projected to the windshield of the vehicle through an optical lens assembly (Page 1, paragraph 0010, Page 4, paragraph 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Kweon in order to affect the attentiveness of the increase optical efficiency (paragraph 0014) as disclosed by Kweon.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawata in view of Zhang and Surnilla as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baur et al (US 2012/0154591 and hereafter referred to as “Baur”)
Regarding Claim 6, Nawata, Zhang and Surnilla disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Baur discloses wherein the image comprises an image information which is integrated into traffic conditions (paragraph 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Baur in order to offset a glaring condition (paragraph 0095) as disclosed by Baur.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
November 26, 2025