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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “the imaging module 6” should be “the imaging module 52” as cited in paragraph [0088] and shown in FIG. 2.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson et al. (US PUB 2013/0120700; herein after “Kitson”; in related embodiments).
Regarding claim 1, Kitson teaches a light filter (a display stack 12 including an interference filter, FIGS. 1A & 6, see Abstract, para. [0039] and [0045]) having an optical transmission region (emitted lights 16, as shown FIG. 1A, para. [0016]) and comprising an optical layer group (an interlayer mirror (30) sandwiched between two electro-optic layers (24, 26), para. [0014], FIG. 12) arranged in the optical transmission region (as shown at least in FIG. 1A), wherein transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband (i.e., the display stack (12) includes a first electro-optic layer (24) configured to modulate light of a first waveband and a second electro-optic layer (26) configured to modulate light of a second waveband that is different (greater or lesser transmittance) from the first waveband, see Abstract, also see para. [0040]), and wherein the optical layer group comprises a first layer (24) and a second layer (26) that are stacked together (i.e., multiple portions/sections (82) could be stacked to include each of the electro-optic layers 24, 26, 28, para. [0072], FIG. 9A), a refractive index of the first layer being different from a refractive index of the second layer (i.e., The layers in a multilayer dielectric mirror are alternating layers of low and high refractive index (different indexes) materials, para. [0039]), and the first layer (24) comprising a metal layer (e.g., a thin metal busbar electrode (40) layer, para. [0021], FIG. 2).
Kitson teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband.
However, Kitson further teaches the wavelength selective coating 44 or the wavelength selective diffuser patterned material 42 (whichever is used) of each of the mirrors 30, 32, 34 may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband in a variety of ways, para. [0040], FIG. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wavelength selective diffuser patterned material that may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband for the purpose of having a substantially uniform reflectivity and transmissivity across the desired waveband.
Regarding claim 14, Kitson according to claim 1 further teaches the refractive index of the first layer is n1, and the refractive index of the second layer is n2, where 1.8≤n2−n1≤2.75 (e.g., n2−n1 = (a metal busbar electrode layer 0.239) – (TiO2 2.44) = 2.2, para. [0021] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Kitson teaches the second layer comprises at least two sub-layers stacked together (i.e., Multilayer dielectric stacks (e.g., including multiple layers, para. [0045]).
Kitson discloses the limitation except for two sub-layers stacked together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two sub-layers to stacked together as desired, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 16, Kitson teaches the first layer comprises one of or an alloy of two or more of: silver, iron, nickel, titanium, copper, tin, or aluminum (e.g., a thin metal busbar electrode (40) layer such as Copper (Cu) or Aluminum (Al), para. [0021], FIG. 2), and wherein the second layer comprises oxide (TiO2) (para. [0021] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Kitson teaches a light filter (a display stack 12 including an interference filter, FIGS. 1A & 6, see Abstract, para. [0039] and [0045]) comprising an optical layer group (an interlayer mirror (30) sandwiched between two electro-optic layers (24, 26), para. [0014], FIG. 12), wherein transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband (i.e., the display stack (12) includes a first electro-optic layer (24) configured to modulate light of a first waveband and a second electro-optic layer (26) configured to modulate light of a second waveband that is different (greater or lesser transmittance) from the first waveband, see Abstract, also see para. [0040]), and wherein the optical layer group comprises a long-wave passing material layer and a short-wave passing material layer that are stacked together (i.e., optically transparent materials, para. [0021] … The layers in a multilayer dielectric mirror are alternating layers of low (long-wave) and high (short-wave) refractive index materials (e.g., short-wave and long-wave passing material), para. [0039]).
Kitson teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband.
However, Kitson further teaches the wavelength selective coating 44 or the wavelength selective diffuser patterned material 42 (whichever is used) of each of the mirrors 30, 32, 34 may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband in a variety of ways, para. [0040], FIG. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wavelength selective diffuser patterned material that may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband for the purpose of having a substantially uniform reflectivity and transmissivity across the desired waveband.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson et al. (US PUB 2013/0120700; herein after “Kitson”; in related embodiments) in view of Tamura (US PUB 2022/0206197).
Regarding claim 18, Kitson teaches a head up display device (a transflective display 10, FIG. 1A), comprising: an image generating element (a backlight 14) configured to emit light (16) within a first waveband (para. [0016]; a first waveband may be a red or blue waveband, see Abstract and para. [0017]-[0018]); an imaging module (electrode(s) 38, 40, FIG. 12) configured to receive the light within the first waveband and to perform imaging (i.e., in reflective mode or emissive mode, the electrode(s) 38, 40 adjacent to each electro-optic layer 24, 26, 28 may be selectively addressed in order to achieve the desired image, para. [0054], also see para. [0038]); and a light filter (a display stack 12 including an interference filter, FIGS. 1A & 6, see Abstract, para. [0039] and [0045]) located on an optical path between the image generating element (14) and the imaging module (as shown at least in FIG. 1A), wherein the light filter has an optical transmission region (emitted lights 16, as shown FIG. 1A, para. [0016]) and the light filter comprises an optical layer group (an interlayer mirror (30) sandwiched between two electro-optic layers (24, 26), para. [0014], FIG. 12) arranged in the optical transmission region (as shown FIG. 1A), and wherein transmittance of the optical layer group to the light within the first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband (i.e., the display stack (12) includes a first electro-optic layer (24) configured to modulate light of a first waveband and a second electro-optic layer (26) configured to modulate light of a second waveband that is different (greater or lesser transmittance) from the first waveband, see Abstract, also see para. [0040]), the optical layer group comprises a first layer and a second layer that are stacked together (i.e., multiple portions/sections (82) could be stacked to include each of the electro-optic layers 24, 26, 28, para. [0072], FIG. 9A), a refractive index of the first layer is different from a refractive index of the second layer (i.e., The layers in a multilayer dielectric mirror are alternating layers of low and high refractive index (different indexes) materials, para. [0039]), and the first layer comprises a metal layer (e.g., a thin metal busbar electrode (40) layer, para. [0021], FIG. 2).
Kitson teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a first waveband is greater than transmittance of the optical layer group to light within a second waveband.
However, Kitson further teaches the wavelength selective coating 44 or the wavelength selective diffuser patterned material 42 (whichever is used) of each of the mirrors 30, 32, 34 may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband in a variety of ways, para. [0040], FIG. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wavelength selective diffuser patterned material that may be made partially reflecting and partially transmitting of a desirable waveband for the purpose of having a substantially uniform reflectivity and transmissivity across the desired waveband.
Kitson fails explicit teaching of a head up display device and an imaging module to perform imaging.
However, in a related field of endeavor Tamura teaches emitted light is incident to eyes of a driver after reflected by the front windshield, and the driver can visually confirm display information from the liquid crystal panel with a virtual image, para. [0002]; and FIG. 1 shows an example in which a display device 1 is applied as a vehicle head-up display, para. [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle head-up display where a driver can visually confirm display information from a liquid crystal panel (imaging module) with a virtual image as taught by Tamura in the display system of Kitson for the purpose of suppressing transmission of ultraviolet rays and the transparency in the visible light region can be further improved.
Regarding claim 19, Kitson teaches a light-exiting surface of the image generating element (surface of 14 closer to stack 12) is in contact with the light filter (12) (as shown at least in FIG. 1A), or wherein the optical layer group is in contact with the image generating element.
Regarding claim 20, Kitson teaches the head up display device according to claim 18 (as set forth in claim 18 above).
Kitson fails to teach a transport means.
However, in a related field of endeavor Tamura teaches the display device 1 comprises a display portion 10, an infrared light cut-off portion 20, and a reflecting portion 30 in a vehicle 40, para. [0050], FIG. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle (transport means) as taught by Tamura in the display system of Kitson for the purpose of displaying virtual image for the driver of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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 2, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding an encapsulation region surrounding the optical transmission region, and the light filter further comprising an encapsulation layer, wherein at least part of the encapsulation layer is located in the encapsulation region, the encapsulation layer is in contact with at least a side surface of the first layer, and the side surface intersects a plane of the light filter.
Claims 3-13 depend upon allowable claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HUNG et al. (US PUB 2021/0199867) teaches “an optical filtering assembly used for filtering light by means of interference and a light source device in use of the optical filtering assembly.”, paragraph 0002.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
March 6, 2026