Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/627,337

ROTARY LOCKING MOUNTING PROCESS FOR REFLECTION DEVICE OF A HEAD UP DISPLAY

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Examiner
HASAN, MOHAMMED A
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Valeo S.A.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
1603 granted / 1775 resolved
+22.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1793
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.8%
+24.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1775 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 1.In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3,7-9,11-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henon et al (2019/0219823 A1). Regarding claim 1, Henon et al discloses (refer to figures 3,4,7 and 8) a reflection device (20) of a Head Up Display (HUD), the reflection device comprising: a support rigidly fixed to a housing of the HUD (see figure 3, a support under rotary rings (78) and(80) rigidly fixed to a housing (22)); a frame (rigid frame supporting the mirror, , see figure 4, the leg 46 is attached to a frame supporting the mirror 40, ) rotatable about a first axis'; a reflection element (38) comprising: a first side fixed to the frame; and a second side that is reflective and opposite of the first side; and a plurality of rotary rings (78,80) configured to couple the support and the frame (paragraph 0025-paragraph 0028). Regarding claim 2, Henon et al discloses wherein the support comprises a plurality of coupling legs (46). Regarding claim 3, Henon et al discloses wherein each coupling leg of the plurality of coupling legs (46) comprises a coupling element extending axially along the first axis. Regarding claim 7, Henon et al discloses wherein the support comprises a plurality of stopping legs. Regarding claim 8, Henon et al discloses herein the frame comprises a plurality of stopping members each stopping member comprising: a second recess configured to receive a stopping element of a stopping leg of the plurality of stopping legs (46 and 48) (paragraph 0029). Regarding claim 9, Henon et al discloses wherein each stopping element of the plurality of stopping legs (46 and 48) extends axially along the first axis. Regarding claim 11, Henon et al discloses wherein the reflection device (20) further comprises a rotation mechanism connected to the frame, the rotation mechanism configured to rotate the frame in relation to the support about the first axis ( see tilt actuator assembly 66). Regarding claim 12, Henon et al discloses (refer to figures 3,4,7 and 8) a method for mounting a reflection device (20) of a Head Up Display (HUD) and positioning a reflection element (38) of the reflection device (20) within a housing (22) of the HUD, the method comprising: fixing a support of the reflection device (20) to the housing of the HUD; securing a first side of the reflection element to a frame of the reflection device (20), the reflection element (38) further comprising a second side that is reflective and opposite of the first side; coupling the support and the frame by a plurality of rotary rings (78 and 80) ; and rotating the frame about a first axis (paragraph 0025- paragraph 0028). Regarding claim 13, Henon et al discloses further comprising coupling the plurality of rotary rings to a plurality of coupling legs (46) and (48) of the support. Regarding claim 14, Henon et al discloses wherein the coupling of the plurality of rotary rings (78 and 80) to the plurality of coupling legs (46) and (48) of the support comprises inserting, in a direction parallel to the first axis, a coupling element of each coupling leg into an opening of a body of each rotary ring of the plurality of rotary rings. Regarding claim 18, Henon et al discloses further comprising inserting a stopping element of each stopping leg of a plurality of stopping legs (46 and 48) of the support into a second recess of each stopping member of a plurality of stopping members of the frame. Regarding claim 20, Henon et al discloses wherein the rotating of the frame comprises actuating a rotation mechanism connected to the frame (see tilt actuator assembly 66). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 2. 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. Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henon et al (2019/0219823 A1) in view of Shin YU Jin (2018/0373037 A1). Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henon et al (2019/0219823 A1) in view of Shin YU Jin((2018/0373037 A1). Regarding claim 10, depends on claim 1, Henon et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except the reflection device further comprises a spring connected to the support and the frame. Shin Yu discloses the reflection device further comprises a spring connected to the support and the frame (figure 10 and paragraph 0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide a spring connected to the support and the frame in to the Henon a reflection device for the purpose of to fulfil a function of stabilization in the art of head of display as taught by Shin Yu. Regarding claim 19, depends on claim 11, Henon et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except the reflection device further comprises a spring connected to the support and the frame. Shin Yu discloses the reflection device further comprises a spring connected to the support and the frame (figure 10 and paragraph 0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide a spring connected to the support and the frame in to the Henon a reflection device for the purpose of to fulfil a function of stabilization in the art of head of display as taught by Shin Yu. Allowable Subject Matter 3. Claims 4-6 and 15-17 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. 4. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter wherein the frame comprises a plurality of coupling members, each coupling member comprising: a cylindrical protrusion; a first recess formed within the cylindrical protrusion and configured to receive the coupling element of a coupling leg of the plurality of coupling legs of the support; and a plurality of noses protruding outwardly from the cylindrical protrusion and wherein each rotary ring of the plurality of rotary rings comprises: a body comprising an opening and a plurality of snaps; and a plurality of fingers protruding inwardly from an interior wall of the body and configured to couple with the coupling element of a coupling leg of the plurality of coupling legs of the support; wherein the plurality of snaps are formed by a plurality of notches along the body; and wherein each snap of the plurality of snaps comprises a window configured to couple with a nose of the plurality of noses of a coupling member of the plurality of coupling members of the frame and wherein the plurality of snaps are tapered. further comprising coupling each rotary ring of the plurality of rotary rings to the coupling element of each coupling leg of the plurality of coupling legs by a plurality of fingers protruding inwardly from an interior wall of the body of each rotary ring and wherein the coupling of the support and the frame by the plurality of rotary rings comprises coupling a body of each rotary ring to a different coupling member of a plurality of coupling members of the frame, each coupling member comprising: a cylindrical protrusion; a first recess formed within the cylindrical protrusion and configured to receive a coupling element of a coupling leg of the plurality of coupling legs of the support; and a plurality of noses protruding outwardly from the cylindrical protrusion and wherein the coupling of the body of a rotary ring of the plurality of rotary rings to a coupling member of the plurality of coupling members of the frame comprises: aligning the plurality of noses of the cylindrical protrusion of the coupling member with a plurality of notches of the body of the rotary ring; inserting, in a direction parallel to the first axis, the cylindrical protrusion of the coupling member within an opening of the body; and rotating the rotary ring about the first axis until each nose of the plurality of noses of the coupling member couple with a window of a snap of a plurality of snaps formed along the body of the rotary ring by the plurality of notches. Response to Arguments 5. Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 6. In response to applicant argument with regards independent claims 1 and 12 , Henon et al (2019/0219823 A1) discloses (refer to figures 3 and 4) a reflection device (20) of a Head Up Display (HUD), the reflection device (20) comprising: a support rigidly fixed to a housing of the HUD (see figure 3, a support under rotary rings (78) and(80) rigidly fixed to a housing (22)); a frame (rigid frame supporting the mirror, , see figure 4, the leg 46 is attached to a frame supporting the mirror 40, ) and a reflection element (38) comprising: a first side fixed to the frame (paragraph 0025-paragraph 0028) and securing a side of the reflection element (38) to a frame of the reflection device (20). Conclusion 7. 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 MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOHAMMED A HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/22/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
May 04, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667256
EYE EXAMINATION APPARATUS FOR USE WITH A SMARTPHONE
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667253
AUTOMATED VISION TESTING
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12663314
INFRARED SENSOR ASSEMBLY FOR RECEIVING INTERCHANGEABLE LENSES
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653397
SLIT LAMP MICROSCOPE CAPABLE OF IMAGING GOBLET CELLS
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12656588
PROJECTION SYSTEM AND PROJECTOR
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.1%)
1y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1775 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month