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.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/18/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words and reference numbers of the technical features are not placed in parenthesis. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Heads-Up Display having Light Shielding Frame with Check Window.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0009], lines 9 and 10, “variaton” should be “variation.”
In paragraph [0036], line 5, “descrived” should be “described.”
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoichi et. al., JP 2021014153 A (hereinafter referred to as Ryoichi and where reference is made to the attached machine translation retrieved electronically from Espacenet 02/10/2026, and referenced in the 04/18/2024 IDS).
As to claim 1, Ryoichi teaches a head-up display (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, HUD, translation, paragraph [0010], “head-up display (HUD)”) that projects display light onto a projection member curved to be convex forward in such a manner that an inclination of left and right ends in a left-right direction is large with respect to a center in the left-right direction and that an upper end in an up-down direction has a larger inclination than a lower end with respect to the up-down direction (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, L, WS, translation, paragraph [0011], the head-up display HUD emits display light L onto the windshield WS of a vehicle, vehicle windshields are curved in the manner claimed), from behind and allows a viewer to visually recognize a virtual image based on the display light reflected by the projection member in front of the projection member (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, E, V, translation, paragraph [0011], “the vehicle occupant E can see a virtual image V of the display light L in front of the windshield WS”), the head-up display comprising:
a case having an opening portion (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, 5, 521, translation, paragraphs [0019]-[0021], “the case 5 has a housing portion 53 covered by… an upper case 52… the upper case 52 has an opening 521”);
a displayer housed in the case (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, 1, translation, paragraphs [0018]-[0019], the display unit 1 is housed in the housing section 53 of the case 5) and outputting the display light emitted from the opening portion (Ryoichi, Fig. 1, 521, L, translation, paragraph [0021], “the upper case 52 has an opening 521 for emitting the display light L to the outside of the case 5”); and
a light transmitting sheet that covers the opening portion (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 6, translation, paragraph [0021], “the upper case 52 has a light-transmitting sheet 6 that covers the opening 521”) and is fixed to the case with an adhesive (Ryoichi, Fig. 6, 7, translation, paragraph [0023], “a frame-shaped adhesive portion 523 surrounding the mounting portion 522 is formed on the outer edge of the mounting portion 522 of the upper case 52. The adhesive 7 is applied to the adhesive portion 523 to fix the light-transmitting sheet 6 supported on the mounting portion 522”),
the light transmitting sheet having:
an emission window portion that has a pair of left and right sides located on left and right ends of the light transmitting sheet and a pair of front and rear sides located on front and rear ends of the light transmitting sheet, and is a region from which the display light is emitted (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 63, translation, paragraph [0027], “the light-transmitting sheet 6 has an emission window portion 63 that transmits the display light L emitted from the opening portion 521”);
a light shielding frame portion that is arranged outside the pair of left and right sides and the pair of front and rear sides (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 64, translation, paragraphs [0027]-[0028], “a frame-shaped light-shielding frame portion 64 that surrounds the emission window portion 63”), is at least partially fixed to the case (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 64, translation, paragraph [0028], “the light-shielding frame 64 is composed of a light-shielding portion 641 that covers the edge of the opening 521”), and is an opaque region (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 64, translation, paragraph [0028], “The light-shielding frame 64 is composed of a light-shielding portion 641 that covers the edge of the opening 521 and the mounting portion 52 to block light”); and
a check window portion formed along the pair of left and right sides and the pair of front and rear sides within the light shielding frame portion (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 642, translation, paragraph [0028], “the confirmation window portion 642”) and allowing visual recognition of presence or absence of the adhesive disposed between the case and the light transmitting sheet (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 642, translation, paragraph [0029], “by visually inspecting the confirmation window 642 or by machine image inspection, it is possible to check for poor adhesion”).
Ryoichi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a check window along the pair of left and right sides or a check window along the pair of front and rear sides is such that the check window along one side has a smaller area than the check window along the other side of the pair (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 642, translation, paragraph [0029], “the size of the confirmation window 642 is determined in accordance with the minimum amount of adhesive 7 that can be applied to the adhesive portion 523”). It would have been an obvious matter of choice to modify an area of the check window such that a check window along one side has a smaller area than the check window along the other side of the pair, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
As to claim 2, Ryoichi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ryoichi further teaches the head-up display according to claim 1, wherein the light shielding frame portion is a print layer formed on a surface of the light transmitting sheet facing the case, and wherein the check window portion is a region where the print layer is cut (Ryoichi, Fig. 6, 641, 642, translation, paragraph [0028], “in the light-shielding frame 64, the light-shielding portion 641 is a portion where the printed layer 62 is formed, and the confirmation window portion 642 is a portion where the printed layer 62 is not formed,” paragraph [0035], “the case 5 has a stopper portion 525 that abuts against the light-transmitting sheet,” thus, as also shown in figure 6, the print layer is formed on a surface facing the case).
As to claim 3, Ryoichi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ryoichi further teaches the head-up display according to claim 1, wherein the check window portion is a frame-shaped region that is continuously formed along the pair of left and right sides and the pair of front and rear sides (Ryoichi, Fig. 3, 642, translation, paragraph [0028], “an inspection window portion 642 that allows the adhesive 7 applied to the adhesive portion 523 to be seen,” paragraph [0033], “a frame-shaped adhesive portion 523 that is located on the outer edge side of the mounting portion 522,” thus, as shown in figure 6, the check window portion 642 is frame-shaped and is continuously formed along the sides because it follows the adhesive frame-shaped adhesive portion 523).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kenji et. al., JP 2017102179 A, Projector, relevant to claims 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872