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
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 6/25/2026. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 18 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recites “wherein a sum of the weights [of the light based on color information of a first light] is 100%”. The term “100%” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “100%” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no algorithmic solution to determining the measure of 100% and there is no clear, non-trivial meaning of the phrase. For example, if the light source consisted of red light at 1mW and blue light at 1mW, then one could say the sum of those power weights is 100%. Analogously, were the respective optical powers increased to 2mW then the sum of the power weights remains 100%. Adding a green light source of 1mW would trivially change the weights, but the sum of the powers would remain 100% of the output power. In other words, as percent necessarily relates to a measurement value, the claims do not provide sufficient context for determining the claimed sum with definite metes and bounds. In the 6/25/2026 Remarks, Applicant points to Table 2 and [0188] of the originally-filed Specifications to evidence the claimed “weights”. These weights are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, even assuming en arguendo that the claimed weights were weighted currents, the phrase “sum of the weights is 100%” remains indefinite without clarifying that the sum of currents is constant while the weights are adjusted. For the purpose of examination, “weights” are understood to merely require a relationship and the claimed “sum of the weights is 100%” is a trivial limitation that remains true for any combination/relationship/weights. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2018/0352164 to Higuchi, et al. (hereinafter Higuchi).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi discloses an apparatus, comprising: a light source system (light source 220, Figs. 3-6) configured to emit light of at least two colors (blue laser 201B, red laser 201R, green laser 201G, Fig. 4) and adjust weights of the light based on the color information of a first light, weights are within a first threshold of preset weights, and herein a sum of the weights is 100% (“the control system 250 corrects the brightness of a display image displayed by the HUD 200 in such a manner as to maintain white balance”, Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0125]); a light splitting system (dichroic mirrors 204B, 204R, 204G, Fig. 4) configured to: split the light into a first light (light to power monitoring photodiode 206, Figs. 3-6) and a second light (light to lens 205, Figs. 3-6); propagate the first light (Figs. 1-6); and propagate the second light (Figs. 1-6); a modulator (optical scanning apparatus 208, Fig. 3, 5-6) configured to: receive the second light (Figs. 3); and modulate the second light to obtain image light that carries image information (“scanning light L′ two-dimensionally deflected by scanning operation of the mirror of the optical scanning device 208 is reflected by the free-curved mirror 209 so that distortion is corrected. The light of which the distortion has been corrected is condensed onto the micro-lens array 210 and renders the intermediate image”; [0037]); and a sensing system (power monitoring PD 206, Fig. 3-6; [0033],[0036]) configured to: receive the first light; and obtain the color information (“the control system 250 corrects the brightness of a display image displayed by the HUD 200 in such a manner as to maintain white balance”, Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]).
Note: A sum of a subset of color values in white balancing may always be considered a sum of 100% for that time, regardless of total luminance.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 19, Higuchi discloses a processing component configured to: receive the color information from the sensing system (“the control system 250 corrects the brightness of a display image displayed by the HUD 200 in such a manner as to maintain white balance”, Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]) ; and generate a control signal based on the color information, wherein the control signal is configured to adjust the weights (“the control system 250 updates the corresponding light intensity table 253t (step S7)”; Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]); and a light emitting component configured to adjust, based on the control signal, the weights (Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 20, Higuchi discloses the processing component is further configured to: determine a color coordinate of the image light based on the color information (“the control system 250 corrects the brightness of a display image displayed by the HUD 200 in such a manner as to maintain white balance”, Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]); and generate the control signal when a difference between the color coordinate and a preset target color coordinate is greater than a second threshold (“the control system 250 updates the corresponding light intensity table 253t (step S7)”; Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Higuchi discloses a transflective part, wherein either the first light is transmitted from the transflective part and the second light is reflected from the transflective part (Fig. 4), or the first light is reflected from the transflective part and the second light is transmitted from the transflective part.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Higuchi discloses a first light source configured to emit red light; a second light source configured to emit blue light; and a third light source configured to emit green light (Fig. 4; [0033]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Higuchi discloses a first dichroic mirror (dichroic mirror 204G, Fig. 4) configured to: reflect the blue light from the second light source; and transmit the green light from the third light source; and a second dichroic mirror (dichroic mirror 204G, Fig. 4)configured to: reflect the red light from the first light source; transmit the green light; and transmit the blue light ([0035]-[0036]). The dichroic mirror 204G reflects and transmits all three colors.
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi discloses the preset weights indicate an operating mode of a vehicle, and wherein the operating mode is one of: a snow mode; a rain mode; a sunny mode; a nighttime mode; or a daytime mode ([0033]-[0034], [0070]-[0071],[0075]-[0119]). This language limits a configuration of the light source system indirectly and does not require a particular structure limitation on any particular component thereof. Accordingly, it is understood that a light source system capable of white balance is configured to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claim 9, Higuchi discloses a system (Figs. 3-6), comprising: an apparatus, (see above) and a spatial light amplification system (convex mirror 209, projection mirror 211 and windscreen 302, Fig. 3) configured to amplify an image corresponding to the image light.
Regarding claim 16, Higuchi discloses the light source system is further configured to adjust a brightness of the light (“the control system 250 updates the corresponding light intensity table 253t (step S7)”; Fig. 7A; [0071],[0075]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi discloses the spatial light amplification system comprises any one or any combination of the following: at least one curved reflective mirror; and at least one cylindrical mirror (convex mirror 209, projection mirror 211 and windscreen 302, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Higuchi discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1-3), comprising: a display system (Figs. 3-6), an apparatus (above), and a windshield configured to reflect the image light (Figs. 1-6).
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi, as applied to Claims 1 and 9, and further in view of JP 2007079402 to Fujinawa (hereinafter Fujinawa; cited by Applicant).
Higuchi discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the light splitting system comprises a polarizing beam splitter, wherein either the first light is P-polarized light and the second light is S-polarized light, or the first light is S-polarized light and the second light is P-polarized light.
Fujinawa discloses the light splitting system comprises a polarizing beam splitter, wherein either the first light is P-polarized light and the second light is S-polarized light, or the first light is S-polarized light and the second light is P-polarized light (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to split by polarization as taught by Fujinawa with the system as disclosed by Higuchi. The motivation would have been to control light emission amount through the system (see full disclosure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Higuchi’s control system 250 corrects a brightness of a display image, not weights of a light based on color information of a first light”. Higuchi discloses a control process loop for adjusting light intensity tables for red, green, and blue light sources, for example, in a white balance process using either an environment light sensor (150) or forward shooting camera (110) as a factor in the process. This teaching anticipates the claimed adjustment of weights based on a first light in which a sum of weights if 100%. In other words, the white balancing using Higuchi’s light intensity tables is not a process by which intensity is adjusted monolithically. Further, Applicant argues “the specification clearly distinguishes between weights and brightness”. Examiner agrees, in part, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a display brightness is composed of a summation of brightness of individual sources and the relationship between the brightness of individual sources is reasonably construed as “weight”. Higuchi does not merely disclose adjusting brightness such that all sources are modified in a same way, but rather individually controls light sources to adjust the intensity for the purpose of controlling a perceived intensity by viewers. Higuchi discloses neither means nor process whereby display brightness is changed without changing individual light source brightness. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be a process of white balancing, in part, and anticipatory of the claimed weights.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights