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
The amendments to the claims 1 and 11 in the submission dated 06/08/2026 in response to the office action mailed 04/02/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 4, 5, and 12 is acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-17 are pending.
Drawings
The Replacement Drawing of 1 Sheet of Fig 1a filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged and accepted. Objection to Drawings is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraph 1 on page 12 of 17 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see paragraph 2 on page 12 of 17 through paragraph 2 on page 16 of 17 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of Morozov and Smeeton would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would require one to change the position of the polarizing filter and thus change the principle of operation of Morozov.
First, this premise clearly underestimates the level skill of an ordinary skilled artisan within the art of display units. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP §2141.03(I).
Morozov clearly shows in different embodiments where the position of the polarizing filter 4 is changed, see figures 1 and 4. The embodiment of Fig. 1 shows the polarizing filter 4 located before the screen 3, and the embodiment of Fig. 4 shows the polarizing filter 4 located immediately after the display 1. Thus, changing the location of the polarizing filter is within the skill of an ordinary skilled artisan, and this argument is not persuasive.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the combination of Morozov and Smeeton would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would require one to change the position of the polarizing filter and thus change the principle of operation of Morozov, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Morozov teaches a projection unit that generates an image on a projection screen, comprising a contrast element configured such that the contrast element is only passed once by the light originating from the projection screen and eliminates ambient light that passed through. Smeeton teaches a projection unit that generates an image on a projection screen, comprising a contrast element configured such that the contrast element is passed twice by all the ambient light incident on the projection screen and reflected thereon and eliminates the ambient light. Thus, Combined Morozov and Smeeton teach the limitations of Claim 1.
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, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov et al., US 2021/0364792 A1 (of record), and further in view of Smeeton et al., US 2022/0121028 A1 (of record).
As to claim 1, Morozov teaches (Figs. 1-2) a projection unit for a field-of-view display device (para [0055], “the system or device for projection of the image on the screen,” Fig. 1), which is configured to show a virtual image via reflection on a partially transparent reflection plate arranged in a field of view of a user (3, para [0055], “A user may view the image projected from the display 1 to the screen 3,” the screen 3 is considered the partially transparent reflection plate, Fig.1), the projection unit comprising:
a projector-based image generator having a projector for generating a light beam bundle having desired display content (1, 8, para [0059], “the display 1 may have a separate lighting part 8 that may be a backlight,” Fig. 1) and a projection screen illuminated by the projector (a, para [0055], “a first mirror a,” Fig. 1), wherein the projector is configured to generate a real image on the projection screen (a, para [0055], the projected image from display 1 is shown by the solid arrow and is shown to be projected onto the mirror a, which is considered the projection screen, Fig. 1) and the projection screen is configured to project the light beam bundle resulting therefrom in a predetermined shape and direction onto the reflection plate (a, para [0055], “the radiation from the display 1 (shown by the solid arrow) is reflected from the mirror optics system 2 and is projected onto the screen 3,” Fig. 1); and
a contrast element arranged in relation to the projection screen (4, para [0056], “a polarizing filter 4,” Fig. 1) and configured such that the contrast element is only passed once by the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen largely without attenuation (4, para [0064], as shown via the solid arrow in figure 1 the radiation from the display 1 passes through the polarizing filter 4 only once, Fig. 1), and the contrast element is passed a total of twice by the ambient light and eliminates the ambient light (4, para [0062]-[0063], “the linear s-polarizing filter 4a transmits only s-polarized radiation, and absorbs the rest of the radiation. Linear s-polarized light passes through the quarter-wave plate 4b… is converted to circular polarization…the r4adiation returns to the quarter-wave plate 4bc where the remaining part of the radiation is converted back to linear polarization while being rotated by 90 degrees. After passing the quarter-wave plate 4b, the remaining part of the radiation is incident on the linear s-polarizer 4a and the is absorbed by linear s-polarizer 4a,” Fig. 2).
Morozov does not teach the projection unit for a field-of-view display device, wherein the contrast element is passed a total of twice by all ambient light incident on the projection screen and reflected thereon and eliminates the ambient light.
Morozov and Smeeton are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Smeeton teaches (Fig. 10) a projection unit for a field-of-view display device (para [0145], the display system in fig. 10 comprises a HUD system, Fig. 10), which is configured to show a virtual image via reflection on a partially transparent reflection plate arranged in a field of view of a user (1050, 1060, paras [0145]-[0146], a holographic picture is directed towards a viewer 1060 via the windscreen 1050, Fig. 10), the projection unit comprising:
a projector-based image generator having a projector for generating a light beam bundle having desired display content (1003, 1006, para [0160], the holographic PGU comprises a light source 1003 that is configured to direct light towards a pixelated display device such as a spatial light modulator (SLM) 1006, Fig. 10) and a projection screen illuminated by the projector (1005, para [0146], the lower surface 1005 of the waveguide 1000 is considered the projector screen, Fig. 10), wherein the projector is configured to generate a real image on the projection screen (1003, 1006, para [0160], the hologram may comprise a computer-generated hologram (CGH), Fig. 10) and the projection screen is configured to project the light beam bundle resulting therefrom in a predetermined shape and direction onto the reflection plate (1005, R1, R2, para [0164], the circularly polarized light is reflected by the lower 1005 towards the windscreen 1050 as indicated by the arrows labeled R1 and R2, Fig. 10); and
a contrast element arranged in relation to the projection screen (1500, para [0147], the circular polarizer 1500 located between the windscreen 1050 and the projection screen 1005, Fig. 10) and configured such that the contrast element is passed by the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen largely without attenuation (1500, R1, R2, paras [0164]-[0165], the spatially modulated light passed through the waveguide 1000 until reflected by the reflective lower surface 1005 and transmitted through the circular polarizer 1500, “the circular polarizer 1500 does not attenuate the spatially modulated light, or does so only very slightly,” Fig. 10), and the contrast element is passed a total of twice by all of the ambient light incident on the projection screen and reflected thereon and eliminates the ambient light (1020, para [0147], “after being reflected by the lower surface 1005 of the waveguide 1000 and transmitted back out of the upper surface 1002, that sunlight 1020 would have to travel via the circular polarizer 1500 before it could reach the viewer. However, the circular polarizer 1500 blocks it,” Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the contrast element is passed a total of twice by all ambient light incident on the projection screen and reflected thereon and eliminates the ambient light of Smeeton, because the potential source of glare is reduced (para [0158]).
As to claim 2, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the reflection plate is a vehicle window (3, para [0091], “the screen 3, onto which the image from the display 1 is projected, may be, for example, a car windshield,” Fig.1).
As to claim 3, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the projection screen is configured to reflect the light beam bundle in a direction of the reflection plate (a, 3, para [0055], the first mirror a reflects the image projected from the display 1 to the screen 3, Fig. 1); and
the contrast element is arranged opposite the projection screen in a beam path of the entire light beam bundle reflected by the projection screen (a, 4, paras [0055]-[0056], the polarizing filter 4 is located opposite mirror a in the beam path indicated by the solid arrow in Fig. 1), and outside a beam path of the light beam bundle propagating from the projector to the projection screen (a, 4, paras [0055]-[0056], the polarizing filter 4 is outside a beam path propagating from the display 1 to mirror a as indicated by the solid arrow in Fig. 1), so that the contrast element is not passed by the light beam bundle propagating from the projector to the projection screen (a, 4, paras [0055]-[0056], the polarizing filter 4 is not passed by the beam propagating from the display 1 to the mirror a as indicated by the solid arrow in Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the contrast element is configured as a circular polarizer (2, 4, paras [0062]-[0063], “the linear s-polarized light’s polarization is converted to circular polarization,” Fig. 2), which is composed of a quarter-wave retarder facing toward the projection screen (4b, para [0063], “a quarter-wave plate 4b,” Fig. 2) and a linear polarizer facing away from the projection screen (4a, para [0063], “a linear s-polarizer 4a,” Fig. 2).
Morozov does not teach the projection unit wherein the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen.
Morozov and Smeeton are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Smeeton teaches a projection unit wherein the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen (1020, 1500, 1005, para [0154], “the incident light 1020 is polarized, to a left-handed circular polarization, by the circular polarizer 1500… when the polarized light hits the lower surface 1005, it is reflected back towards the upper surface… the circular polarization is also reversed on reflection by the lower surface 1005,” Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light is retained of Smeeton, because any potential glare from the sunlight is eliminated or is at least significantly attenuated, from the view’s perspective (para [0155]).
As to claim 7, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer (Morozov, Fig. 1, 1, para [0064], “the quarter-wave plate 4b may also be used to convert elliptically polarized (or unpolarized) radiation from the display 1 to linear s-polarized light”).
Morozov does not teach the projection unit according to claim 6, wherein the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized.
Morozov and Smeeton are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Smeeton teaches a projection unit wherein the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer (1006, 1008, paras [0161]-[0162], “the light source is arranged to direct light which… is linearly polarized in the direction indicated by arrow 1004, towards the SLM 1006 to irradiate a hologram displayed therein. The light is reflected as spatially modulated light, which is still linearly polarized… the spatially modulated light propagates towards the waveguide 1000 and, in doing so, passes through the λ/4 retarder 1008. The effect of doing so is that the spatially modulated light changes from being linearly polarized to being circularly polarized.” Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized of Smeeton, because the optical efficiency of the system remains high, even though the glare is significantly reduced (para [0165]).
As to claim 8, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the contrast element is configured as a circular polarizer (4, paras [0062]-[0063], “the linear s-polarized light’s polarization is converted to circular polarization,” Fig. 2), which is composed of a quarter-wave retarder facing toward the projection screen (4b, para [0063], “a quarter-wave plate 4b,” Fig. 2) and a linear polarizer facing away from the projection screen (4a, para [0063], “a linear s-polarizer 4a,” Fig. 2).
Morozov does not teach the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen;
the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer;
the projector is configured to generate the light beam bundle having the circular polarization which is converted by the quarter-wave retarder into the linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer; and
the projection screen is configured for a polarization-retaining reflection of the light beam bundle.
Morozov and Smeeton are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Smeeton teaches the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen (1020, 1500, 1005, para [0154], “the incident light 1020 is polarized, to a left-handed circular polarization, by the circular polarizer 1500… when the polarized light hits the lower surface 1005, it is reflected back towards the upper surface… the circular polarization is also reversed on reflection by the lower surface 1005,” Fig. 10);
the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer (1006, 1008, paras [0161]-[0162], “the light source is arranged to direct light which… is linearly polarized in the direction indicated by arrow 1004, towards the SLM 1006 to irradiate a hologram displayed therein. The light is reflected as spatially modulated light, which is still linearly polarized… the spatially modulated light propagates towards the waveguide 1000 and, in doing so, passes through the λ/4 retarder 1008. The effect of doing so is that the spatially modulated light changes from being linearly polarized to being circularly polarized.” Fig. 10);
the projector is configured to generate the light beam bundle having the circular polarization which is converted by the quarter-wave retarder into the linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer (1012, 1502, 1504, paras [0152] and [0163], “the circular polarizer 1500 may comprise a linear polarizer 1502 and a λ/4 light retarder (also known as a 'quarter-wave plate') 1504… the first surface of the circular polarizer is the upper surface of the linear polarizer 1502 … and the second surface of the circular polarizer is the lower surface of the λ /4 light retarder 1504,” upon passing through the circular polarizer 1500 the spatially modulated light is linearly polarized as shown by the arrows 1012, Figs. 10-11); and
the projection screen is configured for a polarization-retaining reflection of the light beam bundle (1005, para [0164], “the spatially modulated light that reaches its upper surface 1002 after initial entry into the waveguide 1000. The reflection will reverse the circular polarization of that portion of the spatially modulated light to right-handed. But the waveguide 1000 is arranged such that it will be reflected towards the highly reflective lower surface 1005, which will reflect the portion of spatially modulated light and reverse its circular polarization back to left-handed.” Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the projection screen is configured so that the light follows the polarization of Smeeton, because the optical efficiency of the system remains high, even though the glare is significantly reduced (para [0165]).
As to claim 11, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein
the contrast element is configured as a circular polarizer (4, paras [0062]-[0063], “the linear s-polarized light’s polarization is converted to circular polarization,” Fig. 2), which is composed of a quarter-wave retarder facing toward the projection screen (4b, para [0063], “a quarter-wave plate 4b,” Fig. 2) and a linear polarizer facing away from the projection screen (4a, para [0063], “a linear s-polarizer 4a,” Fig. 2),
the projection screen has a mirror surface for reflecting the light beam bundle in the direction of the reflection plate (a, 3, para [0055], the first mirror a is considered the projection screen, Fig. 1).
Morozov does not teach the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen;
the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer.
Morozov and Smeeton are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Smeeton teaches the projection screen is configured so that a circular polarization of the ambient light incident on the projection screen after passing the contrast element is retained upon the reflection on the projection screen (1020, 1500, 1005, para [0154], “the incident light 1020 is polarized, to a left-handed circular polarization, by the circular polarizer 1500… when the polarized light hits the lower surface 1005, it is reflected back towards the upper surface… the circular polarization is also reversed on reflection by the lower surface 1005,” Fig. 10);
the image generator is configured such that the light beam bundle originating from the projection screen is circularly polarized so that after passing the quarter-wave retarder the light beam bundle has a linear polarization let through by the linear polarizer (1006, 1008, paras [0161]-[0162], “the light source is arranged to direct light which… is linearly polarized in the direction indicated by arrow 1004, towards the SLM 1006 to irradiate a hologram displayed therein. The light is reflected as spatially modulated light, which is still linearly polarized… the spatially modulated light propagates towards the waveguide 1000 and, in doing so, passes through the λ/4 retarder 1008. The effect of doing so is that the spatially modulated light changes from being linearly polarized to being circularly polarized.” Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the projection screen is configured with the light polarization of Smeeton, because the optical efficiency of the system remains high, even though the glare is significantly reduced (para [0165]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov et al., US 2021/0364792 A1 (of record), in view of Smeeton et al., US 2022/0121028 A1 (of record), and further in view of Matsushita et al., US 2014/0184996 A1 (of record).
As to claim 9, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6.
Morozov does not teach the projection unit, wherein the projection screen is metallic for the polarization-retaining reflection.
Morozov and Matsushita are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Matsushita teaches a projection unit (100, para [0034], “head-up display device 100,” Fig. 1) wherein the projection screen is metallic for the polarization-retaining reflection (20, paras [0036] and [0047], “a turning mirror 20… is configured by a member in which a film of metal such as aluminum,” Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the projection screen is metallic for the polarization-retaining reflection of Matsushita, because the display light is turned in a direction toward the projection region (para [0060]).
As to claim 10, Morozov in view of Smeeton and further in view of Matsushita teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9.
Morozov does not teach the projection unit, wherein the projection screen has a metallic coating.
Morozov and Matsushita are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Matsushita teaches a projection unit (100, para [0034], “head-up display device 100,” Fig. 1) wherein the projection screen has a metallic coating (20, paras [0036] and [0047], “a turning mirror 20… is configured by a member in which a film of metal such as aluminum is vapor-deposited,” Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection unit of Morozov where the projection screen has a metallic coating of Matsushita, because the display light is turned in a direction toward the projection region (para [0060]).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov et al., US 2021/0364792 A1 (of record), in view of Smeeton et al., US 2022/0121028 A1 (of record), and further in view of Hirata et al., US 2022/0075189 A1 (of record).
As to claim 13, Morozov in view of Smeeton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Morozov further teaches a field-of-view display (para [0053], “a display in an image projection system on a screen,” Fig. 1) comprising:
the projection unit according to claim 1 (para [0055], “the system or device for projection of the image on the screen,” Fig. 1); and
the reflection plate which is arranged in the beam path of the light beam bundle output by the projection unit, is reflecting on a user side (3, para [0055], “”the radiation from the display 1 (shown by the solid arrow) is reflected from the mirror optics system 2 and is projected onto the screen. A user may view the image projected from the display to the screen 3,” Fig. 1), and is at least partially transparent for ambient light incident on the rear side (3, para [0060], “radiation from the sun passes through the screen 3 as illustrated in dashed lines in Fig. 1,” Fig. 1),
wherein the reflection plate is arranged in the field of view of the user and is configured such that the reflection plate reflects the light beam bundle to an eyebox predetermined for user eyes (3, para [0055], “a user may view the image projected from the display 1 to the screen 3,” Fig. 1), due to which the display content is displaceable to the user in a form of a virtual image (3, para [0088], a virtual image projected by the display 1 onto a transparent screen 3, Fig. 1).
Morozov does not teach the display content is displaceable to the user in a form of a virtual image beyond the reflection plate.
Morozov and Hirata are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hirata teaches a field-of-view display (100, para [0052], “an information display apparatus 100 that projects the image onto the windshield glass 6 of the car,” Fig. 2) wherein the display content is displaceable to the user in a form of a virtual image beyond the reflection plate (V1, para [0052], “The head-up-display apparatus serving as the information display apparatus 100 according to one working example of the present invention is an apparatus (so-called HUD (Head up Display)) that displays various types of information reflected by a projection receiving member (in the present working example, an inner surface of the windshield glass 6) as a virtual image "V1" in order to form the virtual image V1 on the forward part of the subject car on a driver's line of sight,” Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field-of-view display of Morozov where the display content is displaceable to the user in a form of a virtual image beyond the reflection plate of Hirata, because the necessary information for the driver can be suitably displayed as an image having a different resolution and a different image size on the windshield glass (para [0022]).
As to claim 14, Morozov in view of Smeeton and further in view of Hirata teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the reflection plate is arranged directly opposite the contrast element (3, 4, para [0055], as shown in Fig. 1 the screen 3, considered the reflection plate, is arranged opposite the polarizing filter 4, considered the contrast element, Fig. 1) and the projection screen located behind and/or below the contrast element, except for covers of the projection unit, which do not have a beamforming, beam deflecting, or imaging optical effect on the light beam bundle (a, 4, para [0055], as shown in Fig. 1 the mirror a, considered the projection screen, is located below the polarizing filter 4, Fig. 1).
As to claim 15, Morozov in view of Smeeton and further in view of Hirata teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Morozov further teaches a vehicle (para [0101], “head-up displays for vehicles,” Fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicle window (para [0091], “a car windshield,” Fig. 1) and a passenger compartment partially delimited by the vehicle window (3, para [0055], “a user may view the image projected from the display 1 to the screen,” the area in Fig. 1 that contains the user is the passenger compartment, Fig. 1); and
the field-of-view display device according to claim 13, the reflection plate of which is configured as part of the vehicle window or as a combiner plate arranged in the passenger compartment (para [0091], “the screen 3, onto which the image from the display is projected, may be, for example, a car windshield,” Fig. 1).
As to claim 16, Morozov in view of Smeeton and further in view of Hirata teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Morozov further teaches the projection unit, wherein the vehicle window is a windshield (para [0091], “the screen 3, onto which the image from the display is projected, may be, for example, a car windshield,” Fig. 1).
As to claim 17, Morozov in view of Smeeton and further in view of Hirata teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Morozov further teaches the vehicle having longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions perpendicular to one another of a vehicle-fixed Cartesian coordinate system (para [0101], the vehicle is a car which is a three dimensional object that exist in 3D space with a Cartesian coordinate system, Fig. 1), wherein
the vehicle has a dashboard arranged below the windshield (para [0102], “a car dashboard,” Fig. 1); and
the projection unit of the field-of-view display device and the projection screen are arranged in or below an upper side of the dashboard such that the windshield is used at least with a large part of its extension in the vehicle transverse direction as the reflection plate of the field-of-view display device (para [0102], the projection system is built into the car dashboard having a window for outputting radiation from the display to the windshield, Fig. 1).
Morozov does not teach the vehicle wherein the windshield is delimited in the transverse direction in each case on the left and right by an A-pillar of the vehicle (3, para [0091], “the screen 3, onto which the image from the display is projected, may be, for example, a car windshield,” Note: although Morozov teaches the screen 3 is a car windshield which is commonly understood to have left and right A-pillars, Morozov does not explicitly the left and right A-pillars of the vehicle, Fig. 1).
Morozov and Hirata are related as head-up display systems comprising projection units.
However, Hirata teaches a vehicle (1010, 6, para [0043], “an information display apparatus 100 according to a later-described working example of the present invention, mounted on a car, a train, an airplane and others, more particularly on the car. A forward part of a driver seat of a car 1010 has a windshield glass 6 serving as a projection-receiving member,” Fig. 1) having a windshield delimited in the transverse direction in each case on the left and right by an A-pillar of the vehicle (6, para [0107], the windshield 6 is delimited in the horizontal direction, or transverse direction, on the left and right by A-pillars, which are drawn, but not labelled, on the left and right sides of the windshield 6 in Fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Morozov having a windshield delimited in the transverse direction in each case on the left and right by an A-pillar of the vehicle of Hirata, because this results in the information image system capable of suitably displaying the necessary information for the driver so that the resolution and the image size very depending on the display region of the windshield glass (para [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nambara, US 2020/0026073 A1, teaches a head-up display for a vehicle having a projection unit and screen.
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 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
09/19/2026
