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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 16-17, and 19-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004021026 B3 (JAHN DIRK et al.) in view of US 20230161084 A1 (Chistikov; Nikita) and US 20250138303 A1 (SOHN; JIN YOUNG et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
834
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
278
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
830
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1, 8-9, and 10, Jahn teaches a motor vehicle [see the disclosure: “The change the imaging characteristics of the windshield can change model, by individual deviations within a vehicle series or by a different position of the reflective area caused the windshield”] comprising: a vehicle body defining a vehicle interior [inherent, see figures 5-6, 8-9 and the Background: “The rotatable about an axis free-form mirror allows to change the beam path so that it can be adapted to the field of vision of drivers who have a different body size”]; one or more road wheels connected to the vehicle body [inherent to the vehicle]; a windshield connected to the vehicle body [6], the windshield having a predetermined curvature and rake angle [inherent]; and a head-up display (HUD) system operable for displaying a head-up display (HUD) image within the vehicle interior [see figures 5-6 and 8-9], the HUD system comprising: a HUD projector configured to project an input image [imager 10] forming an incident wave front [inherent], along a primary light transmission path [path from projector 10 to free-form mirror 5]; a programmable freeform optics (PFO) device positioned in the primary light transmission path [free-form mirror 5], the PFO device being configured to reflect or transmit the input image along a secondary light transmission path [reflection light path] as an output image forming a diffracted wave front [inherent], using a recorded optical profile [see the disclosure “The free-form mirror is designed in its surface shape so that this for several Be to be compensated rich in the windshield, in which the reflection of the light beam is provided, performs a geometric error correction of the image after the individual copy-dependent error of the windshield. With the adaptive mirror, the active area of the beam path is selected on the surface of the free-form mirror, which is displayed. Further, with the adaptive mirror having a sufficiently large number of sectors, gross geometrical errors such as curvature radii deviations of the windshield can be corrected”]; and a fold mirror arranged in the secondary light transmission path [5], the fold mirror being configured to reflect the output image along a tertiary light transmission path as a HUD image [see figures 5-6 and 8-9, path of fold mirror’s reflected light], wherein the PFO device is programmed to locally control a wave front characteristic of the output image to compensate for the curvature and rake angle when the HUD system displays the HUD image via a HUD patch [see the disclosure: “In a preferred embodiment becomes the reflective surface stored on a matrix of piezo actuators, which individually can be controlled. So it is possible about the different ones Control voltages for Piezo actuators to deform the mirror sectors individually and thus (within the limits of mechanical deformability) freely changeable Mirror surface forms to create. With the usual Optics design programs will be the for any partial surface calculated windscreen necessary compensation surface. The data will be in the control electronics for the piezomatrix saved. If the windshield in her Installation position in the body is measured, it is through the control the mirror elements possible, compensate for individual errors of the windshield.”]
Jahn lacks the HUD patch on the inner surface of the windshield. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been common knowledge to incorporate a HUD patch on the windshield in order to improve image quality. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Jahn lacks the PFO device including an array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors configured to diffract light of the input image as the output image; and the reflective element includes a liquid crystal-based mirror, a liquid crystal-on-silicon (LCoS)-based mirror, and a piston-mode spatial light modulator having an array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors.
However, Chistikov and Sohn teaches at paragraph 0021 that “imaging matrix 16 may comprise one or more mirrors, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a digital micro-mirror device (DMD), a microelectromechanical (MEMS) laser scanner, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) matrix, a matte glass with a projected image, other types of imaging matrices, or any combination thereof.” Improved wavefront control would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chistikov with Jahn.
Per claims 7 and 16, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 1, further comprising: a processor configured to maintain the optical profile of the PFO device during operation of the HUD system, such that the optical profile does not deviate from a recorded baseline over a life of the HUD system [see the disclosure: “With the usual Optics design programs will be the for any partial surface calculated windscreen necessary compensation surface. The data will be in the control electronics for the piezomatrix saved.”]
Per claims 17 and 20, Jahn’s disclosure teaches a method for calibrating a head-up display (HUD) system for use with a windshield having a predetermined curvature and rake angle.
A preferred embodiment is characterized in that the Free-form mirror several compensation areas for different areas having the reflection on the windshield. The free-form mirror contains the default error the windshield in the entire area, for reflection the light beam used will, as a negative.
The desired active compensation range on the free-form mirror is then selected with the adaptive mirror and additional individual residual errors are compensated if necessary. Rough compensation of the aberrations is adequately compensated by the appropriate control of an adaptive mirror with a few, in the extreme case a single, adjustable sector corrected adaptive mirror by a compensation range is selected on the free-form mirror. The fixed mirror with a freeform surface and with multiple compensation areas, which are adjusted according to the position of the viewing area by pivoting the sectors of the adaptive mirror, represents the negative shape of the windshield and thus individual residual errors.
However, Jahn lacks the method comprising: projecting an input test image along a primary light transmission path using a HUD projector of the HUD system; reflecting or transmitting the input test image along a secondary light transmission path as an output image using a recorded optical profile, via a programmable freeform optics (PFO) device positioned in the primary light transmission path; reflecting the output image along a tertiary light transmission path as a HUD image using a fold mirror; determining, via a camera, a translational shift and displayed size of the test graphic relative to a respective target location and a target area on a HUD patch of the HUD system; recording an optical profile in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (memory) of the PFO device, the optical profile, when executed, eliminating the translational shift and matching the target area; and executing the optical profile from the memory of the PFO device during operation of the HUD system.
However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to use the above method. Improved image corrections for windshield curvatures would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Jahn lacks the HUD patch on the inner surface of the windshield. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been common knowledge to incorporate a HUD patch on the windshield in order to improve image quality. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 19, Jahn et al. teach the method of claim 17, further comprising: maintaining the optical profile of the PFO device during operation of the HUD system, such that the optical profile does not deviate from a recorded baseline over a life of the HUD system [see the disclosure: “With the usual Optics design programs will be the for any partial surface calculated windscreen necessary compensation surface. The data will be in the control electronics for the piezomatrix saved.”]
Per claims 21, 26, and 29, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 1, wherein the PFO device is configured as a reflective piston-mode spatial light modulator that includes the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
Per claim 22, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 21, wherein the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors includes an array of micrometer size micro-mirrors arranged on different planes [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
Per claim 23, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 21, further comprising: a controller in communication with the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors, the controller configured to individually control a vertical movement of each representative one of the individually-controllable micro-mirrors [inherent to the combination].
Per claim 24, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 1, wherein the PFO device is constructed with a mirror surface formed from the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
Per claims 25 and 30, Jahn et al. teach the HUD system of claim 24, further comprising: an actuator assembly, wherein the mirror surface is shaped or contoured using the actuator assembly; and a controller in communication with the actuator assembly, the controller configured to individually control a corresponding state of each respective one of the individually-controllable micro-mirrors [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
Per claims 27 and 31, Jahn et al. teach the motor vehicle of claim 26, wherein the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors includes an array of micrometer size micro-mirrors arranged on different planes [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
Per claim 28, Jahn et al. teach the motor vehicle of claim 26, further comprising: a controller in communication with the array of individually-controllable micro-mirrors, the controller configured to individually control a vertical movement of each representative one of the individually-controllable micro-mirrors [inherent to the combination, see above figure 7].
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7-10, 16-17, and 19-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights