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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 65a.
The drawings are objected to because the depiction of path of incoming sunlight rays (65) in figures 1B and 3 are incomplete to the point that they are factually inaccurate and misleading.
Regarding figure 1B – given that sunlight is unpolarized when sunlight (65) interacts with a reflective polarizer (20) only one polarization would be transmitted1 (e.g. p-polarization). When the polarized transmitted light interacts with HUD mirror (40) with polarization rotation film, such that said polarized transmitted light would be reflected back towards said reflective polarizer (20) and rotated to an orthogonal polarization2 (e.g. s-polarization). The reflect light (65a?) with an orthogonal polarization (e.g. s-polarization) would be reflected off of said reflective polarizer (20) and not transmitted to the eye of a user (110). However, figure 1B shows said reflect light with said orthogonal polarization as being transmitted through said reflective polarizer (and to the eye of a use), which is factually inaccurate.
Figure 3 has substantially the same issues as figure 1B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner’s Comments
The examine respectfully wonders if applicant has inadvertently overlooked some operational features of sunlight interacting with the claimed invention. The examiner agrees with the path of image rays (60) and the interaction of said image rays, as seen in figure 7 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Instant application figure 7, showing path and progression of image rays (60) through claimed invention, including polarization and interactions with reflective polarizer (20) and quarter wave plate (45).
However, a similar analysis of sunlight is made in figure B below. For clarity, the following facts are relied upon: (1) sunlight is unpolarized3 and (2) reflection of light is at an angle equal and opposite to the angle of incidence4.
[AltContent: textbox (louver)][AltContent: textbox (unpolarized sunlight)]
[AltContent: textbox (transmitted
p-polarization sunlight)][AltContent: textbox (l/4 waveplate)][AltContent: textbox (reflective polarizer sunlight)][AltContent: textbox (reflected
s-polarization sunlight)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
474
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Path and progression of sunlight through claimed invention, including polarizations and interactions with reflective polarizer (20) and quarter wave plate (45).
As can be seen in figure B, in the invention seen in figure 7 the louver (50) has no role in reducing glare from sunlight that has passed into the device and been reflected by the primary mirror (40). However, if the reflective polarizer was at a less steep position, such as seen in figure 1A & 1B, the equal and opposite reflection of light from the reflective polarizer (20) might interact with the louver (50), however if the reflective polarizer (20) and the louver (50) were parallel the light reflected from the reflective polarizer (20) would pass back through the louver (50). However, the specification does not describe any of this. Any modifications that would incorporate these features into the figures, specification and/or claims would be new matter and would require a “continuation in part” filing. The examiner is available for an interview, as noted in the conclusion, to discuss any of these technical issues.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification description of how glare is generated in the prior art and how glare is reduced by applicant’s invention is problematic, as discussed above. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the transmitted incident light is trapped by the glare trap for any position of the eye within the eye-box: in claim 5;
“light rays that are emitted by the imager, follow the folded optical path, and exit the optical system through the exit surface along corresponding forward directions toward the viewer, are substantially transmitted by the louver” in claim 8;
“wherein at least two different, adjacent segments of the folded optical path make an angle of less than about 45 degrees with each other” in claim 9; and
“the optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by the imager to a viewer after the emitted image is reflected at least once each by the reflective polarizer and the primary mirror, is transmitted by the reflective polarizer” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent of 1) “wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that light rays transmitted by the glare trap along the second direction are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap” repeats the limitation added to claim 1, verbatim. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent of 8) “wherein the louver comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the louver, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the louver” repeats the limitation added to claim 8, verbatim. Therefore, claim 12 fails to further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 16 (dependent of 14) “wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that the reflected light ray is incident on the glare trap at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap” repeats the limitation added to claim 14, verbatim. Therefore, claim 16 fails to further limit the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 8 (and therefore its dependent claims 9-13) an optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by an imager to a viewer “wherein light rays that are emitted by the imager, follow the folded optical path, and exit the optical system through the exit surface along corresponding forward directions toward the viewer, are substantially transmitted by the louver, when a light ray is incident on the exit surface along reverse directions coincident with and opposite to the forward directions, the louver transmits at least some of the light ray, the louver comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the louver, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the louver and are substantially blocked by the louver” is not enabled. In the HUD with a folded optical path, e.g. see figure 3 (Wands factor A), one of ordinary skill (Wands factor D) would predictable (Wands factor E) understand that the light reflected by the primary mirror would be deflected by the reflective polarizer (Wands factor B) and have no further interaction with the louver, i.e. said louver does not substantially block the light reflected by the primary mirror (as discussed and illustrated above). The direction provided in the application (Wands factor F) using a louver to block sunlight reflected the primary mirror is seen in figure 5. However, this does not cover the other elements required for “light rays that are emitted by the imager, follow the folded optical path”. Particularly, the folded optical path enabled by the specification, see figures 3 & 7, requires a fold mirror (30), a l/4 waveplate (45) and a reflective polarizer (20). Thus, applicant fails to disclose a working example of an optical system configured to display a virtual image transmitted in a folded system with a louver filtering light reflected from a primary mirror (Wands factor G), as claimed. Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a). See below for an interpretation used for examination.
Claims 8-13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement5. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8 (and therefore its dependent claims 9-13) as discussed above, applicant has fails to disclose a working example of an optical system configured to display a virtual image transmitted in a folded system with a louver filtering light reflected from a primary mirror, as claimed. Considering the deficiencies discussed and illustrated above, the examiner asserts applicant did not have possession of an optical system configured to display a virtual image transmitted in a folded system with a louver filtering light reflected from a primary mirror, as claimed.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for:
An optical system comprising an imager, a reflective polarizer, a primary mirror, and a glare trap, the glare trap comprising a first side facing the reflective polarizer and an opposing second side, the optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by the imager to a viewer after the emitted image is reflected at least once each by the reflective polarizer and the primary mirror, is transmitted by the reflective polarizer, and exits the optical system through the glare trap within a predetermined cone angle relative to an optical axis of the optical system, wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed relative to the glare trap such that when an incident light ray that is incident on the glare trap from the second side of the glare trap and within the predetermined cone angle, along a direction coincident with and opposite to a direction of a light ray emitted by the imager and exiting the optical system through the glare trap for viewing by the viewer, transmitted by the glare trap, and reflected from the primary mirror as a reflected light ray, then the reflected light ray is not transmitted by the glare trap.
it does not reasonably provide enablement for:
An optical system comprising an imager, a reflective polarizer, a primary mirror, and a glare trap, the glare trap comprising a first side facing the reflective polarizer and an opposing second side, the optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by the imager to a viewer after the emitted image is reflected at least once each by the reflective polarizer and the primary mirror, is transmitted by the reflective polarizer, and exits the optical system through the glare trap within a predetermined cone angle relative to an optical axis of the optical system, wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed relative to the glare trap such that when an incident light ray that is incident on the glare trap from the second side of the glare trap and within the predetermined cone angle, along a direction coincident with and opposite to a direction of a light ray emitted by the imager and exiting the optical system through the glare trap for viewing by the viewer, transmitted by the glare trap, and reflected from the primary mirror as a reflected light ray, then the reflected light ray is incident on the glare trap at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap and is not transmitted by the glare trap.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Using substantially the same Wands analysis as set forth above, the specification enables (e.g. figure 7) a HUD with a reflective polarizer (20), a primary mirror (40) and a glare trap (50) where the portion of sunlight (65) reflected by the primary mirror would be suppressed by the reflective polarizer (20), see figure B above. Thus the reflected light ray is not incident on the glare trap. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “… the reflected light ray
Claims 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 17 (dependents of 6, 12 and 16, respectively) “wherein the light rays transmitted by the glare trap and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the glare trap, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc” is not enabled. Following the Wands analysis set forth above the light rays reflected from the primary mirror are not incidence (at any angle) on the glare trap/louver, since they are reflected by the reflective polarizer in the folded path of the HUD. If the examiner changed the language to eliminate the “incidence” on the glare trap/louver the claim would substantially repeat the limitations of claims 6, 12 and 16 (see 112(b) rejection below) , since “outside of the acceptance angle” is synonymous with >½qc. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret any device reading on claims 6, 12 and 16 inherently read on 7, 13 and 17, respectively. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling these claims.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 an “optical system comprising an imager, a reflective polarizer, a primary mirror, and a glare trap comprising a louver” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if a glare trap comprising a louver may also comprise the reflective polarizer or not. Since the reflective polarizer actually traps the light reflected from the primary mirror (as set forth above) and applicant uses the open “comprising” the examiner is interpreting that the glare trap may comprise the reflective polarizer. Otherwise, the claim would fail enablement (see Wands analysis above) and written description (i.e. possession as set forth above) requirements. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “optical system comprising an imager, a reflective polarizer, a primary mirror, and a glare trap comprising a louver and the reflective polarizer”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 1 “wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that light rays transmitted by the glare trap along the second direction are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap, such that if the transmitted incident light ray attempts to exit the optical system through the glare trap, the glare trap traps the transmitted incident light and transmits no more than about 2% of the transmitted incident light ray” raises clarity issues. If the transmitted incident light ray is reflected at an angle outside of the acceptance cone the light it would not be transmitted, i.e. 0% transmitted. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation, in the same claim, is considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question as to whether no light would pass, as would necessarily result from light reflected outside qc, or if the light is substantially reflected outside qc such that less than 2% passes. Further, the colloquial framing of “such that if the transmitted incident light ray attempts to exit the optical system through the glare trap” is, to use a colloquialism, wishy-washy. What if the ray doesn’t make such an attempt? Given the claim construction the examiner interprets that possibility of the ray’s attempts at escaping the glare trap having up to a 2% success rate (the broader limitation) controls the interpretation. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that light rays transmitted by the glare trap along the second direction are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle substantially outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap, such that substantially traps the transmitted incident light reflected from the primary mirror and transmits no more than about 2% of the transmitted incident light ray reflected from the primary mirror.”
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent of 6) “wherein the light rays transmitted by the glare trap and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the glare trap, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc” has clarity issues. The phrase “outside acceptance cone” as required by claim 6 is synonymous with “> ½qc”. The limitation in claim 7 “greater than or equal to ½qc”, i.e. “≥ ½qc” prohibitively broadens claim 6 (and claim 1). It is unclear if the new, prohibitively broader limitation supersedes the original limitation or not (assumed). Given these issues in combination with the 112(a) and 112(d) rejections set forth above for purposes of examination the examiner will use interpret any device reading on claim 1 necessarily/inherently reads on claim 7. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
Regarding claim 8 an optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by an imager to a viewer “wherein light rays that are emitted by the imager, follow the folded optical path, and exit the optical system through the exit surface along corresponding forward directions toward the viewer, are substantially transmitted by the louver, when a light ray is incident on the exit surface along reverse directions coincident with and opposite to the forward directions, the louver transmits at least some of the light ray, the louver comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the louver, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the louver and are substantially blocked by the louver” has clarity issues. As discussed above, the folded HUD disclosed by the specification does not have the louver substantially blocking the sunlight reflected by the primary mirror. It is unclear if the folded path should be removed (figure 5) or if the blocking the sunlight reflected by the primary mirror should be removed. Given the entire application and claim is directed to a HUD for purposes of examination the examiner will use “… and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle substantially outside of the acceptance cone of the louver
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 8 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent of 12) “wherein the light rays transmitted by the glare trap and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the glare trap, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc” has the same clarity issues as claim 7. Using the same reasoning given these issues in combination with the 112a and 112d rejections set forth above for purposes of examination the examiner will use interpret any device reading on claim 8 necessarily/inherently reads on claim 13. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent of 16) “wherein the light rays transmitted by the glare trap and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the glare trap, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc” has the same clarity issues as claims 7 and 13. Using the same reasoning given these issues in combination with the 112a and 112d rejections set forth above for purposes of examination the examiner will use interpret any device reading on claim 14 necessarily/inherently reads on claim 17. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otani et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0269428, of record.
Regarding claim 8 Otani discloses an optical system (title e.g. figure 10 head-up display/HUD 151) configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by an imager to a viewer (function of a HUD), the optical system comprising the imager (e.g. projector 200), a primary mirror (e.g. concave mirror 303), a louver (e.g. louver optical element 305), and an exit surface disposed along a folded optical path (e.g. see figure 10), wherein light rays that are emitted by the imager (e.g. image light B output from projector 200), follow the folded optical path (e.g. see figure 10), and exit the optical system through the exit surface along corresponding forward directions toward the viewer (e.g. see figure 10 e.g. drive D), are substantially transmitted by the louver (paragraphs [0084-85] e.g. see figure 10-11), when a light ray is incident on the exit surface along reverse directions coincident with and opposite to the forward directions are substantially blocked by the louver (paragraph [0086] e.g. see figure 11), the louver transmits at least some of the light ray (e.g. a light ray within qc), the louver comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the louver (definition of a physical feature inherent for a louver, e.g. see figure 11 & paragraph [0086]), and the primary mirror (e.g. 303) is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle substantially outside of the acceptance cone of the louver (given the angled placement of 303 and curvature of 303 the light would be reflected across a wide range of angles and since functional louvers have relatively narrow qc it necessarily follows that most of the reflected light would be >qc e.g. see annotated figure C below).
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
606
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Annotated version of portion of figure 10 showing sunlight directly in line to pass through the louver would substantially be reflected at an angle outside of qc.
Regarding claim 9 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 8, as set forth above. Otani further disclose wherein at least two different, adjacent segments of the folded optical path make an angle of less than about 45 degrees with each other (e.g. see figure 10 rays B incident and reflected from 303).
Regarding claim 10 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 8, as set forth above. Otani further disclose wherein the louver (e.g. 305) comprises a plurality of spaced-apart, substantially parallel slats extending along a first louver direction and arranged along a different second louver direction (e.g. paragraph [0082] figure 11 light-shielding members 306).
Regarding claim 11 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 8, as set forth above. Otani further disclose it is further comprising an eye-box defining possible positions of an eye of the viewer (necessary for proper operation of a HUD transmitting to driver D in a vehicle), wherein the light rays incident on the exit surface along the reverse directions are substantially blocked by the louver for any position of the eye within the eye-box (paragraph [0086] e.g. see figure 11).
Regarding claim 12 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 8, including (see 112 rejection above) wherein the louver comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the louver, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the louver such that light rays transmitted by the louver along the reverse directions are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the louver, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 13 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 12, including wherein the light rays transmitted by the louver and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the louver, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc, which is synonymous with “an angle outside of the acceptance cone” (see 112 rejections above), as set forth above.
Regarding claim 14 Otani disclose an optical system (title e.g. 151) comprising an imager (e.g. 200), a reflective polarizer (e.g. 301), a primary mirror (e.g. 303), and a glare trap (e.g. 305), the glare trap comprising a first side facing the reflective polarizer and an opposing second side (e.g. see figure 10), the optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by the imager to a viewer after the emitted image is reflected at least once each by the reflective polarizer and the primary mirror (e.g. see figure 10), is transmitted by the reflective polarizer (e.g. see figure 10), and exits the optical system through the glare trap (e.g. see figure 10) within a predetermined cone angle relative to an optical axis of the optical system (e.g. see figures 10-11), wherein the glare trap (e.g. 305) comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap (definition of a physical feature inherent for a louver, e.g. see figure 11 & paragraph [0086]), and the primary mirror (e.g. 303) the primary mirror (e.g. 303) is disposed relative to the glare trap such that when an incident light ray that is incident on the glare trap from the second side of the glare trap and within the predetermined cone angle, along a direction coincident with and opposite to a direction of a light ray emitted by the imager and exiting the optical system through the glare trap for viewing by the viewer (e.g. sunlight within qc), transmitted by the glare trap, and reflected from the primary mirror as a reflected light ray (e.g. see annotated figure C above), then the reflected light ray is not transmitted by the glare trap (inherent since 301 would only allow a single polarization in and the l/4 waveplate 302 would shift it to the orthogonal polarization that 303 would reflect/trap).
Regarding claim 15 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 14, as set forth above. Otani further disclose it is further comprising an eye-box defining possible positions of an eye of the viewer (necessary for proper operation of a HUD in a vehicle), wherein the reflected light ray is not transmitted by the glare trap for any position of the eye within the eye-box (inherent given structure and function).
Regarding claim 16 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 14, including (see 112 rejection above) wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that the reflected light ray is incident on the glare trap at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 17 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 16, including wherein the reflected light ray is incident on the glare trap at an angle, qm, that is greater than or equal to ½qc, which is synonymous with “an angle outside of the acceptance cone” (see 112 rejections above), as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0269428, of record.
Regarding claims 1-3 Otani disclose an optical system (title e.g. 151) comprising an imager (e.g. 200), a reflective polarizer (e.g. 301), a primary mirror (e.g. 303), and a glare trap comprising a louver (e.g. 305) and the reflective polarizer (e.g. 301), the optical system configured to display a virtual image of an image emitted by the imager (e.g. image light B output from projector 200) to a viewer (e.g. D) after the emitted image is reflected by the primary mirror (e.g. 303) and transmitted by the reflective polarizer (e.g. 301) and exits the optical system through the glare trap (e.g. see figure 10), wherein for every light ray that is emitted by the imager (e.g. B) and exits the optical system through the glare trap along a first direction for viewing by the viewer (paragraphs [0084-85] e.g. see figures 10-11), when a light ray is incident on the glare trap along a second direction coincident with and opposite to the first direction, the glare trap transmits at least some of the incident light ray, wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap (definition of a physical feature inherent for a louver, e.g. see figure 11 & paragraph [0086]) and the primary mirror (e.g. 303) is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap (e.g. 301 & 305) such that light rays transmitted by the glare trap along the second direction are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle substantially outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap (inherent since the majority of the tangents to 303 would cause an equal and opposite reflection outside of acceptance angle of 305), such that the glare trap substantially traps the transmitted incident light reflected from the primary mirror (inherent since 301 would only allow a single polarization in and the l/4 waveplate 302 would shift it to the orthogonal polarization that 303 would reflect/trap).
Otani does not disclose the glare trap traps the transmitted incident light and transmits no more than about 2% of the transmitted incident light ray reflected from the primary mirror, as required by claim 1; or wherein the glare trap transmits no more than about 1% of the transmitted incident light ray, as required by claim 2; or wherein the glare trap transmits no more than about 0.1% of the transmitted incident light ray, as required by claim 3. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Otani has all of the claimed elements functioning as claimed, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the glare trap transmit no more than about 2% or 1% or 0.1% of the transmitted incident light ray for the purpose of reducing glare. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical system as disclosed by Otani to have the glare trap transmit no more than about 2% or 1% or 0.1% of the transmitted incident light ray for the purpose of reducing glare to a desired level and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Otani further disclose wherein the glare trap (e.g. 301 & 305) comprises a plurality of spaced-apart, substantially parallel slats extending along a first glare trap direction and arranged along a different second glare trap direction (e.g. paragraph [0082] figure 11 light-shielding members 306).
Regarding claim 5 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Otani further disclose it is further comprising an eye-box defining possible positions of an eye of the viewer (necessary for proper operation of a HUD in a vehicle), wherein the transmitted incident light is trapped by the glare trap for any position of the eye within the eye-box (inherent given structure and function).
Regarding claim 6 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 1, including (see 112 rejection above) wherein the glare trap comprises an acceptance cone defined by a maximum angle of incidence, qc, of a light ray substantially transmitted by the glare trap, and the primary mirror is disposed at an angle relative to the glare trap such that light rays transmitted by the glare trap along the second direction are reflected from the primary mirror at an angle outside of the acceptance cone of the glare trap, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7 Otani disclose the optical system of claim 6, including wherein the light rays transmitted by the glare trap and reflected from the primary mirror have an angle of incidence on the glare trap, qm, that is greater than ½qc, which is synonymous with “an angle outside of the acceptance cone” (see 112 rejections above), as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument center on the reflected sunlight leaving the louver being less than 2% being tied to the inherent physical properties, i.e. qc, of a louver, and thereby eliminating Otani as prior art, the examiner is unpersuaded. It is basic knowledge when light is incident on a louver across a range of off axis angles the amount of light exiting said louver would be reduced by adjusting qc, e.g. by increasing the height and/or spacing of slats, e.g. see Otani figure 11 and paragraphs [0082-88]. However, this is moot, since applicant’s device operates on a different principle to reduce glare, see at least examiner’s comments section above. To be blunt, the (polarized portion of) sunlight reflected by the primary mirror does not even reach the louver, see annotated figure B above.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the (polarized portion of) sunlight reflected by the primary mirror is not inherently outside of qc, the examiner is unpersuaded. Given the interpretations set forth above, the angle is interpreted to be substantially outside of qc. Given that Otani’s primary mirror is a curved mirror, with the axis canted with respect to the louver, and the law of refraction, the examiner maintains the (polarized portion of) sunlight reflected by the primary mirror is substantially outside of qc, see annotated figure C above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Todoroki foreign patent document JPH08258589A; in regards to a HUD (e.g. figure 1) with louvers (105), where if incident sunlight (110) was within qc (qo) said sunlight would, according to the law of reflection be reflected outside of qc.
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 18, 2026
1 As evidenced at least by instant application pre-grant publication paragraph [0028].
2 As evidenced at least by instant application pre-grant publication paragraph [0028] and figure 1A.
3 While sunlight is partially polarization due to atmospheric scattering it still contains unpolarized and different polarizations of light and is generally considered to be “unpolarized” as evidenced by Siletz “The Physics of Polarizing Filters” June 2014 lines 10-11 “Direct Sunlight, light bulbs and candles are examples of unpolarized light sources.” And Weideman “UCD: Physics 9B Waves, Sound, Optics, Thermodynamics, and Fluids”; Section 3.7 Polarization, as of Jan. 2021, page 2 lines 2-3: “In fact “natural” light from light bulbs and the sun is “unpolarized,” which comes about because each of the individual light sources (atoms) are aligned in random orientations, and all send out random, unaligned light waves.”
4 As evidenced by Hecht “Optics, Second Edition” page 83, 1987 “… the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, that is, qI = qr. (4.3) Known as the law of refraction …” (emphasis in original).
5 As a point of clarity the written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., Fed. Cir. 2010, see MPEP 2161.
Prosecution Insights