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 .
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.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and abstract have been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 11, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 as it pertains to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “to achieve a large field of view” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What is “large”? The metes and bounds, and thus infringement, are unclear since what does or does not constitute a large field of view is not an objective metric. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as there are two divided fields of view, such features are met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “large eyebox” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What is “large”? The metes and bounds, and thus infringement, are unclear since what does or does not constitute a large eyebox is not an objective metric. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as there are two divided fields of view, such features are met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “effectively reduce difficulty for processing while ensuring performance…” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Such features (effectively reduce difficulty; ensuring performance) appear entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes and effective reduction in difficulty is not an objective metric. Additionally, what performance is assured? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as there are two divided fields of view, such features are met.
Claims 2-4, 9, 11-15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 9, 11, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Ronen et al. (US 2023/0139649 - Ronen; of record).
As to claim 1, Ronen teaches a head-up display system (Ronen Figs. 1-5B) comprising a light source (Ronen Fig. 1A - 14; para. [0040]) and an optical guide assembly (Ronen Fig. 1A - 10, 20; Fig. 4; Fig. 5A - 10, 10’, 20, 20’; para. [0040], [0043]);
wherein an incident light emitted from the light source is incident into the optical guide assembly (Ronen Fig. 1A - 14, 20, 10);
wherein the optical guide assembly receives the incident light and outputs exit light (Ronen Fig. 1A - 10, 20, 15, 50);
and wherein the optical guide assembly comprises at least two optical guides (Ronen Figs. 1A,B - 10, 20; para. [0040], [0043]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5A - 10, 10’, 20, 20’), and the incident light is coupled in and coupled out by the at least two optical guides and is then exited to form at least two divided field of views (Ronen Fig. 4; para. [0063]-[0064]; Fig. 5A - 15, 50), to achieve a large field of view, a large eyebox, and to effectively reduce difficulty for processing while ensuring performance of the head-up display system (Ronen Figs. 1-5B; para. [0068]-[0071]),
wherein the optical guide assembly comprises an optical guides array (Ronen Fig. 4; para. [0063]), the optical guides array comprises a plurality of sub optical guides arranged in an array along a first direction (Ronen Fig. 4; para [0063] - sub optical guides arranged in (X)) and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Ronen Fig. 4 - sub optical guides also arranged in (Y)), each sub optical guide provides one sub field of view (Ronen Fig. 4; para. [0063]), and
wherein two sub optical guides adjacent to each other in the optical guides array form an overlapping field of view (Ronen Fig. 4; para. [0063]).
As to claim 2, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ronen further teaches the at least two optical guides comprise a coupling in area (Ronen Fig. 1A - 13; Fig. 1B - 23; para. [0046]).
As to claim 3, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ronen further teaches the head-up display system further comprises a transmission-reflection plate for reflecting the exit light to a human eye (Ronen Fig. 1A - 15; para. [0039]).
As to claim 4, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Ronen further teaches the exit light is reflected by the transmission-reflection plate to form at least two eyebox areas (Ronen Fig. 1A - 15, 50; Fig. 4; Fig. 5B - 15, 50; para. [0039]).
As to claim 9, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ronen further teaches the optical guides array has a multi-layered structure (Ronen Fig. 1A - 10, 20; Fig. 4; Figs. 5A,B - 10, 10’, 20, 20’).
As to claim 11, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ronen further teaches two adjacent optical guides contact with each other or a gap is between the two adjacent optical guides (Ronen Fig. 1A - 10, 20; Figs. 5A,B - 10, 10’, 20, 20’).
As to claim 14, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ronen further teaches the head-up display has one light source or plurality of light sources and when the head-up display system has a plurality of light sources, the plurality of light sources are disposed corresponding to the optical guides, respectively (Ronen Fig. 1A - 14; Fig. 5A - 14, 14’).
As to claim 15, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Ronen further teaches the transmission-reflection plate is a vehicle windshield (Ronen Fig. 1A - 15; para. [0039]).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Amitai (US 6,829,095; of record).
As to claim 12, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Ronen further teaches the optical guides (LOE) elements can be those found in US 6,829,095 (Ronen para. [0005]), but doesn’t specify whether the guides (10, 20) are diffractive and 1D or 2D.
In the same field of endeavor Amitai teaches optical guides with coupling in and coupling out areas being one- or two-dimensional gratings (Amitai Fig. 14 - 22, 22a-c; col. 11:39-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention since, as taught by Amitai, such diffractive optical guides are well known in the art for the purpose of expanding incoming light for generating the desired field of view (Amitai col. 11:39-67; col. 1:45-55) and suitable for compact, inexpensive LOEs (Ronen para. [0005]).
As to claim 13, Ronen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Ronen further teaches the optical guides (LOE) elements can be those found in US 6,829,095 (Ronen para. [0005]), but doesn’t specify a turning area such that light passes through the coupling in area, the turning area, and the coupling out area to exit.
In the same field of endeavor Amitai teaches optical guides with coupling in, turning, and coupling out areas (Amitai Fig. 14 - 22, 22a-c; col. 11:39-67; Fig. 29 - 126, 128, 130; col. 17:44-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention since, as taught by Amitai, such optical guides are well known in the art for the purpose of expanding incoming light for generating the desired field of view (Amitai col. 11:39-67; col. 1:45-55) and suitable for compact, inexpensive LOEs (Ronen para. [0005]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights