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 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.
Claims 1, 3-20 are pending. Applicant’s previous election of claims 1, 3-12, 16-20 still applies and claims 13-15 remain withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 05/15/26 has been entered. Applicant's amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection and the remarks are not persuasive.
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 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.
If 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (WO 2020083649, citations made to U.S. 2021/0325672) in view of Jiang (U.S. 2024/0025156).
Regarding claims 1, 3-12, 16-20, Fischer discloses a laminated panel for a HUD (even though the intended use is not given patentable weight) that comprises a first pane, a thermoplastic (e.g., polymers overlapping claims 8 and 18, [0076]) intermediate layer which may be wedge shaped ([0014], merely preferred that it is not wedge shaped, which makes a wedge shaped intermediate layer within the scope of the invention as a non-preferred embodiment, and also because wedge shaped intermediate layers are disclosed as mitigating ghosting, [0004]), a second pane, and a reflective coating intended to reflect p polarized light (from the HUD projector, i.e., over the HUD region as claimed) which may be applied to the inner side of the outer pane (corresponding to the second surface of the first pane facing the intermediate layer) and comprises a high refractive index coating layer (overlapping the claimed refractive index range) of, e.g., silicon zirconium nitride (inherently not conductive as in claim 4), which may be applied by sputtering (as in claims 11 and 20, although this is a product by process limitation that is not given patentable weight) ([0010], [0013], [0022]-[0023], [0079]), wherein the panes may be tinted as in claim 3 ([0075]), have a thickness overlapping claims 10 and 19 ([0074]), with such overlapping ranges including embodiments in which the inner (second) pane has a smaller thickness than the outer (first) pane (also see, e.g., [0092], suggesting a thinner inner pane).
Fischer does not disclose the claimed second coating on the second (inner) pane opposite the side facing the intermediate coating. However, Jiang is also directed to HUD laminates and teaches that a p polarized reflective coating, 40, on the inner side (facing the intermediate layer) of the outer pane (see abstract, [0054], FIG. 1, as in Fischer) may be combined with an additional reflection enhancing coating 50 (also for reflecting p-polarized light from the HUD projector, i.e., over the HUD region as claimed) on the inside surface of the second inner pane (corresponding to the claimed second coating) that comprises high and low refractive index dielectric sub layers (exclusively dielectric/free of conductive materials, and with refractive index overlapping the claimed ranges, [0064], [0084], providing examples of such high and low refractive index dielectric materials, with the high refractive index material closer to the second pane than the low refractive index material, as in claim 5), in order to improve sharpness and enhance HUD effect ([0005], [0007], [0047], [0064]), such that it would have been obvious to have included such a reflection enhancing coating on the inner surface of the inner pane in Fischer in order to improve sharpness and enhance HUD effect as in Jiang. Jiang also teaches sputtering to form the reflection enhancing coating as in claims 11 and 20 (although this is a product by process limitation that is not given patentable weight) ([0052]).
Jiang in modified Fischer does not disclose the particular high and low refractive index materials as in claim 5 or their total thickness for achieving a p polarized reflective effect in the second coating, however, Fischer teaches an overlapping type of high and low refractive index dielectric materials and an overlapping combined thickness of the dielectric layers (compared to claims 5, 6, and 16) for the p polarization reflective coating already taught by Fischer such that it would have been obvious to have also used such materials and thicknesses to form the enhanced reflection second coating from Jiang in modified Fischer (because Fischer teaches that these materials/thicknesses achieve the desired p polarized light reflecting effect).
As indicated above, Fischer includes a wedge intermediate layer as a non-preferred embodiment, but does not disclose the angle of the wedge. Jiang makes this wedge embodiment more obvious because it teaches that an angle overlapping the range of claim 7 and 17 allows the HUD to have AR and/or holographic projection imaging and allows better implementation of the basic HUD effect (improved brightness and sharpness, [0067]) such that it would have been obvious to have used a wedge shaped intermediate layer as in Jiang in modified Fischer to provide AR and/or holographic projection imaging and allow better implementation of the basic HUD effect (e.g., improved brightness and sharpness).
Fischer does not disclose IR absorbing intermediate layers as in claim 9, however Jiang teaches that the intermediate layer may be IR absorbing (corresponding to wavelengths within the claimed range) to provide sun protection and heat insulation effects, thereby making such an IR absorbing property obvious for the intermediate layer of Fischer to provide sun protection and heat insulation effects as taught by Jiang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection which were necessitated by Applicant's amendment. Remarks which are still deemed relevant are addressed below and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the rejection on the grounds that the secondary reference requires an electrically conductive coating outside the claimed scope. However, the R1 reflectivity of TCC in the secondary reference (which interacts optically with the ERC) is not required to be met via an electrically conductive material and the equivalent coating already taught in the primary reference achieves the same desired reflectivity without being electrically conductive (thus allowing for the ERC from the secondary to interact with the p-polarized light reflective coating from the primary in the same way and with the same benefit disclosed in the secondary reference). The secondary reference is also not limited to the examples.
Furthermore, the secondary reference even teaches that the TCC includes dielectric sub-layers ([0058]) such that those sub-layers would qualify as the non-conductive coating in the claims anyway (the claims do not define the first and second coatings in a way that would include all the sub layers from [0058] of the secondary reference, such that a single sub layer from [0058] would qualify as the exclusively dielectric/non-conductive coating being claimed). This is moot because even if the claims were amended to preclude the sub-layers of [0058], the functionality of the TCC with respect to the benefit of the ERC in the secondary reference is based on the polarized light reflectivity of that layer (not conductivity) and the primary reference has a polarized light reflective layer that has no electrically conductive materials (even if you include the sublayers).
Applicant then argues that the references teach away from the wedge shaped intermediate layer which is not true because the non-wedge shape is merely preferred and the invention, at best (arguendo), is capable of functioning without relying on a wedge shaped layer, which does not disparage the wedge shaped layer. The reference is not limited to its preferred embodiments and the characterization of a non-wedge layer as “preferred” implicitly indicates that a wedge shaped layer is, at best, non-preferred (not disparaged and not outside the teachings of the reference).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights