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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The to claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 (and their respective dependents) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 13-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. foreign patent document CN107045199A, of record, in view of Takahashi US Patent Application Publication 2019/0255946, of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 21 You discloses a head-up display (title e.g. figures 2-3) comprising: a housing (implicit that a housing is used to hold elements) having an inner space (e.g. space bounded by elements 10, 20 & 30) therein and configured to be disposed below a windshield of a vehicle (e.g. windshield 50); an imaging device (e.g. display unit 10) accommodated in the inner space and configured to emit a first linearly polarized light in a first direction (e.g. first ray 11 paragraph [0057] “first ray 11 is polarized light” and notes an exemplar of “polarized light in the P-polarization direction”); an inner mirror (e.g. reflector 20) disposed to be spaced apart from the imaging device (e.g. 10) in the inner space (see figures 2-3) and configured to reflect the first linearly polarized light emitted from the imaging device in the first direction (paragraph [0057] “first ray 11 reflected by the mirror 20 is referred to here as the second ray 21”); a polarization film (e.g. polarizing beam splitter 30) configured to transmit the first linearly polarized light reflected from the inner mirror (paragraph [0057] “second ray 21 passes through a polarizing beam splitter 30” see figures 2-3) and reflect a second linearly polarized light in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (axiomatic e.g. paragraph [0059] “the polarization direction of the second ray 21 can be, for example, orthogonal to the polarization direction of the third ray 31” & paragraph [0061] “the polarizing beam splitter 30 reflects the third ray 31” see figures 2-3); and a phase delay mirror (e.g. combination of 40 & 60) disposed outside the inner space and configured to phase-convert the first linearly polarized light transmitted through the polarization film after being reflected from the inner mirror into the second linearly polarized light so as to emit the second linearly polarized light to the polarization film (paragraph [0059] “The beam combiner 40 is positioned on the transmission path of the second ray 21, and then reflects the second ray 21 after it passes through the wave plate 60. The second ray 21 is reflected by the beam combiner 40 and is represented by the third ray 31. The third ray 31 then passes through the wave plate 60 again, causing the polarization direction of the third ray 31 after passing through the wave plate 60 to be rotated by 90 degrees compared to the polarization direction of the second ray 21 after passing through the polarizing beam splitter 30.” see figures 2-3), wherein the second linearly polarized light phase-converted from the phase delay mirror is reflected to the windshield by the polarization film, and wherein the first linearly polarized light reflected from the inner mirror is transmitted through the polarization film to proceed to the windshield (paragraph [0061] “Next, the third ray 31 is projected toward the polarizing beam splitter 30, and the polarizing beam splitter 30 reflects the third ray 31. Finally, the windshield 50, positioned on the transmission path of the third ray 31 reflected by the polarizing beam splitter 30, reflects the third ray 31 reflected by the polarizing beam splitter 30 to the user's eye 70.” see figures 2-3).
While it is implicit that a housing is used to hold elements You is silent regarding a housing. Specifically, You does not disclose wherein the housing includes an opening defined in an upper portion of the housing, and the polarization film is disposed in the opening of the housing and configured to cover the inner space as a cover dust that prevents foreign substances from penetrating through the opening into the inner space, as further required by claim 1; or wherein the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows from the inner mirror to the imaging device, as required by claim 21.
Takahashi teaches a similar head-up display (title e.g. figure 1 projection device/head-up display device 1A) including an imaging device (e.g. displays 3Ba) emitting polarized light (paragraph [0024] “3Ba of the present embodiment emits, as display light L1, linearly polarized light”), an inner mirror (e.g. reflection mirror 7B), a polarization film (e.g. transparent cover 5B & paragraph [0026] “polarizing film is affixed to a surface, of the transparent cover 5B”) passing light reflected from the inner mirror (see figure 1); and further teaches the housing includes an opening defined in an upper portion of the housing (e.g. opening 2a), and the polarization film (e.g. 5B) is disposed in the opening of the housing and configured to cover the inner space as a cover dust that prevents foreign substances from penetrating through the opening into the inner space (inter alia paragraph [0026] “transparent cover 5B prevents dust and the like from entering the housing 2 from outside, by blocking the opening 2a”) for the purpose of preventing dust and the like from entering the housing; and wherein the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows (see figure 1) from the inner mirror (e.g.7B) to the imaging device (e.g. 3Ba) for the purpose of fitting into a particular dashboard shape, further it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966; see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the housing in the head-up display as disclosed by You to have an opening defined in an upper portion of the housing, and the polarization film is disposed in the opening of the housing and configured to cover the inner space as a cover dust that prevents foreign substances from penetrating through the opening into the inner space, and the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows from the inner mirror to the imaging device, as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of preventing dust and the like from entering the housing and for the purpose of fitting into a particular dashboard shape, and since shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein the phase delay mirror (e.g. combination of 40 & 60) comprises: a 1/4 wavelength phase retarder (e.g. wave plate 60 paragraph [0058] “wave plate 60 can be a quarter wave plate”) disposed outside the inner space and facing the polarization film (see figures 2-3); and an outer mirror (e.g. beam combiner 40 paragraph [0060] “wave plate 60”) disposed outward of the 1/4 wavelength phase retarder in relations to the polarization film (e.g. see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein the imaging device (e.g. 10) is disposed to be spaced apart from the polarization film (e.g. 30) in a vertical direction below the polarization film (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein the inner mirror (e.g. 20) is disposed to be spaced apart from the polarization film (e.g. 30) in a vertical direction below the polarization film (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein the phase delay mirror (e.g. combination of 40 & 60) is disposed above the polarization film (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 17 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein a blind loop (e.g. light-blocking surface 42) on which the phase delay mirror (e.g. combination of 40 & 60) is disposed is provided at the upper portion of the housing (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 18 the combination of You as modified by Takahashi discloses the head-up display according to claim 1, as set forth above. You further discloses wherein the phase delay mirror (e.g. light-blocking surface 42) is disposed between the housing and the windshield (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 19 You discloses a head-up display (title e.g. figures 2-3) comprising: a housing (implicit that a housing is used to hold elements) having an inner space (e.g. space bounded by elements 10, 20 & 30) and disposed adjacent to a windshield of a vehicle (e.g. 50); an imaging device (e.g. 10) in the inner space and configured to emit a first linearly polarized light in a first direction (e.g. 11); an inner mirror (e.g. 20) in the inner space and spaced apart from the imaging device (see figures 2-3), and configured to reflect the first linearly polarized light (e.g. 21); and a phase delay mirror (e.g. combination of 40 & 60) disposed between the windshield and the housing (see figures 2-3), and configured to phase-convert the first linearly polarized light reflected from the inner mirror (e.g. 21) into a second linearly polarized light (e.g. 31).
While it is implicit that a housing is used to hold elements You is silent regarding a housing. Specifically, You does not disclose wherein the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows from the inner mirror to the imaging device.
Takahashi teaches a similar head-up display (as set forth above); and further teaches the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows (see figure 1) from the inner mirror (e.g.7B) to the imaging device (e.g. 3Ba) for the purpose of fitting into a particular dashboard shape, further it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966; see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the housing in the head-up display as disclosed by You to have the inner space in the housing increasingly narrows from the inner mirror to the imaging device, as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of fitting into a particular dashboard shape, and since shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
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 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 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights