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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 4/12/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata (20200159013).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata discloses a head-up display apparatus (Fig 1, [0021], HUD apparatus 1) for a motor vehicle (2), the head-up display (1) comprising: a housing part (Fig 1, housing 50) in which an image creation unit (30) of the display apparatus is arranged (Fig 1), wherein the image creation unit (30) is configured to provide an image which is projectable onto a light-transmissive projection surface ([0022], video display apparatus 30 is configured by a projector or an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display)), and an illumination device (31a), by means of which light is applied to the image creation unit ([0032], Fig 2), wherein a holding device is secured to the housing part in the region of the illumination device (Fig 1, [0021], video display apparatus 30 is arranged in a housing 50 and shows each member of the HUD within it), wherein the image creation unit (30) is retained on the holding device (Fig 1, [0028], video light is controlled so as to be incident at a desired position of the concave mirror 41 by controlling an emission direction of a line of the video light from the video display apparatus 30).
Regarding claim 2, Hirata discloses wherein the image creation unit (30) comprises a pane arrangement ([0022], video display apparatus 30 is configured by a projector or an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display)) which is in direct contact with the holding device (Fig 3B) and retained by means of the holding device (Fig 1, [0021], video display apparatus 30 is arranged in a housing 50).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata discloses wherein the holding device comprises a plurality of abutment points (Fig 3 shows the video apparatus 30 and lens 43 held within a housing 50), against which a back side of the pane arrangement facing the illumination device rests (Fig 2 shows 30 facing windshield 3).
Regarding claim 9, Hirata discloses wherein at least an end region of the holding device is engaged with a carrier part of the illumination device that is secured to the housing part (Fig 3A, Fig 3B, [0044], in the housing 50, at least in middle of optical path of video light, which reaches opening 52 of housing 50 from video display apparatus 30 via the concave mirror 41; video display apparatus 30 to transmit is formed on a half of a surface thereof).
Regarding claim 11, Hirata discloses wherein the image creation unit is in the form of a liquid crystal electronic visual display ([0022], video display apparatus 30 is configured by a projector or an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (20200159013) in view of Grandclerc (20210141218).
Regarding claim 7, Hirata discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein a diffuser element configured to scatter the light emitted by the illumination device during the operation of the illumination device is retained by means of the holding device. However, within a similar endeavor, Grandclerc teaches wherein a diffuser element (diffuser 7) configured to scatter the light ([0037], diffuser 7 causes scatter of light) emitted by the illumination device during the operation of the illumination device (Fig 1, [0036], image-generating device 3 comprises one diffuser 7) is retained by means of the holding device (Fig 1, [0057], image-generating device 3 is here accommodated in a holder 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Hirata with the components of Grandclerc for the purpose of reducing heat within a display caused by operation (Grandclerc, [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirata in view of Grandclerc discloses the invention as described within claim 7 and Grandclerc further teaches wherein the light emergence opening of the chamber is sealed by means of the diffuser element (diffuser 7), wherein the chamber is configured to reflect light on the inner side or is provided with a reflector device on the inner side ([0058], holder 20, assembly consisting of the diffuser 7 and the folding mirror 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Hirata with the components of Grandclerc for the purpose of reducing heat within a display caused by operation (Grandclerc, [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 3, the prior art of Hirata taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a head-up display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein at least one pressure-exerting holding arm of the holding device rests against an upper narrow side of the pane arrangement in terms of the vertical direction of the display apparatus, or wherein a lower narrow side of the pane arrangement in terms of the vertical direction of the display apparatus rests on at least one support element of the holding device and is supported by means of the at least one support element”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of Hirata taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a head-up display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein the holding device comprises a stop element against which a lateral narrow side of the pane arrangement in terms of a vertical direction of the display apparatus is pressed, with the holding device comprising a spring element on a side opposite the stop element, wherein the spring element applying applies a pressure directed at the stop element to a further lateral narrow side of the pane arrangement”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of Hirata taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a head-up display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein the holding device comprises a holding frame, wherein a chamber of the display apparatus is delimited by the holding frame and by a carrier part, on which at least one light source of the illumination device is arranged, and wherein the image creation unit is arranged in front of a front-side light emergence opening of the chamber”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 10, the prior art of Hirata taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a head-up display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein the holding device comprises two holding lugs which are formed in one piece with a main body of the holding device, wherein the holding device is secured to the housing part by means of respective screws which are guided through passage openings formed in the holding lugs”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazoe (20190146218), Nambara (20160306169), and Takamatsu (20160070102) are examples of a head-up display device that displays a virtual image of an imagery to be recognized by an occupant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872