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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroteru et al. (WO 2021/132089 A1), hereinafter “Hiroteru”.
Regarding claim 1, Hiroteru discloses an image generation apparatus (HUD) (see Fig. 1, Abstract) configured to generate an image of a head-up display (see Fig. 1, Abstract), the image generation apparatus (HUD) comprising: a plurality of light sources (11) (see Figs. 2, 4, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1 of translation provided); an optical member (12) configured to transmit light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11) (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1); and a liquid crystal unit (13) configured to generate a predetermined image by the light emitted from the optical member (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1), wherein the optical member (12) includes an incident surface configured to receive the light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11), and an emitting surface configured to emit the light received by the incident surface to the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Fig. 2), and wherein the emitting surface is formed by a single curved surface (emitting surface of 12b) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroteru discloses wherein in a plan view of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 2-4), wherein the plurality of light sources (11) are arranged in parallel in a longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 4, 6), and include a first light source (11; 11(3,2)) located at a center in the longitudinal direction and a second light source (11; 11(0,2)) located away from the center (see Fig. 4), and wherein a position of the first light source is different from a position of the second light source in a short direction of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 2-4, 6).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroteru discloses wherein the plurality of light sources (11) further include a third light source (11; 11(1,2)) located between the first light source and the second light source in the longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (13), and wherein an interval between the first light source and the third light source is shorter than an interval between the second light source and the third light source in the short direction of the liquid crystal unit (see Figs. 2-4, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Hiroteru discloses wherein the plurality of light sources (11) further include a third light source (11; 11(1,2)) located between the first light source and the second light source in the longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (13), and wherein an interval between the first light source and the third light source is shorter than an interval between the second light source and the third light source in the longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (see Figs. 2-4, 6).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroteru discloses wherein the interval between the first light source and the third light source is shorter than the interval between the second light source and the third light source in the longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (see Figs. 2-4, 6).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroteru discloses wherein the optical member is a single convex lens (12b) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Hiroteru discloses a head-up display (HUD) that is to be provided in a vehicle and is configured to display an image to an occupant (Vr) of the vehicle (see Fig. 1), the head-up display comprising: an image generation apparatus (1) (see Fig. 1, Abstract) configured to generate an image of a head-up display (see Fig. 1, Abstract), the image generation apparatus (1) comprising: a plurality of light sources (11) (see Figs. 2, 4, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1); an optical member (12) configured to transmit light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11) (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1); and a liquid crystal unit (13) configured to generate a predetermined image by the light emitted from the optical member (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1), wherein the optical member (12) includes an incident surface configured to receive the light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11), and an emitting surface configured to emit the light received by the incident surface to the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Fig. 2), and wherein the emitting surface is formed by a single curved surface (emitting surface of 12b) (see Fig. 2), and a reflecting mirror (2) configured to reflect light emitted from the image generation apparatus (1) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroteru discloses wherein the reflecting mirror (2) is a concave mirror (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroteru (WO 2021/132089 A1) in view of Takahiro (WO 2022/130823 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroteru discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the optical member is a single concave lens. In the same field of endeavor, Takahiro discloses wherein the optical member (30) is a single concave lens (see Figs. 16, 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Hiroteru with wherein the optical member is a single concave lens of Takahiro for the purpose of suppressing uneven illuminance (“Background – Art” of translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroteru and Takahiro teach the image generation apparatus set forth above for claim 7, Takahiro further discloses wherein the incident surface has a plurality of curved convex shapes, and wherein the curved convex shapes face the plurality of light sources, respectively (see Figs. 16, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the image generation apparatus of Hiroteru with the teachings of Takahiro for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroteru (WO 2021/132089 A1) in view of Grief et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0310120), hereinafter “Grief”.
Regarding claim 9, Hiroteru discloses an image generation apparatus (HUD) (see Fig. 1, Abstract) configured to generate an image of a head-up display (see Fig. 1, Abstract), the image generation apparatus (HUD) comprising: a plurality of light sources (11) (see Figs. 2, 4, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1); an optical member (12) configured to transmit light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11) (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1); and a liquid crystal unit (13) configured to generate a predetermined image by the light emitted from the optical member (see Fig. 2, Pg. 3, Paragraph 1), wherein the optical member (12) includes an incident surface configured to receive the light emitted from the plurality of light sources (11), wherein an emitting surface configured to emit the light received by the incident surface to the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Fig. 2), wherein in a plan view of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 2-4), wherein the plurality of light sources (11) are arranged in parallel in a longitudinal direction of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 4, 6), and include a first light source (11; 11(3,2)) located at a center in the longitudinal direction and a second light source (11; 11(1,1)) located away from the center (see Fig. 4), and wherein a position of the first light source is different from a position of the second light source in a short direction of the liquid crystal unit (13) (see Figs. 2-4, 6). Hiroteru discloses the claimed invention but does not specify wherein the optical member is a single Fresnel lens. In the same field of endeavor, Grief discloses wherein the optical member (1060) is a single Fresnel lens (Paragraph 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Hiroteru with wherein the optical member is a single Fresnel lens of Grief for the purpose of collimating the optical beams (Paragraph 65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Hiroteru does not disclose or teach the claims as presented.
Figs. 1, 2 and the corresponding disclosure of Hiroteru teach an image generation apparatus as recited in the claims (see above). Applicant challenged the implicit teaching of the emitting surface of the optical member is a single curved surface. Hiroteru discloses a lens group (12) including a first field lens (12a) and a second field lens (12b). It is inherent and well known in the art that a conventional lens, unless otherwise stated, is a spherical lens as opposed to an aspheric lens (having multiple curved regions on a single surface), a Fresnel lens (having multiple concentric regions on a single surface), etc.. Spherical lenses consist of a single curved front and/or back surface. Fig. 2 illustrates that the light emitted from the second field lens (12b) is emitted from a curved frontal portion of said lens. Thus, “the emitting surface is formed by a single curved surface” as recited in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argued that Hiroteru does not disclose or teach “include a first light source located at a center in the longitudinal direction and a second light source located away from the center, and wherein a position of the first light source is different from a position of the second light source in a short direction of the liquid crystal unit.” Hiroteru discloses a light source (11) that is composed of 35 light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in a 5x7 array on 2-D plane (see Pg. 3, Paragraph 2 of the translation provided in the prior Office Action and is illustrated in Figs. 4 and 6). Due to the matrix configuration of the LEDs, there are numerous combinations of first and second light sources that would meet the requirements of claim such as a first light source (11(3,2)) which is located at a center in the longitudinal direction and a second light source (11(1,1)) which is located away from the center and at a different position in a short direction. Hiroteru teaches all of the limitations of the claim but does not specify the optical member being a single Fresnel lens. Grief was presented solely to teach that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of selecting a Fresnel lens in order to collimate the optical beams emitted by the light source (see Paragraph 65).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights