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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 and 03/13/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 8-9, and 11-12 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7, 10, and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
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 1-3, 8-9, and 11-12 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitation “(i) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a width of the display element in a width direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the reference direction, a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element is equal to a width of the optical element is defined as an upper limit of the thickness ratio, (ii) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a depth of the casing in a depth direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the width direction, a value of the thickness ratio that is equal to the depth of the casing when the thickness ratio is equal to the upper limit, and less than the upper limit is defined as a lower limit of the thickness ratio, and the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of greater than or equal to the lower limit and less than or equal to the upper limit” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
Regarding (i) the limitation is unclear because the examiner is confused how the thickness ratio is related to the widths of the display element and the width of the optical element. The limitation states “a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element is equal to a width of the optical element is defined as an upper limit of the thickness ratio,” which indicates that if the widths of the optical element and display element are varying, then the thickness ratio of the optical element at a point which the widths are equal is chosen and defined as the upper limit of the thickness ratio. However, a thickness ratio is not variable for any given optical element. The thicknesses vary along the height of the optical element, but the thickness ratio would be a constant value that is the ratio of the thickness at two predesignated points of the optical element, which is completely unrelated to any point at which the widths of the optical element and display elements can be equal. Further, “based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a width of the display element” is vague and provides no guidance as to how they are related besides that they can be related in some way. It is unclear whether applicant meant to relate the thickness of the optical element to the widths of the optical element and display element, or if it is indeed the thickness ratio, in which case, the examiner is confused about what that means.
Regarding (ii) the limitation is unclear for similar reasons as for (i). This limitation is further unclear, especially due to the phrasing “a value of the thickness ratio that is equal to the depth of the casing when the thickness ratio is equal to the upper limit, and less than the upper limit is defined as a lower limit of the thickness ratio.” Grammatically, it is not clear what this means. It is unclear if the limitation is stating “when the thickness ratio is equal to the upper limit and less than the upper limit” which is not physically possible—or if the phrase “and less than the upper limit is defined as a lower limit of the thickness ratio” is unrelated to the parts of (ii) that came before it, in which case it is not clear what is actually being defined as the lower limit. Combined with the similar problems as to in (i), regarding what a relationship between the thickness ratio and the depth of the casing can possibly mean, this limitation is incomprehensible.
Regarding the last limitation, “the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of greater than or equal to the lower limit and less than or equal to the upper limit” this limitation is unclear first because the definitions of the upper limit and the lower limit, defined in (i) and (ii) are indefinite, as explained above. It is further unclear because in (i) and (ii) it reads that the lower limit and the upper limit were defined based on the existing values of the thickness ratio at some point, which means that further limiting the thickness ratio to be between the upper limit and the lower limit is circular reasoning—further since the upper limit and lower limit are defined as certain values of a range of a thickness ratio, whereas the thickness ratio is a single constant value for a given optical element, this would imply that the upper limit is equal to the lower limit, which are both equal to the thickness ratio.
The examiner searched through the instant applicant disclosure, including checking the specification and drawings for information that would clarify the meaning of these amendments. However, the wording in the specification appeared the same as that of the claims, and Figs. 5-6 which show plots with t1/t2 also fail to clarify what these limitations mean. Examiner additionally notes that it appears these issues may have arisen due to translation error. The limitation is indefinite for the reason(s) provided.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “(i) based on a correlation between…(ii) based on a correlation between…satisfies a relationship of greater than or equal to the lower limit and less than or equal to the upper limit” (in section 8 above) is an inherent feature of a device that has the same structure and function as the device of the instant application.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 11-12 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the upper limit of the thickness ratio is a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element is equal to the width of the optical element at the lower end of the optical element” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
This limitation is unclear for similar reasons as in claim 1. This is further unclear because it appears to provide a new definition for the upper limit, which was already defined in claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the upper limit of the thickness ratio is a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element is equal to the width of the optical element at the lower end of the optical element” is an inherent feature of a device that has the same structure and function as the device of the instant application.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara et al. (JP 2018165782 A), hereinafter Kuzuhara, in view of So et al. (US 20200377021 A1), hereinafter So.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kuzuhara discloses a display device comprising:
a display element (2; Fig. 8; ¶0023) that includes a display surface (21; Fig. 8; ¶0023);
an optical element (32; Fig. 8; ¶0057) that includes a first surface (41F; Fig. 8; ¶0057) and a second surface (42F; Fig. 8; ¶0057) that is provided opposite to the first surface (41F) (Fig. 8), the optical element (32) receiving light emitted from the display surface (21) through the first surface (41F), reflecting the light off the second surface (42F) in a direction different from a direction toward the display surface (21), and emitting the light from the first surface (41F) (Fig. 8); and
wherein the first surface (41F) and the second surface (42F) are concave surfaces that are concave in a direction of incidence of the light (Fig. 8; ¶0059), and
when the optical element (32) placed such that a height direction of the optical element (32) matches a vertical direction is viewed in a cross section including the vertical direction1, t1/t2 is defined as a thickness ratio, where t1 represents a first thickness that is a thickness of the optical element (32) at an upper end of the optical element (32) in a reference direction that is parallel to a normal line from an origin of the second surface (42F), and t2 represents a second thickness that is a thickness of the optical element (32) at a lower end of the optical element (32) in the reference direction2 (Fig. 8; ¶0059).
Kuzuhara does not explicitly disclose a casing that houses the display element and the optical element, wherein (i) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a width of the display element (2) in a width direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the reference direction, a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element (2) is equal to a width of the optical element (32) is defined as an upper limit of the thickness ratio, (ii) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a depth of the casing in a depth direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the width direction, a value of the thickness ratio that is equal to the depth of the casing when the thickness ratio is equal to the upper limit, and less than the upper limit is defined as a lower limit of the thickness ratio, and the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of greater than or equal to the lower limit and less than or equal to the upper limit.
However, So teaches a similar display device comprising a display element (2; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that includes a display surface (21; Fig. 1; ¶0048); an optical element (50; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that includes a first surface and a second surface that is provided opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1), wherein the first surface and the second surface are concave surfaces that are concave in a direction of incidence of the light (Fig. 1), and further comprising a casing (70; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that houses the display element (2) and the optical element (50) (Fig. 8; ¶0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuzuhara to incorporate the casing of So for the purpose of housing the entire optical system of the display device and therefore adjust the position of the system entirely (¶0004 of So).
Kuzuhara and modified by So further discloses wherein (i) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a width of the display element (2) in a width direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the reference direction, a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element (2) is equal to a width of the optical element (32) is defined as an upper limit of the thickness ratio, (ii) based on a correlation between the thickness ratio and a depth of the casing in a depth direction perpendicular to a plane that includes the height direction and the width direction, a value of the thickness ratio that is equal to the depth of the casing when the thickness ratio is equal to the upper limit, and less than the upper limit is defined as a lower limit of the thickness ratio, and the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of greater than or equal to the lower limit and less than or equal to the upper limit (this is interpreted to be an inherent feature given the same structure and function, see 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 2, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kuzuhara further discloses the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of 0.5 or more and 4.0 or less (implicit from Figs. 6, 8; and ¶0059, ¶0061).
Regarding claim 3, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kuzuhara further discloses a mirror (31; Fig. 8; ¶0057) that is provided at an opposing position to the display surface (21) and the first surface (41F) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kuzuhara further discloses the optical element (32) is right-left symmetric in a state in which the optical element (32) is placed such that the height direction of the optical element (32) matches the vertical direction (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kuzuhara further discloses the upper limit of the thickness ratio is a value of the thickness ratio at which the width of the display element (2) is equal to the width of the optical element (32) at the lower end of the optical element (32) (interpreted to be an inherent feature given same structure and function, see 112 above).
Neither Kuzuhara nor So disclose, as viewed in a front view of the optical element, a width of the optical element at the lower end of the optical element is less than a width of the optical element at the upper end of the optical element.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). One would be motivated to have a width of the optical element at the lower end of the optical element be less than a width of the optical element at the upper end of the optical element for the purpose of matching the display of the display device to a typical shape of a rearview mirror (see Fig. 1 and ¶0094 of So, which states that the mirror system can be used as a known rear view mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuzuhara in view of So to have a width of the optical element at the lower end of the optical element be less than a width of the optical element at the upper end of the optical element for the purpose of matching the display of the display device to a typical shape of a rearview mirror. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 11, as set forth above. Kuzuhara further discloses the thickness ratio is less than or equal to 1.7 (implicit from Figs. 6, 8; and ¶0059, ¶0061).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Kuzuhara in view of Son has the display device, the optical element with a first surface and a second surface, and the thickness ratio, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the thickness ratio be less than or equal to 1.7 for the purpose of reducing degradation of projected image quality (¶0013, ¶0049-¶0053, ¶0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness ratio be less than or equal to 1.7 for the purpose of reducing degradation of projected image quality (¶0013, ¶0049-¶0053, ¶0061).
Regarding independent claim 15, Kuzuhara discloses a display device comprising:
a display element (2; Fig. 8; ¶0023) that includes a display surface (21; Fig. 8; ¶0023);
an optical element (32; Fig. 8; ¶0057) that includes a first surface (41F; Fig. 8; ¶0057) and a second surface (42F; Fig. 8; ¶0057) that is provided opposite to the first surface (41F) (Fig. 8), the optical element (32) receiving light emitted from the display surface (21) through the first surface (41F), reflecting the light off the second surface (42F) in a direction different from a direction toward the display surface (21), and emitting the light from the first surface (41F) (Fig. 8); and
wherein the first surface (41F) and the second surface (42F) are concave surfaces that are concave in a direction of incidence of the light (Fig. 8; ¶0059), and
when the optical element (32) placed such that a height direction of the optical element (32) matches a vertical direction is viewed in a cross section including the vertical direction3, t1/t2 is defined as a thickness ratio, where t1 represents a first thickness that is a thickness of the optical element (32) at an upper end of the optical element (32) in a reference direction that is parallel to a normal line from an origin of the second surface (42F), and t2 represents a second thickness that is a thickness of the optical element (32) at a lower end of the optical element (32) in the reference direction4 (Fig. 8; ¶0059), and
the thickness ratio satisfies a relationship of 0.5 or more and 4.0 or less (implicit from Figs. 6, 8; and ¶0059, ¶0061).
Kuzuhara does not explicitly disclose a casing that houses the display element and the optical element.
However, So teaches a similar display device comprising a display element (2; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that includes a display surface (21; Fig. 1; ¶0048); an optical element (50; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that includes a first surface and a second surface that is provided opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1), wherein the first surface and the second surface are concave surfaces that are concave in a direction of incidence of the light (Fig. 1), and further comprising a casing (70; Fig. 1; ¶0048) that houses the display element (2) and the optical element (50) (Fig. 8; ¶0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuzuhara to incorporate the casing of So for the purpose of housing the entire optical system of the display device and therefore adjust the position of the system entirely (¶0004 of So).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (JP 2018165782 A) in view of So (US 20200377021 A1) and further in view of Uemara (US 20180259777 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kuzuhara in view of So discloses the display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kuzuhara does not disclose, in the optical element, a surface excluding the first surface and the second surface includes a first light absorber that absorbs more light than the first surface and the second surface.
However, Uemara teaches a similar display device comprising a display element that includes a display surface (20; Fig. 3; ¶0025); an optical element (10; Fig. 3; ¶0025) that includes a first surface (11/13/15; Fig. 3; ¶0026) and a second surface (12/14; Fig. 3; ¶0026) that is provided opposite to the first surface (11/13/15) (Fig. 3), the optical element (10) receiving light emitted from the display surface through the first surface (15) (Fig. 3), reflecting the light off the second surface (12/14) in a direction different from a direction toward the display surface (Fig. 3), and emitting the light from the first surface (11) (Fig. 3); wherein the first surface (11/13/15) and the second surface (10/14) comprise concave surfaces that are concave in a direction of incidence of the light (Fig. 3), and further wherein a surface (10a; Fig. 3; ¶0069-¶0070) excluding the first surface (11/13/15) and the second surface (12/14) includes a first light absorber (¶0070) that absorbs more light than the first surface (11/13/15) and the second surface (12/14) (¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuzuhara in view of So to incorporate the first light absorber as taught by Uemara for the purpose of receiving unnecessary light to remove ghost images (¶0060-¶0061, ¶0070 of Uemara).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al. (US 20200371351 A1) discloses a similar display device for use in a vehicle comprising a similarly shaped optical element with a light absorber applied on one surface. Takahashi (US 20180299670 A1), of record, discloses a similar display device comprising a display element, a mirror, and a similarly shaped optical element utilizing back surface reflection. Iwashita et al. (US 20180172991 A1) discloses a similar display device for use in a vehicle comprising a display, a mirror, and a similarly shaped optical element. Dobschal (US 20070008241 A1) discloses a similar display device for use in a vehicle comprising a display and a similarly shaped optical element utilizing back surface reflection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 5th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Regarding the terms “height direction” and “vertical direction”, these terms are not interpreted to mean a particular direction since no frame of reference is established. The height of an optical element can be defined as any length of the optical element. However, this limitation is being interpreted to define the height direction and the vertical direction as parallel to each other.
2 Regarding the terms “upper end” and “lower end”, these terms are not interpreted to mean a particular direction/orientation, since no frame of reference has been established. However, “upper end” and “lower end” are interpreted to mean opposite ends to each other.
3 Regarding the terms “height direction” and “vertical direction”, these terms are not interpreted to mean a particular direction since no frame of reference is established. The height of an optical element can be defined as any length of the optical element. However, this limitation is being interpreted to define the height direction and the vertical direction as parallel to each other.
4 Regarding the terms “upper end” and “lower end”, these terms are not interpreted to mean a particular direction/orientation, since no frame of reference has been established. However, “upper end” and “lower end” are interpreted to mean opposite ends to each other.
Prosecution Insights