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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, applicant argues that Akiyama does not teach a plurality of optical systems. The examiner disagrees. Akiyama uses examples in which there are one light source, one lens, one LCD, but makes clear that the invention is not limited to the singular examples (see Akiyama paragraphs 65, 66, 130) and can instead comprise pluralities. Considering that Yoshida has a plurality of light sources to start with, it would not require any inventive effort to provide a plurality of the lenses taught by Akiyama. We can also see from other references such as Shigeno et al. (US 2016/0209649 A1), that when multiple light sources (10) are used, multiple collimating lenses (20) are provided, and the second collimating system has the same art-recognized suitability as the first (Shigeno paragraph 27).
Applicant argues that Akiyama does not disclose that the light source is arranged to correspond to the collimating optical systems. The examiner disagrees. Akiyama does disclose that the light source is arranged to correspond to the collimating optical systems (see Akiyama Fig. 1a).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new limitation “an optical member arranged between the polarization conversion element and the video image display element, and having an oblique surface that is oblique to the light emitted from the polarization conversion element” 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0299341 A1) in view of Akiyama (US 2013/0057832 A1), Li et al. (US 2015/0226909 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Yoshida teaches “a head-up display apparatus (100) projecting video image light (see Fig. 1) onto a windshield of a vehicle (14) or a combiner provided immediately before the windshield, the apparatus providing a driver (15) with an image by a virtual image (16) obtained from reflection light thereof, comprising: a light source (12); a polarization conversion element (33+34) converting a polarization state of light converted (see Fig. 2); a video image display element (30+20+22+21+31) provided on an emission side of the polarization conversion element (see Fig. 1); and a mirror (13) reflecting video image light from the video image display element and projecting it onto the windshield or the combiner (see Fig. 1)”.
Yoshida does not specifically teach “a collimating optical system converting light which is emitted from a plurality of light sources, to substantially parallel light, the plurality of light sources being configured by the light source, a number of collimating optical systems is greater than one; wherein the polarization conversion element has a plurality of translucent members including a parallelogram-shaped translucent member extending in parallel to a plain perpendicular to an optical axis of light emitting from the collimating optical system”.
However, Akiyama teaches “a collimating optical system (30) converting light which is emitted from a plurality (paragraph 65) of light sources (20), to substantially parallel light (see Figs. 2), the plurality of light sources being configured by the light source (20), a number of collimating optical systems is greater than one (paragraph 66); wherein the polarization conversion element (40) has a plurality of translucent members (42) including a parallelogram-shaped translucent member (see Fig. 2a) extending in parallel to a plain (xy plain) perpendicular to an optical axis (z plain) of light emitting from the collimating optical system (see Fig. 2a)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the collimating optical system of Akiyama in order to provide a uniform luminous intensity distribution (Akiyama paragraph 66) and to use the parallelogram-shaped polarization conversion elements taught by Akiyama in order to further reduce illumination unevenness in the projected image (Akiyama paragraph 21).
The combination of Yoshida and Akiyama made above obviously teaches “wherein the plurality of light sources are perpendicularly arranged on the optical axis of the light emitting from the collimating optical system (Yoshida’s light sources are arranged perpendicular to the optical axis of the light they emit (see Yoshida Fig. 2). Yoshida does not specifically teach a collimating system, but Akiyama does, and the collimating system of Akiyama does not change the axis of the light emission (see Akiyama Figs. 2). Thus, in the combination, Yoshida’s light sources are necessarily perpendicular to the optical axis of the light emitting from the collimating optical system, since they are perpendicular to the light emission axis, which is coaxial to the collimating system axis)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the collimating optical system of Akiyama in order to provide a uniform luminous intensity distribution (Akiyama paragraph 66) and to use the parallelogram-shaped polarization conversion elements taught by Akiyama in order to further reduce illumination unevenness in the projected image (Akiyama paragraph 21).
Yoshida does not specifically teach “an optical member arranged between the polarization conversion element and the video image display element, and having an oblique surface that is oblique to the light emitted from the polarization conversion element”.
However, Li teaches “an optical member (120) arranged between the polarization conversion element (114) and the video image display element (140), and having an oblique surface (131) that is oblique to the light emitted from the polarization conversion element (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the optical member of Li in order to guide the direction of the light beam (Li paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 2: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 1”.
Yoshida does not teach “wherein a direction at which the plurality of translucent members are periodically arranged is parallel to one side of a rectangular video image display region of the video image display element”.
However, Akiyama teaches “wherein a direction (x) at which the plurality of translucent members are periodically arranged (see Fig. 2a) is parallel to one side of a rectangular video image display region of the video image display element (see Figs. 2a, 2c)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the parallelogram-shaped polarization conversion elements taught by Akiyama in order to further reduce illumination unevenness in the projected rectangular image (Akiyama paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 3: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 1”.
Yoshida does not teach “wherein a direction at which the plurality of translucent members are periodically arranged corresponds to a horizontal direction of the vehicle when the head-up display apparatus is assembled in the vehicle”.
However, Akiyama teaches “wherein a direction (x) at which the plurality of translucent members are periodically arranged corresponds to a horizontal direction of the vehicle when the head-up display apparatus is assembled in the vehicle (see Fig. 2c; note that the horizontal direction of the vehicle would be the same as the horizontal direction of the person, presumably the driver, watching the display)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the parallelogram-shaped polarization conversion elements taught by Akiyama in order to further reduce illumination unevenness in the projected rectangular image (Akiyama paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 8: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 1”.
Yoshida does not specifically teach “wherein at least a part of the emission surface of the collimator becomes a convex surface or concave surface”.
However, Akiyama teaches “wherein at least a part of the emission surface of the collimator becomes a convex surface or concave surface (see Fig. 2a)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the collimating optical system of Akiyama in order to provide a uniform luminous intensity distribution (Akiyama paragraph 66)
With respect to claim 9: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 1”.
Yoshida teaches “wherein the light source (41) or the collimator is arranged in a horizontal direction or in a longitudinal direction in an alignment arrangement (see Fig. 4)”.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wooton et al. (US 2011/0241549 A1).
With respect to claim 4: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Li teaches “The head-up display apparatus according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Yoshida does not specifically teach “wherein the collimating optical system is arranged on an emission surface side of the light source, and the collimating optical system has a collimator made of a translucent member and forming a lens surface at a center portion thereof”.
However, Akiyama teaches “wherein the collimating optical system is arranged on an emission surface side of the light source (see Fig. 2), and the collimating optical system has a collimator made of a translucent member (either of the two lenses in 30) and forming a lens surface at a center portion thereof (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the collimating optical system having the lenses in the path of the emitted light of Akiyama in order to provide a uniform luminous intensity distribution (Akiyama paragraph 66)
Yoshida in view of Akiyama does not specifically teach “an outer periphery thereof is formed by a paraboloidal surface”.
However, Wooton teaches a collimating lens (240) of which “an outer periphery (244) thereof is formed by a paraboloidal surface (paragraph 251)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the head-up display of Yoshida by using collimating lenses whose outer periphery is paraboloid as taught by Wooton in order to collimate off-axis rays via total internal reflection off the parabolic surface (Wooton paragraph 251).
With respect to claim 5: Yoshida in view of Akiyama, Li, and Wooton teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 4”.
Yoshida in view of Akiyama teaches “further comprising a rectangular composite diffusion block (Yoshida 32) provided on an emission surface side of the collimator (Akiyama’s equivalent structure, diffuser 50, is provided on the emission surface side of the collimator)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the collimating optical system of Akiyama in order to provide a uniform luminous intensity distribution (Akiyama paragraph 66) and to place the diffusion block downstream thereof in order to reduce illumination unevenness (Akiyama paragraphs 20-21).
With respect to claim 6: Yoshida in view of Akiyama, Li, and Wooton teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 5”.
Yoshida does not specifically teach “wherein the texture structure diffusing light is formed on the emission surface of the composite diffusion block”.
However, Akiyama teaches “wherein the texture structure (82) diffusing light (see Fig. 5) is formed on the emission surface (see Fig. 5) of the composite diffusion block (80)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida with the diffusing surface texture of Akiyama in order to provide the desired diffusion effect (Akiyama paragraph 96).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Akiyama, Li and Wooton as applied to claims 1, 4, 5 above, and further in view of Ing et al. (US 2011/0292655 A1).
With respect to claim 7: Yoshida in view of Akiyama and Wooton teaches “the head-up display apparatus according to claim 5 (see above)”.
Yoshida does not specifically teach “wherein a concentric texture structure in conjunction with a center axis of the collimator is formed on the emission surface of the composite diffusion block”.
However, Ing teaches “wherein a concentric texture structure (908) in conjunction with a center axis of the collimator (906) is formed on the emission surface of the composite diffusion block (907)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-up display of Yoshida by centrally locating the texture structure in order to preferentially scatter the stronger light at the center axis as taught by Ing and thereby make the beam more uniform (Ing paragraph 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shigeno et al. (US 20160209649 A1), which teaches a backlight unit and display device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875