CTNF 18/762,880 CTNF 90670 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Disposition of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Examiner notes that claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent and drawn to devices and methods, but at present considered to be similar enough in their recitations so as not to constitute a search burden, i.e. it is expected that the best prior art for claim 1 will also read on claims 8 and 15. However, in the event of significant divergence between the claimed inventions, e.g. by amendment, 37 C.F.R. 1.142(a) provides that restriction is proper at any stage of prosecution up to final action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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, 2, 6-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Chen ( US 20230111590 A1 ). Regarding claim 1, 2, and 8 , which independent claims are drawn to device and corresponding method, Chen discloses a head up display arrangement ( Fig. 9, head up display including a two motor mirror 2, eye tracking system 51, 52, 53, and Figs. 10 and 11 showing such arrangement employed in a motor vehicle with a reflective windshield 7 ) for presenting a virtual image to a human driver of a motor vehicle ( e.g. ¶20 ), the arrangement comprising: a picture generation unit configured to emit a light field ( 1 ); a mirror ( 2 ) mounted on a gimbal ( 40 ) such that the mirror is rotatable about both a first axis and a second axis ( about perpendicular shafts 22 and 92 ), the mirror being configured to reflect the light field such that the reflected light field is again reflected by a windshield of the motor vehicle and is visible to the human driver as the virtual image ( Figs. 10, 11 ); a first motor coupled to the mirror and configured to rotate the mirror about the first axis ( 41 ); a second motor ( 401 ) coupled to the mirror and configured to rotate the mirror about the second axis ( Fig. 9 shows both axes of rotation for actuating the mirror in the two axes as driven by the respective motors ); an eye detecting system ( infrared source 51, stereo cameras 52 and 53 ) configured to detect a position of the eyes of the human driver ( ¶54 ); and an electronic processor ( 6 ) communicatively coupled to the first motor, the second motor and the eye detecting system ( shown schematically by Fig. 9 ), the electronic processor being configured to control the first motor and/or the second motor dependent upon the detected position of the eyes of the human driver such that the virtual image remains visible to the human driver over a range of motion of a head of the human driver ( ¶54-55, “In this way, the eye tracking device 5 keeps detecting and tracking changes of the position of the right eye ER of the observer P to adjust the projecting position of the eye box Z, so that the image viewed by the observer P is continuous.” ). Regarding claim 6 and 7 , Chen discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the eye detecting system comprises an eye tracking system ( Abstract, ¶16, monitoring the driver by tracking the eyes to control the mirror for display at the current eye position ). Regarding claim 9 , Chen discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the first axis is horizontal ( about horizontal shaft 92, rotation in the plane of the page ). Regarding claim 13 and 14 , Chen discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the position of the eyes is detected by an eye tracking system ( Abstract, ¶16, monitoring the driver by tracking the eyes to control the mirror for display at the current eye position ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Breglia ( US 4439157 A ) . Regarding claim 3 , Chen discloses the arrangement of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first axis is horizontal and the second axis is coplanar with the mirror. However, two axes actuation of a mirror is known from Chen . Note In re Williams , 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") and MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Use of flat actuated mirrors is conventional in head up displays as disclosed by Breglia ( Fig. 2, scanning galvos ). It is considered obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to actuate flat mirrors in situations where no focusing or aberration is required such as in conventional head up displays, and furthermore to merely operate within the prior art conditions and rearrange the two motors known from Chen to further provide movement of the mirror in two dimensions, e.g. for the purpose of minimizing form factor and thus cost of manufacture, and thus achieve the claimed spatial relationship. Regarding claim 4 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the gimbal includes a frame that rotates with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the first axis ( Fig. 9, frame mounted to the shaft 22 ). Regarding claim 10 , Chen discloses the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly show wherein the first axis is horizontal and the second axis is coplanar with the mirror. However, two axes actuation of a mirror is known from Chen . Note In re Williams , 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") and MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Use of flat actuated mirrors is conventional in head up displays as disclosed by Breglia ( Fig. 2, scanning galvos ). It is considered obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to actuate flat mirrors in situations where no focusing or aberration is required such as in conventional head up displays, and furthermore to merely operate within the prior art conditions and rearrange the two motors known from Chen to further provide movement of the mirror in two dimensions, e.g. for the purpose of minimizing form factor and thus cost of manufacture, and thus achieve the claimed spatial relationship. Regarding claim 11 , the modified Chen teaches the method of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the gimbal includes a frame that rotates with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the first axis ( Fig. 9 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang ( US 20210396852 A1 ) . Regarding claim 5 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 4, but does not explicitly show wherein the frame does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the second axis. Wang drawn to vehicle projection devices discloses the use of concentric gimbals wherein the outer frame ( 260a ) does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates by movement of the inner ring ( Fig. 2C, ¶61 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the prior art gimbal of Wang to implement mirror positioning in the device of Chen and thus obtained a predictable mirror positioning result along two axes. Regarding claim 12 , the modified Chen teaches the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein the frame does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the second axis. Wang drawn to vehicle projection devices discloses the use of concentric gimbals having a horizontal frame rotation axis ( 222 or 226 ) wherein the outer frame ( 260a ) does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates by movement of the inner ring ( Fig. 2C, ¶61 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the prior art gimbal of Wang to implement mirror positioning in the device of Chen and thus obtained a predictable mirror positioning result along two axes . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Yamaoka ( US 20160320624 A1 ) . Regarding claim 15 and 16 , Chen discloses a head up display arrangement ( Fig. 9, head up display including a two motor mirror 2, eye tracking system 51, 52, 53, and Figs. 10 and 11 showing such arrangement employed in a motor vehicle with a reflective windshield 7 ) for presenting a virtual image to a human driver of a motor vehicle ( e.g. ¶20 ), the arrangement comprising: a picture generation unit configured to emit a light field ( 1 ); a mirror ( 2 ) mounted on a gimbal ( 40 ) such that the mirror is rotatable about both a first axis and a second axis ( about perpendicular shafts 22 which is vertical and 92 which is horizontal ), the mirror being configured to reflect the light field such that the reflected light field is again reflected by a windshield of the motor vehicle and is visible to the human driver as the virtual image ( Figs. 10, 11 ); a first motor coupled to the mirror and configured to rotate the mirror about the first axis ( 41 ); a second motor ( 401 ) coupled to the mirror and configured to rotate the mirror about the second axis ( Fig. 9 shows both axes of rotation for actuating the mirror in the two axes as driven by the respective motors ). Chen further discloses the motors are operable electronically ( ¶53 ). Chen does not explicitly show a first manual control device communicatively coupled to the first motor and positioned and configured to enable the human driver to control the first motor; and a second manual control device communicatively coupled to the second motor and positioned and configured to enable the human driver to control the second motor. Yamaoka drawn to vehicular head up displays explicitly shows an eye tracking method for updating displays ( Fig. 12 ) and includes a manual adjustment mode ( S360, ¶83, “In Step S360, the operation mode is shifted to the manual adjustment mode. In other words, the control circuit 30 permits the input of the manual adjustment switch 308 whereby the occupant can manually adjust the orientation of the concave mirror 26 through the manual adjustment switch 308. With Step 360, a series of processing is completed.” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the instructions of Yamaoka and provided manual adjustment modes for the motors of Chen for the purpose of allowing the user to fine tune the view ( see Yamaoka, ¶86 ). Regarding claim 20 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 15, and Chen further discloses wherein the mirror comprises a first mirror ( Fig. 11, concave mirror 8 ), the arrangement further comprising a second mirror ( the mirror on the gimbal as discussed supra ) configured to reflect the light field from the picture generation unit ( 1 ) toward the first mirror ( 8 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Chen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Breglia . Regarding claim 17 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 16, but does not explicitly show wherein the second axis is coplanar with the mirror. However, two axes actuation of a mirror is known from Chen . Note In re Williams , 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") and MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Use of flat actuated mirrors is conventional in head up displays as disclosed by Breglia ( Fig. 2, scanning galvos ). It is considered obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to actuate flat mirrors in situations where no focusing or aberration is required such as in conventional head up displays, and furthermore to merely operate within the prior art conditions and rearrange the two motors known from Chen to further provide movement of the mirror in two dimensions, e.g. for the purpose of minimizing form factor and thus cost of manufacture, and thus achieve the claimed spatial relationship. Regarding claim 18 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 17, and Chen further discloses wherein the gimbal includes a frame that rotates with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the first axis ( Fig. 9 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Chen as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wang . Regarding claim 19 , the modified Chen teaches the arrangement of claim 18 wherein the frame does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates about the second axis. Wang drawn to vehicle projection devices discloses the use of concentric gimbals wherein the outer frame ( 260a ) does not rotate with the mirror as the mirror rotates by movement of the inner ring ( Fig. 2C, ¶61 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the prior art gimbal of Wang to implement mirror positioning in the device of Chen and thus obtained a predictable mirror positioning result along two axes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm. 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 5712701284. 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. /COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/762,880 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights