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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented in the June 5, 2026 Reply have been considered. As agreed during the June 3, 2026 Interview, the amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections. Upon further search and consideration, new art is being cited to support a new §103 rejection of the claims, as set forth below.
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 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 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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,237,455 to Bordo et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0014313 to Tillin et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Bordo discloses (e.g., where the whole document appears relevant, focusing on Figs. 1 and 2 and their description) a head-up display (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 5–8) provided on a dashboard of a vehicle (e.g., col. 1, lines 5–8, suggesting a vehicle display; also Tillin paragraph [0106] specifies a car dashboard for a display), comprising: a combiner 22; a display device 30 that emits display light representing information; and a housing 26 that houses the display device, wherein the combiner includes a first surface 23 and a second surface 19 on a back side of the first surface (Fig. 1), a reflective film that reflects the display light emitted by the display device is provided on the first surface (col. 3, lines 3–22, “reflective coating 23 . . . may be any of the suitable reflection enhancive coatings [including] a thin film of aluminum, titanium dioxide, bismuth oxide, or indium oxide”), and a low-reflective portion that has a reflectivity lower than a reflectivity of the first surface is provided on the second surface (col. 3, lines 3–22, “surface 19 of combiner 22 furthest from eye 20 is coated with a similarly applied anti-reflective coating preferably having less than 1% reflectivity,” where reflective film has 28% reflectivity), wherein the combiner switches between an upright position where the combiner stands upright and a recumbent position where the combiner is laid down relative to the upright position (Fig. 2 illustrates movement between the two positions).
Bordo does not explicitly disclose wherein a curvature of the first surface is different from a curvature of the second surface, and the curvature of the second surface is set to follow a shape of the dashboard when the combiner is in the recumbent position.
Tillin discloses a display, and teaches that it is desirable for the display to match or conform to a shape of a vehicle feature such as a dashboard (e.g., paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Bordo such that the curvature of the second surface is set to follow a shape of the dashboard when the combiner is in the recumbent position, as suggested by Tillin, as a suitable and desirable configuration, and further where designing the combiner to have different first and second surface curvatures would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired characteristics of the two surfaces, such as positive or negative refractive power of the display with a dashboard-conforming shape for the non-display side, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bordo and Tillin would have rendered obvious wherein the low-reflective portion is provided by applying a coating to the second surface (col. 3, lines 3–22 of Bordo, “reflective coating may be any of the suitable reflection enhancive coatings well known to those skilled in the art”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bordo and Tillin does not explicitly disclose wherein gloss of the low-reflective portion is no more than 0.6.
However, Bordo teaches “anti-reflective coating preferably having less than 1% reflectivity” (col. 3, lines 3–22), reasonably suggesting a desired minimal reflectance, and also similarly suggesting reduced gloss, such that a gloss of no more than 0.6 would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, attempting to reduce reflectance, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bordo and Tillin would have rendered obvious wherein the combiner is reclinable (col. 3, lines 43–57; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bordo and Tillin does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflective film is a half mirror.
However, Bordo teaches “the reflective coating has 70% transmissivity and 28% reflectivity” and may be implemented using any known technique (col. 3, lines 3–22), reasonably suggesting alternative implementations, such as known half mirrors, for achieving the desired reflective coating, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Bordo and Tillin would have rendered obvious (citing to Bordo) wherein when the combiner is in the upright position, the first surface 23 faces toward an occupant 20 of the vehicle (Fig. 1), and when the combiner is in the recumbent position, the second surface 19 is located in a position above the first surface 23 (Fig. 5).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordo and Tillin, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169506 to Furuya and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0090868 to Suzuishi et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bordo and Tillin does not explicitly disclose wherein the combiner includes a nontransparent resin material, and the low-reflective portion is provided by performing a texture treatment process on the second surface.
Furuya discloses a combiner for a HUD, and teaches forming the combiner with a resin base 11 which is combined with reflecting member 12 and other components to achieve the combiner at a lower cost (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Bordo and Tillin such that the combiner includes a nontransparent resin material, as suggested by Furuya, in order to reduce cost of manufacturing.
The combination of Bordo, Tillin, and Furuya does not explicitly disclose that the low-reflective portion is provided by performing a texture treatment process on the second surface.
Suzuishi teaches that low reflectance properties may be imparted to resin by adding surface roughness (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Bordo, Tillin, and Furuya to achieve the desired low reflectance from Bordo in the resin combiner base taught by Furuya by using the technique taught by Suzuishi for imparting low reflectance to resin, namely adding surface roughness to the resin (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bordo, Tillin, Furuya, and Suzuishi would have rendered obvious wherein a surface roughness of the low-reflective portion imparted by performing the texture treatment process is at least 50 μm and at most 70 μm (where selecting a surface roughness would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired low reflectance characteristics, where surface roughness is correlated to reflectance, and such would yield predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights