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 Amendment
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on 08/10/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim 12 has been newly added. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims and added limitations claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are believed to be answered by and therefore moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection presented below. In view of amendment, the reference Aoki has been used for new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilleman et al. (US. Pub. No. 2014/0327601, hereinafter “Tilleman”) in view of Aoki et al. (US. Pub. No. 2003/0016451, hereinafter “Aoki”).
As to claim 1, (Currently amended) Tilleman discloses a head-up display device [figure 1, HUD 100, paragraph 16, Head Up Display (HUD)], comprising:
a display element [figure 1, projector 110 and lens 114 providing an image light beam 112], providing an image light beam, the image light beam comprising a first light beam and a second light beam [figure 1, a first light beam (first top beam) and a second light beam (third top beam)], wherein the first light beam and the second light beam exit from different positions of the display element [figure 1, first light beam and second light beam exit from different positions of 110];
a first reflective element [figure 1, first reflective element 117 disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam coming from 110 and 114 and to reflect the image light beam], disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam coming from the display element and configured to reflect the image light beam; and
a second reflective element [figure 1, second reflective element 132, 124 disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam coming from 117 and to reflect the image light beam], disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam coming from the first reflective element and configured to reflect the image light beam, wherein a primary ray of the first light beam and a primary ray of the second light beam exiting from the display element form an intersection point on the first reflective element [figure 1, a primary ray of first light beam (top 1) and primary ray of second light beam (top 3) exiting from 110 and 114 form an intersection point on 117] or between the display element and the first reflective element.
Tilleman doesn’t expressly disclose wherein the image light beam reflected by the second reflective element is transmitted to an outside of the head-up display device, the image light beam from the head-up display device is transmitted to an imaging element, and a virtual image is formed through the imaging element.
Aoki teaches wherein an image light beam reflected by a second reflective element is transmitted to an outside of a head-up display device, the image light beam from the head-up display device is transmitted to an imaging element, and a virtual image is formed through the imaging element [figure 13, an image light beam reflected by a second reflective element 213 is transmitted to an outside of a head-up display device, the image light beam from the heads-up display device is transmitted to an imaging element 20, and a virtual image 211” is formed through 20].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the head-up display device of Tilleman to have an image light beam reflected by a second reflective element transmitted to an outside of a head-up display device, the image light beam from the head-up display device transmitted to an imaging element, and a virtual image formed through the imaging element, as taught by Aoki, in order to be capable of displaying a larger image in a vehicle (Aoki, abstract).
As to claim 2, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the intersection point of the primary ray of the first light beam and the primary ray of the second light beam is located on a smallest light spot formed by the image light beam [figure 1, the intersection point formed by the primary ray of the first light beam and the primary ray of the second light beam is located on a smallest light spot].
As to claim 5, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein reflective surfaces of the first reflective element and the second reflective element are freeform surfaces [figure 1, 117, 132, 124 are freeform surfaces].
As to claim 6, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the head-up display device comprises only the first reflective element and the second reflective element as two reflective optical elements [figure 1, only first reflective element117, second reflective element 132, 124 as two reflective optical elements].
As to claim 7, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the image light beam provided by the display element is a convergent light beam between the display element and the first reflective element [figure 1, light beam provided by 110 and 114 is a convergent light beam between display element and 117].
As to claim 8, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein no optical element is disposed between the display element and the first reflective element [figure 1, no optical element is disposed between display element 110 and 114 and 117].
As to claim 9, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first light beam and the second light beam exiting from the display element are not parallel to each other [figure 1, first light beam and second light beam are not parallel to each other].
As to claim 10, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein compared to the second light beam, the first light beam exits from a closer position on the display element to the second reflective element [figure 1, first light beam (top 1) exits from a closer position on 114 to 132 compared to second light beam (top 3)].
As to claim 11, (Original) Tilleman discloses the head-up display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first light beam forms a first light spot on the first reflective element, the second light beam forms a second light spot on the first reflective element [figure 1, first light beam forms a first light spot on 117 and second light beam forms a second light spot on 117].
Tilleman discloses the claimed invention except for an overlapping area of the first light spot and the second light spot on the first reflective element is at least greater than 90%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an overlapping area of the first light spot and the second light spot on the first reflective element at least greater than 90% , since 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, made of record, singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the features presented in the combination limitations of dependent claim 3, such as “wherein the image light beam has a middle point in a light path between the display element and the first reflective element, and when the intersection point is located between the display element and the first reflective element, the intersection point is located between the middle point and the first reflective element”, recited by claim 3.
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art, made of record, singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the features presented in the combined limitations of independent claim 12, based on Applicant’s persuasive argument, filed on 08/10/2026, especially the claim limitation “wherein the image light beam has a middle point in a light path between the display element and the first reflective element, and when the intersection point is located between the display element and the first reflective element, the intersection point is located between the middle point and the first reflective element”. The allowable subject matter of claim 3 is incorporated into the newly added independent claim 12. Tilleman in view of Aoki doesn’t teach wherein the image light beam has a middle point in a light path between the display element and the first reflective element, and when the intersection point is located between the display element and the first reflective element, the intersection point is located between the middle point and the first reflective element.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 NAN-YING YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, BENJAMIN LEE can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/NAN-YING YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights