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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 May 2026 has been entered.
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 4-7, 11-12, 14, and 19-20 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 claim 4:
It recites “wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region”
But it is dependent on claim 1, which recites:
“wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region”
Is the “a non-projection region and a projection region” of this claim the same as the non-projection region and projection region of claim 1? If so, there is antecedent basis problem with this claim language, which is duplicative.
If it is something different it needs to have a different name to clearly distinguish it.
Regarding claims 5-7, 11-12, 14, and 19-20:
These claims are dependent on claim 4 or have similar language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2013/0249395) in view of Eichhorn et al. (DE 102021103761 A1; disclosed in IDS; machine translation relied upon) and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 2022/0063401).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1
Hatakeyama
1. A head-up display system, comprising:
As seen, in, e.g., Fig. 5, this is a head-up display system
a display configured to display a first image; and
Paragraph 44: “light source panel 10”1
a projection screen disposed adjacent to the display and configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form a second image,
Paragraph 49: “front windshield”
wherein the display comprises a first region adjacent to the projection screen and a second region away from the projection screen,
Shown in, e.g., Fig. 11, where some rows are closer and others further
the projection screen comprises a third region adjacent to the display and a fourth region away from the display, and
Shown in, e.g., Fig. 11, where in, e.g., Fig. 26 it can be seen that the rows in the display can correspond to rows in the projection
when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region.
Paragraph 54: “luminance…are adjusted in advance on the basis of a distance L,” or paragraph 78. So there is a difference between the first and second regions because they project a different distance L. But the second and third images are the projected images and because luminance was adjusted in the display these show similar brightness.
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region, wherein:
It can be seen in, e.g., Fig. 101, that the image is only projected over part of the windshield, which is the projection screen, so there is a non-projection region and a projection region. However, Hatekayam does not explicitly disclose that the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen.
a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region
Not disclosed by Hatakeyama
Therefore Hatekayama does not disclose:
(A) “the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen”
(B) “a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region”
Regarding (A):
Eichhorn discloses:
the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen (e.g., Fig. 3; page 2: “the display surface extends from a lower edge of the windshield”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Hatekaya the elements taught by Eichhorn.
The rationale is as follows:
Hatekaya and Eichhorn are directed to the same field of art.
Eichhorn discloses this allows a clear line of sight (page 2). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Aoki discloses:
wherein: a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region (paragraph 38: the curvature is smaller in the HUD region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagata in view of Eichhorn the elements taught by Aoki.
The rationale is as follows:
Hatekeyama, Eichhorn, and Aoki are directed to the same field of art.
Aoki discloses that this can improve the display (e.g., paragraph 19). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Hatakeyama, etc., discloses:
wherein when the display displays the first image, a brightness of the first region is less than a brightness of the second region (again, follows from, e.g., Hatakeyama paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 4:
Hatakeyama, etc., discloses:.
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region (as discussed above).
wherein a transparency of the projection region is less than a transparency of the non-projection region (Eichhorn page 2: “low transparency” vs. “Complete transparency”).
Regarding claim 5:
Hatakeyama, etc., discloses:
wherein the projection screen further comprises a dimming structure disposed corresponding to the projection region (Eichhorn page 2: “low transparency”).
Regarding claim 7:
Hatakeyama, etc., discloses:
wherein the projection screen further comprises a light shielding layer or a baffle disposed corresponding to the projection region (a dimming layer is a light shielding layer).
Regarding claim 8:
Hatakeyamam etc, discloses:
A vehicle system, adjacent to a driver seat (follows from Hatakeyama Figs. 5-6), and comprising:
a display configured to display a first image (Hatakeyama paragraph 44: “light source panel 10”); and
a windshield comprising a projection screen disposed adjacent to the display and configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form a second image (Hatakeyama Fig. 5: 20), wherein
the display is disposed between the driver seat and the projection screen (Hatakeyama Fig. 5) and comprises a first region adjacent to the driver seat and a second region away from the driver seat (Hatakeyama Fig. 5, where the first region is the projector 10 and the second region is the reflection on the windshield),
the projection screen comprises a third region adjacent to the driver seat and a fourth region away from the driver seat (as seen in Hatakeyama Figs. 11 and, e.g., Fig. 26, there are rows in the display and in the projection)), and
when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region (Hatakeyama paragraph 78 as discussed above),
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region (e.g., Katakeyama Fig. 10, Eichhorn Fig. 3), wherein:
a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region (Aoki paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, 11-12, and 14:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 15:
Most elements of this claim have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections.
Hatakeyama, etc. discloses:
when the display displays the first image, a chromaticity difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a chromaticity difference between the third region and the fourth region (Hatakeyama paragraph 54: “color and luminance of light…are adjusted” – chromaticity is color).
Regarding claim 16:
Hatakeyema in view of Kremers discloses:
wherein when the display displays the first image, a chromaticity of the second region is redder than a chromaticity of the first region (while Hatakeyama doesn’t call it “redder,” the relationship shown in Fig. 12 shows this – for instance, “deep” is more red).
Regarding claim 17:
Hatakeyama, etc., discloses:
wherein color coordinates of the first region are (x1, y1), and color coordinates of the second region are (x2, y2), wherein x1<x2, and y1<y2 (follows from, e.g., Hatakeyama Fig. 12 – if it is “lighter,” this is the relationship).
Regarding 19-20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 2024/0019695) in view of Hera (US 2013/0241949), and further in view of Eichhorn et al. (DE 102021103761 A1; machine translation relied upon) and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 2022/0063401).
Regarding claim 1:
Nagata discloses:
Claim 1
Nagata
1. A head-up display system, comprising:
Paragraph 55: “head-up display system”
a display configured to display a first image; and
Paragraph 29: "projector 10"
a projection screen disposed adjacent to the display and configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form a second image,
Paragraph 56: “display apparatus 2”
wherein the display comprises a first region adjacent to the projection screen and a second region away from the projection screen,
Shown, in, e.g., Fig. 1: each row can be considered a separate region
the projection screen comprises a third region adjacent to the display and a fourth region away from the display, and
Shown in, e.g., Fig. 1: each row can be considered a separate region
when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region.
Not disclosed by Nagata
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region, wherein:
As seen in, e.g., Fig. 1, the image is only on part of the windshield, so there is a non-projection region and a projection region. Nagata does not explicitly disclose the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen.
a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region
Not disclosed by Nagata
Nagata does not disclose:
(A) “when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region.”
(B) “the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen”
(C) “a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region”
Regarding (A):
Hara discloses:
when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region (follows from , e.g., paragraphs 37+ -- it adjusts the projection brightness so it projects brighter light, but as per paragraph 64, the brightness of the projected image is even).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagata the elements taught by Hara.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagata and Hera are directed to the same field of art.
Hara discloses this improves the visibility of a projected image (paragraph 64). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Eichhorn discloses:
the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen (e.g., Fig. 3; page 2: “the display surface extends from a lower edge of the windshield”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagata in view of Hara the elements taught by Eichhorn.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagata, Hera, and Eichhorn are directed to the same field of art.
Eichhorn discloses this allows a clear line of sight (page 2). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (C):
Aoki discloses:
wherein: a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region (paragraph 38: the curvature is smaller in the HUD region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagata, etc., the elements taught by Aoki.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagata, Hera, Eichhorn, and Aoki are directed to the same field of art.
Aoki discloses that this can improve the display (e.g., paragraph 19). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Nagata, etc., discloses:
wherein when the display displays the first image, a brightness of the first region is less than a brightness of the second region (again, follows from the discussion starting, e.g., Hara paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 4:
Nagata, etc., discloses:.
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region (as discussed above).
wherein a transparency of the projection region is less than a transparency of the non-projection region (Eichhorn page 2: “low transparency” vs. “Complete transparency”).
Regarding claim 5:
Nagata, etc., discloses:
wherein the projection screen further comprises a dimming structure disposed corresponding to the projection region (Eichhorn page 2: “low transparency”).
Regarding claim 7:
Nagata, etc., discloses:
wherein the projection screen further comprises a light shielding layer or a baffle disposed corresponding to the projection region (a dimming layer is a light shielding layer).
Regarding claim 8:
Nagata, etc., discloses:
A vehicle system, adjacent to a driver seat (e.g., Nagata paragraph 77), and comprising:
a display configured to display a first image (Nagata paragraph 29: "projector 10"); and
a windshield comprising a projection screen disposed adjacent to the display and configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form a second image (Nagata paragraph 77), wherein
the display is disposed between the driver seat and the projection screen (follows from, e.g., Nagata paragraph 77-78) and comprises a first region adjacent to the driver seat and a second region away from the driver seat (shown in Fig. 1),
the projection screen comprises a third region adjacent to the driver seat and a fourth region away from the driver seat (shown in Fig. 1), and
when the display displays the first image, a brightness difference between the first region and the second region is greater than a brightness difference between the third region and the fourth region (taught by Hara as discussed above),
wherein the projection screen comprises a non-projection region and a projection region configured to let the first image to be projected thereon to form the second image, the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen, the projection region is closer to the display than the non-projection regions, and the third region and the fourth region are located in the projection region (Nagata Fig. 1, Eichhorn Fig. 3)
a curvature of the projection region is less than a curvature of the non-projection region (follows from Aoki as discussed above)
Regarding claim 9, 11-12, and 14:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of Hera, and further in view of Eichhorn, and further in view of Aoki, and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 2008/0218434).
Regarding claim 6:
Nagata, etc., discloses a vehicle system as discussed above.
Nagata, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein the dimming structure comprises dye liquid crystal, polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC), polymer network liquid crystal (PNLC), cholesterol liquid crystal, an electrochromic structure, a suspended particle color-changing material, electronic ink, or a photochromic structure.”
Kelly discloses:
wherein the dimming structure comprises dye liquid crystal, polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC), polymer network liquid crystal (PNLC), cholesterol liquid crystal, an electrochromic structure, a suspended particle color-changing material, electronic ink, or a photochromic structure (paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Nagata, etc., the elements taught by Kelly.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagata, etc., and Kelly are directed to the same field of art.
Although Eichhorn discussed the dimming structure it does not provide details of how it works. Kelly provides the necessary elements to implement it. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 13:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Essentially applicant argued that the new language directed to “wherein the projection region starts at a bottom border of the projection screen” rendered it allowable.
This is admittedly not shown in the prior art relied upon in the previous rejection. Arguably the position of the projection is quite trivial and it would be in and of itself obvious, but to make it explicitly clear that this positioning is known in the prior art, Eichhorn is now relied upon.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 Note that in Hatakeyama the display appears just to show lights or lines. But this is still “an image”
Prosecution Insights