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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 03/19/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1 and 14 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 03/19/2026 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigasako et al. (“Nishigasako”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2011/0025584 A1 provided in IDS filed on 01/07/2025] in view of Bongwald (“Bongwald”) [US 2015/0232030 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
A vehicle window for an automotive vehicle [Figs. 1-5: an OLED HUD device 120, 220, 230, 310, 320, 330, 410, 500], comprising:
a first transparent layer [Fig. 5; para. 0006, 0021, 0025, 0041: ‘The windshield assembly comprises a first transparent glass layer’, ‘the windshield layers 510, 520’];
at least a second transparent layer [Fig. 5; para. 0006, 0021, 0025, 0041: ‘The windshield assembly comprises …; a second transparent glass layer’, ‘the windshield layers 510, 520’];
at least a first synthetical layer (i.e. ‘the transparent file 540’) [Fig. 5], which is arranged between the first transparent layer and the at least the second transparent layer; and
at least one light emitting diode (LED) array (i.e. ‘the OLED HUD device 530’) [Fig. 5; para. 0006, 0021: ‘an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display positioned between the first and second transparent glass layers’], which is arranged between the first synthetical layer and the first transparent layer and covers at least a first area of the vehicle window (e.g. 120, 220, 230, 310, 320, 330, 410) [Figs. 1-5],
wherein the at least one LED array is configured to not emit light in a first operation mode (i.e. ‘an inoperative mode’ or ‘unpowered inoperative mode’) [para. 0025: ‘The OLED HUD device 120 can operate in one of several modes’; ‘an inoperative mode during which no visual images are displayed’ or ‘see through the OLED HUD device’] and
wherein the at least one LED array (i.e. OLED) is configured to at least partially emit light (i.e. ‘can display graphical images’ or ‘can display millions of colors’) in at least a second operation mode [para. 0024-0028: ‘The OLED HUD device 120 can operate in one of several modes’; ‘For example, a red or green color can be displayed against the transparent components’],
wherein the LED array is configured (i.e. the ‘OLED HUD device 120 can operate in one of several modes’) [Fig. 1; para. 0025-00028: ‘adapted to operate the OLED HUD device 120 in a desired way’] to switch based on at least one camera (i.e. ‘a rear-looking video sensor’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0032: ‘230 illustrates a rear view ….. The second OLED HUD device 230, therefore, displays a video image from a rear-looking video sensor’] configured to capture both a rearward view of an environment of the vehicle and to the second operation mode [para. 0024-0028: ‘The OLED HUD device 120 can operate in one of several modes’; ‘For example, a red or green color can be displayed against the transparent components’], when the at least one camera detects that the gaze direction is toward the first area of the vehicle window (e.g., ‘230 illustrates a rear view’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0032: ‘230 illustrates a rear view ….. The second OLED HUD device 230, therefore, displays a video image from a rear-looking video sensor’], and to switch to the first operation mode (i.e. ‘an inoperative mode’ or ‘unpowered inoperative mode’) [para. 0025: ‘The OLED HUD device 120 can operate in one of several modes’; ‘an inoperative mode during which no visual images are displayed’ or ‘see through the OLED HUD device’] when the camera detects that the gaze direction is not directed toward the first area of the vehicle window.
Nishigasako does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the LED array is configured to switch based on at least one camera configured to capture both a rearward view of an environment of the vehicle and a gaze direction of a user, to the second operation mode, when the at least one camera detects that the gaze direction is toward the first area of the vehicle window, and to switch to the first operation mode when the camera detects that the gaze direction is not directed toward the first area of the vehicle window.
However Bongwald discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the LED array is configured to switch based on at least one camera configured to capture both a rearward view of an environment of the vehicle and a gaze direction of a user [para. 0026: ‘The system may engage or activate the display responsive to … and to the eye gaze’], to the second operation mode [Fig. 2, 3, 9, 10; para. 0026: ‘focusing his or her gaze at the windshield plane into the area he or she expects the rear view image to appear’], when the at least one camera detects that the gaze direction is toward the first area of the vehicle window, and to switch to the first operation mode when the camera detects that the gaze direction is not directed toward the first area of the vehicle window [Abstract; para. 0026: ‘the eye gaze system may include the ability to determine whether the driver’s eyes are focused …’].
Nishigasako and Bongwald are combinable because they are from the same field of head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Nishigasako and Bongwald as motivation to detect gaze direction for activation of head-up displays so as to avoid a collision [Bongwald: para. 0004] .
Regarding claim 2, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least first area is configured to be essentially transparent [para. 0025: ‘unpowered inoperative mode of the OLED HUD device 120 is preferably transparent or substantially transparent’] for a user of the vehicle window in the first operation mode (i.e. ‘an inoperative mode’ or ‘unpowered inoperative mode’) and
to be less transparent in the at least first area of the vehicle window in the second operation mode (i.e. ‘display graphical images’) [para.0021, 0026-0028] than in the first operating mode.
Nishigasako does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
to be less transparent in the at least first area of the vehicle window in the second operation mode than in the first operating mode.
However Nishigasako discloses the “to be less transparent” as follows:
to be less transparent in the at least first area of the vehicle window in the second operation mode (i.e. ‘display graphical images’) [Fig. 2: ‘220’ and ‘230’: ‘a panel display device adapted to present information to an operator or occupant of the vehicle 100 by displaying visual images’; para. 0023, 0026-0028: ‘a red or green color can be displayed against the transparent components’; ‘a different color background can be displayed for contrast’] than in the first operating mode.
It would have been obvious to interpret transparency of the display windows be reduced by information or color visual images displayed to an operator or occupant of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least one LED array is configured to display at least one information (e.g. ‘222’, ‘224’, ‘226’ or ‘228’) [Fig. 2; para. 0031: ‘the speed of the vehicle 222’; ‘a fuel level gauge 226’ or ‘engine status information 228’], in particular at least one automotive related information, in the second operation mode.
Regarding claim 5, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the vehicle window is formed as at least one of: a windshield [Figs. 1-4: display screens on the windshield], a side window, a roof window and a rear window for the automotive vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least one LED array (i.e. ‘the OLED HUD device 530’) is configured to emit light at least in a direction of the first transparent layer (104) in the second operation mode [Fig. 5; para. 0006, 0021, 0025, 0040: ‘The windshield assembly comprises a first transparent glass layer, a second transparent glass layer, and an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display positioned between the first and second transparent glass layers’; ‘A transparent film 540’].
Regarding claim 8, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein at least one control element (i.e. ‘a control device’ or ‘a controller’) [para. 0005, 0019, 0027-0029, 0052: ‘a control device’ in claim 1] is integrated in the vehicle window, wherein the at least one control element is configured to at least partially control the at least one LED array.
Regarding claim 9, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least one LED array comprises at least a first layer (i.e. ‘at least one layer of LEDs) [Fig. 5: ‘the OLED HUD device 530’; para. 0006, 0021: ‘an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display positioned between the first and second transparent glass layers’] with a first set of LEDs which are arranged in a plane.
Regarding claim 10, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
A display system for the automotive vehicle comprising the vehicle window according to claim 1 and at least one control unit (i.e. ‘a control device’ or ‘a controller’) [para. 0005, 0019, 0027-0029, 0052: ‘a control device’ in claim 1], wherein the at least one control element is configured to at least partially control the at least one LED array.
Regarding claim 11, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for controlling a vehicle window according to claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1], comprising the steps of:
receiving at least one information (i.e. ‘information conveyed in the signals’) [para. 0028-0029: ‘the controller 130 can receive signals from the sensor 140 and make use of information conveyed in the signals’], in particular at least one automotive related information (e.g. ‘the speed of the vehicle’ or ‘the amount of fuel remaining on board’) [para. 0028-0029], to be displayed (i.e. ‘to produce varying visual images’) [para. 0028-0029: ‘The controller 130 can operate the OLED HUD device 120 to produce varying visual images in response to received signals’];
adjusting (i.e. ‘to present information .. by displaying visual images’) the received at least one information for display [Fig. 2: turn signal is presented as arrows ‘224’; ‘the fuel level gauge ‘226’ can be a graphical representation’; and engine status information ‘228’; para. 0021, 0031: ‘Each indicator can be formed using different colors or shapes, as desired (i.e. adjusting the information signal); ‘For example, a graphical representation of the fuel level gauge 226 can be colored green while the fuel level is above a predetermined level, After the fuel level drops below the predetermined level, the fuel level gauge 226 can be displayed in red (i.e. adjusting display color for fuel level information] on the at least one LED array of the vehicle window; and
controlling the at least one LED array of the vehicle window such that the at least one LED array displays the adjusted at least one information in the second operation mode [Fig. 2; para. 0031: ‘Other presented information can similarly vary in representation, color, shape, and size’],
wherein the LED array is configured to switch based on at least one camera configured to capture both a rearward view of an environment of the vehicle and a gaze direction of a user, to the second operation mode, when the at least one camera detects that the gaze direction is toward the first area of the vehicle window, and to switch to the first operation mode when the camera detects that the gaze direction is not directed toward the first area of the vehicle window [See the rejection of claim 1 limitation “wherein the LED array is configured to switch …, and to switch to the first operation mode …’].
Regarding claim 12, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
A computer program (i.e. ‘software and/or firmware component’) [para. 0016] comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer (i.e. one more processor devices’) [para. 0016], causes the computer to carry outperform the method of claim 11 [See rejection of claim 1 and 11].
Regarding claim 13, Nishigasako meets the claim limitations as follows:
A computer-program product (i.e. ‘software and/or firmware component’) [para. 0016] embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. ‘memory locations in the system memory’) [para. 0016] that is programmed and executable by one or more processors (i.e. one more processor devices’) [para. 0016], the computer-program product comprising instructions to execute the method of claim 11 [See rejection of claim 1 and 11].
Regarding claim 14, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 15, the corresponding “An automobile vehicle” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 16, the corresponding “A vehicle window for an automotive vehicle” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the form of “A vehicle window for an automobile vehicle” and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding “A vehicle window for an automotive vehicle” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, the corresponding “A vehicle window for an automotive vehicle” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 4 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigasako in view of Bongwald in further view of Kuehne et al. (“Kuehne”) [US 2016/0224107 A1]
Regarding claim 4, Nishigasako in view of Bongwald meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Nishigasako does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least one LED array is configured to be in the second operation mode when a gaze of a user of the vehicle window directs to the LED array.
However in the same field of endeavor Kuehne discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the at least one LED array is configured to be in the second operation mode (i.e. ‘to activate the interaction mode’) [para. 0015-0016] when a gaze of a user of the vehicle window directs to the LED array [para. 0016, 0031-0032: ‘if the driver 24 directs his gaze to … the head-up display 16 …, the relevant interaction mode for the head-up display 16 to be activated’; ‘The driver 24 can then control the head-up display 16 … being used as a graphical user interface’].
Nishigasako, Bongwald and Kuehne are combinable because they are from the same field of head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Nishigasako, Bongwald and Kuehne as motivation to detect gaze direction for activation of head-up displays so as to avoid a collision [Bongwald: para. 0004] or to improve the operation of a plurality of display devices [Kuehne: para. 0008-0009].
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the form of “A vehicle window for an automobile vehicle” and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigasako in view of Bongwald in further view of Chen et al. (“Chen”) [US 2022/0352423 A1]
Regarding claim 6, Nishigasako in Bongwald meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Nishigasako does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The vehicle window of claim 1, wherein the at least one LED array comprises one or more micro-LEDs.
However in the same field of endeavor Chen discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the at least one LED array comprises one or more micro-LEDs [para. 0003, 0106: ‘Micro-light emitting diode, micro-LED, … interests in application fields like …, head-up display, HUD, …’].
Nishigasako, Bongwald and Chen are combinable because they are from the same field of head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Nishigasako, Bongwald and Chen as motivation include micro-LED for HUD for high brightness, high contrast, high efficiency, high speed and high compactness [Chen: para. 0003].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights