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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the blur surface element" in line 2. Claim 11 depends on claim 16, which depends on claim 8, which does not introduce the blur surface element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting claim 11 to be dependent on claim 9.
Further, claim 11 is written as a method claim but depends on claim 16, which is directed to a control unit (an apparatus) claim. It is unclear whether claim 11 is actually a method claim or an apparatus claim, thus making it indefinite. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting claim 11 to be dependent on claim 9 as explained above, making it a method claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimoun (US20230120203A1) in view of Cappuccilli (US20220091414A1) and Kammel, et al. (“Deflectometry For Quality Control Of Specular Surfaces,” Technisches Messen tm 70, pp. 193-8, 2003.).
Regarding claim 8, Mimoun teaches a method for examining a vehicle pane (paragraphs [0009], [0088]), the method comprising:
defining a measurement grid (Fig. 5) with respect to the human resolution by setting measurement point distances between discrete measurement points in an actual vehicle pane surface that is to be used as a reflection surface of the field-of-view display apparatus (Fig. 5 depicts a grid of measurement points on a vehicle's windshield. The examiner is interpreting a windshield to fall within the scope of "human resolution");
deflectometrically capturing local actual normal vectors of the reflection surface for the measurement grid (paragraph [0029] discloses deflectometry may be used; paragraph [0036] discloses the use of the normal vector at the measurement grid point. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the normal vector is captured.).
Mimoun fails to teach a virtual display image is superposed into a field of view of a vehicle occupant by way of reflection of a light beam with a desired display content at the vehicle pane,
determining an associated local actual viewing ray of the field-of-view display apparatus for each captured local actual normal vector; and
evaluating the vehicle pane in dependence on a deviation of the determined local actual viewing rays from ideal target viewing rays of the field-of-view display apparatus, which are reflected at corresponding surface points of a predetermined ideal target vehicle pane.
However, in the same field of field-of-view devices to be used in a vehicle pane, Cappuccilli discloses superimposing an image on the window pane (abstract), and determining an actual viewing ray of the field-of-view display for each normal vector (see Figs. 5, 6A and 6B which show the viewing ray calculated for a given position, 6, with a normal vector; paragraphs [0104] - [0119] disclose the calculation of the viewing ray).
Mimoun discloses that surface (glazing) of a vehicle pane affects the path of the light wave hitting the pane (paragraph [0004]). The objective of Cappuccilli is to display a rich image on the window pane of a vehicle for a driver to observe (paragraph [0011]), and Cappuccilli further discloses that the right surface (glazing) of the vehicle pane is imperative to achieve the objective (paragraph [0013]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the vehicle pane inspection of Mimoun with the virtual display image and associated viewing rays taught in Cappuccilli in order to ensure the driver sees a rich display not affected by surface abnormalities.
Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli fails to teach evaluating the vehicle pane in dependence on a deviation of the determined local actual viewing rays from ideal target viewing rays of the field-of-view display apparatus, which are reflected at corresponding surface points of a predetermined ideal target vehicle pane.
However, in the same field of inspecting curved optical surfaces, Kammel et al. discloses finding actual viewing rays (page 764, column 2, paragraph 2), and finds the deviation of the actual viewing vectors from ideal (reference) vectors at corresponding points (page 766, section III; Figs. 6 and 7).
Kammel et al. discloses the method of finding the deviation between actual and ideal viewing rays allows highly accurate and precise assessments to be made (page 768, section V). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the inspection method taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli with the deviation determination taught in Kammel et al. as the method is highly accurate and precise in detecting surface defects.
Regarding claim 12, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches each measurement point in the measurement grid is surrounded by four adjacent measurement points (Mimoun: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the measurement points of a respective local planar reflection surface element are arranged in corners of a rectangular two-dimensional grid (Mimoun: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches for determining the local actual viewing ray, for each captured local actual normal vector of the reflection surface, an associated viewing direction of a user starting from a predetermined center point of the user's iris/lens plane and a position of an actual normal vector is determined in the reflection surface (Kammel et al.: Fig. 3 depicts finding the normal vector and actual viewing vector to the camera, which is acting as the user's iris would);
from the reflection of the local actual viewing ray thus determined at a local reflection surface element, which is orthogonal to the actual normal vector, an actual image point is determined in an image plane of the field-of-view display apparatus which is perceived by the user (Kammel et al.: image plane is shown as U in Figs. 3 and 4); and
for evaluating the actual vehicle pane, a deviation of the actual image points from target image points resulting from ideal target viewing rays is determined by way of reflection at the corresponding surface points of a predetermined ideal target vehicle pane (Kammel et al.: Figs. 6 and 7 as well as page 764, column 2, paragraph 2).
As discussed above in claim 8, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the inspection method taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. with the deviation determination taught in Kammel et al. as the method is highly accurate and precise in detecting surface defects.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimoun (US20230120203A1) in view of Cappuccilli (US20220091414A1) and Kammel, et al. (“Deflectometry For Quality Control Of Specular Surfaces,” Technisches Messen tm 70, pp. 193-8, 2003.) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Draper, et al. ("Holographic curved waveguide combiner for HUD/AR with 1-D pupil expansion," Opt. Express 30, 2503-2516 (2022)).
Regarding claim 9, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the measurement point distances of the measurement grid are set such that the measurement point distances do not exceed corresponding linear dimensions of the blur surface element (Mimoun: Fig. 5 shows the measurement point distances, between each point 2031, do not exceed the dimensions of a given area, 2030).
Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. fails to teach for defining the measurement grid, a blur surface element is determined in the reflection surface such that changes in the reflection of the light beam at the vehicle pane which occur within the surface of the blur surface element are not perceivable by a user in the virtual display image.
However, in the same field of endeavor of testing surfaces for head-up displays, Draper et al. teaches the use of a blur surface element (holographic optical element, page 2503, paragraph 2) that changes the reflection of the light beam at the vehicle pane (Fig. 13) and is not perceivable by a user (page 2503, paragraph 3).
An objective of Cappuccilli is to ensure the user sees a clear and rich display image. Draper et al. discloses the use of a blur element (holographic combiner) improves the quality of an image reflected to the user (see Fig. 16 and section 6). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the measurement grid within a given area as taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. with the blur surface element being the defining area as taught in Draper as the blur surface element improves the reflected image.
Regarding claim 10, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli, Kammel et al. and Draper et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, and further teaches the blur surface element is a blur circle or a blur ellipse (Draper et al.: page 2504, paragraph 2 discusses shapes of blur element and that an elongated blur element provides the best result).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the measurement grid within a given area as taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. with the blur surface element being the defining area as taught in Draper et al. as the blur surface element improves the reflected image.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimoun (US20230120203A1) in view of Cappuccilli (US20220091414A1) and Kammel, et al. (“Deflectometry For Quality Control Of Specular Surfaces,” Technisches Messen tm 70, pp. 193-8, 2003.) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tomlinson (US11238506B1).
Regarding claim 15, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, but fails to teach when a tolerance deviation does not exceed a predetermined tolerance deviation, the vehicle pane is used as the reflection pane of the field-of-view display apparatus; and
when the tolerance deviation exceeds the predetermined tolerance deviation, the vehicle pane is sorted out or a production method is modified to eliminate defects which have been detected during a comparison with the ideal target vehicle pane.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle part inspection, Tomlinson teaches a method where a part is inspected and determined if the part may be used or sorted out (column 2, lines 15-17) based on a comparison to a predetermined threshold (column 11, lines 22-25; column 12, lines 8-15).
The use of a predetermined threshold is widely used, and also helps avoid discrepancies such as being inconsistent or subjective when determining if a part may be used or not (Tomlinson: column 1, lines 15-42 discuss other inspection methods which are subjective, contain errors, and are inconsistent). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the deviation calculation taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. with the thresholding method taught in Tomlinson as a way to avoid discrepancies such as being inconsistent or subjective when determining if a part may be used or not .
Regarding claim 16, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, but fails to teach a control unit which is configured to automatically carry out the method.
However, Tomlinson teaches a control unit to carry out the method (a mobile application is used, column 4, lines 44-50).
The use of a controller to carry out a method is well-known and widely used. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the well-known technique of a controller to carry out the method of inspection as a way to automate the method steps. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli and Kammel et al. with the control unit taught in Tomlinson in order to automate the method steps.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimoun (US20230120203A1) in view of Cappuccilli (US20220091414A1) , Kammel, et al. (“Deflectometry For Quality Control Of Specular Surfaces,” Technisches Messen tm 70, pp. 193-8, 2003.) and Tomlinson (US11238506B1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Draper, et al. ("Holographic curved waveguide combiner for HUD/AR with 1-D pupil expansion," Opt. Express 30, 2503-2516 (2022)).
Regarding claim 11, Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli, Kammel, et al., and Tomlinson teach the invention as explained above in claim 16, but fails to teach the blur surface element is determined as an interface of a viewing beam with the reflection surface, which viewing beam contributes to formation of an image point on a retina of an eye of the user starting from an object point in an image-generating display surface of the field-of-view display apparatus.
However, Draper et al. discloses the blur element is the interface of the viewing beam with a reflection surface (See Fig. 7), which contributes to an image being formed on an image point in the eye of a user (image in Fig. 13a is viewed by the user).
As discussed above in claim 9, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the measurement grid within a given area as taught in Mimoun as modified by Cappuccilli, Kammel et al. and Tomlinson with the blur surface element being the defining area as taught in Draper et al. as the blur surface element improves the reflected image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877