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
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-16 are pending.
Regarding the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b), the amendment to the claim has been found sufficient to overcome the rejection made in the previous Office action. The rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Remarks filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gandara (US20210224974A1) and Haeusler (US20050238237A1).
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.
Claims 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandara (US20210224974A1) in view of Haeusler (US20050238237A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gandara teaches a method for examining a vehicle pane for suitability to be used in a field-of-view display apparatus (paragraph [0021]), wherein 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 (paragraphs [0047] and [0049] disclose a light source projects an optical test pattern onto a windshield, and the test pattern is then reflected by the surface), the method comprising:
defining a measurement grid (Fig. 2 depicts the measurement grid) 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 (paragraph [0044] discloses the system takes human vision capabilities into consideration. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the measurement grid was set with respect to the human resolution); and
evaluating the vehicle pane in dependence on a deviation of the determined image from ideal of the field-of-view display apparatus, which are reflected at corresponding surface points of a predetermined ideal target vehicle pane (paragraph [0052] discloses comparing the HUD image, which is the image reflected from the HUD surface, to the actual test pattern).
Gandara fails to teach deflectometrically capturing local actual normal vectors of the reflection surface for the measurement grid; and
determining an associated local actual viewing ray of the field-of-view display apparatus for each captured local actual normal vector.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry measurements of a surface, Haeusler discloses a method where a pattern is projected on an object, which is then reflected into an image plane of a camera (paragraph [0026]) and deflectometrically (paragraph [0025]) determining the local normal vectors for each point on a measurement grid (paragraph [0034] discloses the normal can be determining for each point in a measuring space) associated with an actual viewing ray (14a, 14b, 14c, Fig. 2; paragraph [0034] discloses 14a, 14b and 14c are the line of sight associated with each point; Fig. 2 further depicts the normal vectors of each viewing ray of the reflection surface 3).
The method of examination taught by Gandara is intended to be used on a surface which is complexly curved (abstract; paragraph [0044] discloses the object is a windshield, which is curved). Haeusler discloses the measurement of curved surfaces is difficult (paragraph [0004]) and the method of finding local normal vectors and associated viewing rays determines the shape of the surface in a quick manner (paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method taught in Gandara with the method of finding normal vectors and associated viewing rays taught in Haeusler to quickly find the shape of a surface.
Regarding claim 12, Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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 (Gandara: see Fig. 2, which depicts the grid and points).
Regarding claim 13, Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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 (Gandara: Fig. 2 depicts points in the corners of the grid).
Claims 9 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gandara (US20210224974A1) in view of Haeusler (US20050238237A1) 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, Gandara as modified by Haeusler teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the measurement point distances of the measurement point distances of the measurement grid are set such that the measurement point distances do not exceed corresponding linear dimensions of an element (Gandara: see Fig. 8, which depicts the test grid and the distance between points not exceeding the dimensions of an element 28).
Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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).
Draper et al. discloses the use of a blur element 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 method as taught in Gandara as modified by Haeusler with the blur surface element taught in Draper as the blur surface element improves the reflected image.
Regarding claim 10, Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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).
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 Gandara as modified by Haeusler and Draper 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.
Regarding claim 11, Gandara as modified by Haeusler and Draper et al. teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, and further teaches the blur surface element (Draper et al: holographic optical element – page 2503, paragraph 2) is determined as an interface of a viewing beam with the reflection surface (Draper et al.: see Fig. 7), 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 (Draper et al.: Fig. 7 depicts the light reflecting off the blur element and forming a point focus on an image plane, which would be 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 Gandara as modified by Haeusler and Draper 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gandara (US20210224974A1) in view of Haeusler (US20050238237A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kickingereder (US20230083039A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gandara as modified by Haeusler as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches 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 (Gandara: paragraph [0047] discloses the determination of the point of the imaging beam viewed by a user (actual image point) from the viewing ray 22, shown in Fig. 5); 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 (Gandara: paragraph [0052] discloses comparing the HUD image (which is the image reflected from the HUD surface) to the actual test pattern; paragraph [0050] discloses this pattern is a grid as depicted in Fig. 2. The examiner is interpreting "image points" to be points on this grid).
Gandara as modified by Haeusler fails to teach 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor of inspection of reflective and curved surfaces, Kickingereder teaches a method for determining an associated viewing direction of a user using a captured normal vector of the reflection surface (paragraph [0033] discloses the use of a correspondence function to describe the relationship between a point on the object and the corresponding point on the plane of a camera; paragraph [0037] discloses the line of sight to the surface can be determined using the correspondence function; paragraph [0043] discloses the inclination information is determined by a deflectometric evaluation by ray tracing using height information along a line of sight).
Kickingereder discloses the described method of determining an objects surface keeps the complexity and cost as low as possible (paragraph [0013]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine to method of Gandara as modified by Haeusler with the viewing ray determination taught in Kickingereder in order to measure the object surface in a simple and low cost manner.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandara (US20210224974A1) in view of Haeusler (US20050238237A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tomlinson (US11238506B1).
Regarding claim 15, Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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 Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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 Gandara as modified by Haeusler 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 Gandara as modified by Haeusler with the control unit taught in Tomlinson in order to automate the method steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. ("A Single-Frame Deflectometry Method for Online Inspection of Light-Transmitting Components," in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 33, pp. 3871-3879, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2024.3414145) discloses a deflectometry method of measuring the surface of automobile glass involving projecting a pattern onto the glass surface, and determining the viewing ray and normal vector information at a unique point.
Xu et al. ("Windshield shape inspection using structured light patterns from two diffuse planar light sources," 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009, pp. 721-726, doi: 10.1109/IROS.2009.5354273.) discloses a method of inspecting a windshield by projecting a pattern onto the windshield, and determining the reflected ray and normal vector and each point on the windshield.
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 11:00-8:00 ET.
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
Prosecution Insights