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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application of National Stage entry of PCT/KR2023/021798, with international filing date 12/28/2023 that claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0083536, filed 06/28/2023 (Korea).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-6, 10-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. JP2019034610 (A) (of record, see IDS dated 09/03/2024, where attached English language translation is referenced) in view of Sato et al. (hereafter Sato, of record see IDS dated 01/26/2026) US 20110175798 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) a vehicle display device (i.e. in-vehicle system equipped with a head-up display 1, see abstract, paragraphs [01-04, 10-20, 22-37, 43-46]) comprising:
a screen (e.g. upper part of the front windshield 101, paragraphs [26-37], Figs. 3,5);
a picture generation unit configured to output a projected image (projector 11 of projection optical system 12, that projects image, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5);
a first reflection unit having a first reflection surface that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit to the screen (i.e. split/segmented mirror 122, with reflected surface reflecting image from 11 on screen e.g. upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5);
a second reflection unit having a second reflection surface that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit to a windshield (as reflection mirrors 121, 125 reflecting image from 11 onto windscreen 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5); and
a regulator configured to change at least one of a position of the first reflection unit, an angle of the first reflection unit, a position of the second reflection unit, and an angle of the second reflection unit (i.e. as rotation mechanism 126,127, that rotate mirror 122, 125, paragraphs [30-34, 38-44], figs. 3,5);
wherein the screen comprises a transmission medium (i.e. as upper part of windscreen 101 also allows transmission of light from outside of the vehicle, see Figs. 2-3,5, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]), and
wherein the vehicle display device (in-vehicle system equipped with a head-up display 1, e.g. Figs. 3,5) forms:
a first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen (i.e. as path of image projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122, and leading to screen on upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5), and a second optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the second reflection unit, and the windshield (i.e. as path of mage projected from 11, reflected of main reflection mirror 121 and on the windscreen 101, 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5).
However, Tamura does not disclose the screen, as a part of the windshield (101) projecting image from the projector (11) as a separate screen.
However, Sato teaches in the same field of invention of a display device for a vehicle (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-24, 68-81,86-94]), and further teaches that screen as separate part from windshield (i.e. as display device for a vehicle with single projection means, projector 18 projecting the first image on first screen 16 (also having transmission medium) provided on the instrument panel 13 visible from the vehicle compartment side while the second image is projected on windscreen 14 via reflection from 17 and 19 mirror, therefore providing the first image on transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and working cooperatively with e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while using single projector (image formation means) thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the in-vehicle system display with segment mirror reflecting first image to include a separate screen for the first/(second) image, and which is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment according to teachings of Sato in order to provide the first image on such transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and that can work cooperatively with instrument panel, e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while still relying on single projector, and thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation (see Sato, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16]).
As a result of the combination, the combination still teaches and renders obvious that the first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen, i.e. given that path of image in Tamura, projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122 which had been modified due to combination, to reflect the light onto a separate screen (16 of Sato, Fig. 1) that is added to the in-vehicle system with head-up display and leading to screen on upper part of 101, see Tamura paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], Figs. 3,5, and Sato paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12).
Regarding claim 2, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that a distance between the picture generation unit and the first reflection unit is shorter than a distance between the picture generation unit and the second reflection unit (as distance from projector 11 to segment mirror 122 is shorter than the distance from 11 to 121, as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, 5, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that a distance between the windshield and the first reflection unit is longer than a distance between the windshield and the second reflection unit (as distance from windshield 101 to segment mirror 122 is longer than the distance from 101 to 121, as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, 5, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the angle of the first reflection unit and the angle of the second reflection unit are different from each other (i.e. as angle of 122 is different from angle of 121, as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, 5, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 5, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the first reflection unit and the second reflection unit are tilted in opposite directions (i.e. as 122 and 121 are tilted, angled in opposite directions as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, 5, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the first reflection unit and the second reflection unit are parallel (i.e. as given that 122 rotates driven by rotation mechanism 126 from position given in Fig. 3a, to position in Fig. 3b, it also passes a position where it is parallel to 121, as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 10, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the regulator comprises a rotor that changes the angle of the first reflection unit (i.e. as rotation mechanism 126 includes rotor that rotates, i.e. changes the angle of 122, paragraphs [30, 38-43], Figs. 3a,b).
Regarding claim 11, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the first reflection unit is changed to a first angle or a second angle by the rotor, wherein the first angle is an angle at which the first reflection unit reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit to a first height of the screen (i.e. as position/rotation angle of 122 is changed e.g. between near or far dual screen mode by 126, paragraphs [27-37,38-43]), wherein the second angle is an angle at which the first reflection unit reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit (11) to a second height of the screen, and wherein the second height of the screen is higher than the first height of the screen (i.e. as height of image e.g. 212 due to position/rotation angle of 122 (125) can be changed, e.g. between near or far dual screen mode by 126,(127) paragraphs [27-37,38-43], furthermore the above claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding slight changes to the rotation angle of the reflection unit, resulting in change of height of the displayed image. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 13, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the regulator comprises a rotor configured to change the angle of the second reflection unit (i.e. as given that 125 rotates driven by rotation mechanism 127 from position given in Fig. 3a, to position in Fig. 3b, as depicted in Figs. 3a,b, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]).
Regarding claim 14, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the second reflection unit (125,121) is changed to a first angle or a second angle by the rotor, wherein the first angle is an angle that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit (11) to a first height of the windshield, wherein the second angle is an angle that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit (11) to a second height of the windshield, and wherein the second height of the windshield is lower than the first height of the windshield (i.e. as height of image e.g. 211,212 due to position/rotation angle of 125 can be changed, e.g. between near or far dual screen mode by 127, paragraphs [27-37,38-43], furthermore the above claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding slight changes to the rotation angle of the reflection unit, resulting in change of height of the displayed image. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 15, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) further comprising: an input interface through which a user inputs (i.e. as in-vehicle system includes input device as peripheral device 2, see Fig. 1, paragraphs [22-23]); and an MCU that controls the position or angle of at least one of the first reflection unit and the second reflection unit according to an input of the input interface (as control unit 3 controlling head-up display 1 including rotation of 122,121, given input(s) from 2, e.g. driving modes, see paragraphs [22-27, 30-31, 38-43]).
Claims 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. JP2019034610 (A) (of record, see IDS dated 09/03/2024) in view of Sato et al. (hereafter Sato, of record see IDS dated 01/26/2026) US 20110175798 A1 and further in view of Sakai (of record, see IDS dated 09/03/2024, where attached English language translation is referenced) JP 2021120750 A.
Regarding claim 7, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) the regulator (i.e. 126 (127), e.g. paragraphs [29-34], Figs. 3a,b) but is silent that it comprises a lifter configured to move the position of the first reflection unit (122).
However, Sakai teaches in the same field of invention of an in-vehicle display device (see Figs. 1-8, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,06-17,20-28,29-33]) and further teaches that regulator comprises a lifter configured to position the first reflection unit (as movement mechanism that moves screen 12 and reflective mirror 14 along D2 direction, providing that the corresponding image display area can be enlarged or reduced, when the amount of information in that image area increases or decreases, therefore making it possible to form virtual images with display sizes appropriate to the amount of information while ensuring visibility, thereby displaying information in a way that is easy for the driver to see, depending on the amount of information, paragraphs [26-33], Figs. 3-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the in-vehicle system display with segment mirror reflecting to include lifter/moving mechanism configured to position the first reflection unit according to teachings of Sakai in order to provide that the corresponding image display area can be enlarged or reduced, when the amount of information in that image area increases or decreases, therefore making it possible to form virtual images with display sizes appropriate to the amount of information while ensuring visibility, thereby displaying information in a way that is easy for the driver to see, depending on the amount of information (see Sakai, paragraphs [26-33]).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the first reflection unit is moved to a first position or a second position by the lifter (i.e. as 122 is moved between positions, due to combination with Sakai, paragraphs [26-33]), wherein the first position is a position where the projected image output from the picture generation unit is distributed to the first reflection unit and the second reflection unit (i.e. as output from 11 to 122, Figs. 2a,b, 3a,b, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], with Sakai, paragraphs [26-33]), and wherein the second position is a position where the first reflection unit reflects all projected images output from the picture generation unit to the screen (i.e. as output from 11 to 122, Figs. 3a, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], with movement mechanism in vertical direction, see Sakai, paragraphs [26-33], and as the above claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding changes to the rotation and position of the reflection unit, resulting in displayed image. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the first reflection unit is disposed to be movable to a third position by the lifter, and wherein the third position is a position where the projected image output from the picture generation unit is not reflected by the first reflection unit (i.e. as output from 11 to 121, Figs. 2b, 3b, e.g. paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], with lifting mechanism of Sakai, paragraphs [26-33], and as the above claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding changes to the rotation and position of the reflection unit, resulting in certain displayed image. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 12, Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) the regulator (i.e. 126, 127, e.g. paragraphs [29-34], Figs. 3a,b) but is silent that it comprises a lifter configured to move the position of the second reflection unit (121, 125).
However, Sakai teaches in the same field of invention of an in-vehicle display device (see Figs. 1-8, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,06-17,20-28,29-33]) and further teaches that regulator comprises a lifter configured to position the second reflection unit (as movement mechanism that moves screen 12 and reflective mirror 14 along D2 direction, providing that the corresponding image display area can be enlarged or reduced, when the amount of information in that image area increases or decreases, therefore making it possible to form virtual images with display sizes appropriate to the amount of information while ensuring visibility, thereby displaying information in a way that is easy for the driver to see, depending on the amount of information, paragraphs [26-33], Figs. 3-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the in-vehicle system display with segment mirror reflecting to include lifter/moving mechanism configured to position the second reflection unit according to teachings of Sakai in order to provide that the corresponding image display area can be enlarged or reduced, when the amount of information in that image area increases or decreases, therefore making it possible to form virtual images with display sizes appropriate to the amount of information while ensuring visibility, thereby displaying information in a way that is easy for the driver to see, depending on the amount of information (see Sakai, paragraphs [26-33]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Tamura and Sato does not disclose new features recited in claim 1, namely that (1) “the vehicle display device forms: a first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen, and a second optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the second reflection unit, and the windshield, because Tamura, as acknowledged, does not disclose a separate screen (from the windshield parts), and Sato does not disclose path with a first reflection unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to issue (1), as note in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Tamura teaches most, and in combination with cited prior art of Sato teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Tamura teaches (see Figs. 1-5) a vehicle display device (i.e. in-vehicle system equipped with a head-up display 1, see abstract, paragraphs [01-04, 10-20, 22-37, 43-46]) comprising:
a screen (e.g. upper part of the front windshield 101, paragraphs [26-37], Figs. 3,5);
a picture generation unit configured to output a projected image (projector 11 of projection optical system 12, that projects image, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5);
a first reflection unit having a first reflection surface that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit to the screen (i.e. split/segmented mirror 122, with reflected surface reflecting image from 11 on screen e.g. upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5);
a second reflection unit having a second reflection surface that reflects the projected image output from the picture generation unit to a windshield (as reflection mirrors 121, 125 reflecting image from 11 onto windscreen 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5); and
a regulator configured to change at least one of a position of the first reflection unit, an angle of the first reflection unit, a position of the second reflection unit, and an angle of the second reflection unit (i.e. as rotation mechanism 126,127, that rotate mirror 122, 125, paragraphs [30-34, 38-44], figs. 3,5);
wherein the screen comprises a transmission medium (i.e. as upper part of windscreen 101 also allows transmission of light from outside of the vehicle, see Figs. 2-3,5, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44]), and
wherein the vehicle display device (in-vehicle system equipped with a head-up display 1, e.g. Figs. 3,5) forms:
a first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen (i.e. as path of image projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122, and leading to screen on upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5), and a second optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the second reflection unit, and the windshield (i.e. as path of mage projected from 11, reflected of main reflection mirror 121 and on the windscreen 101, 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5).
However, Tamura does not disclose the screen, as a part of the windshield (101) projecting image from the projector (11) as a separate screen.
However, Sato teaches in the same field of invention of a display device for a vehicle (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-24, 68-81,86-94]), and further teaches that screen as separate part from windshield (i.e. as display device for a vehicle with single projection means, projector 18 projecting the first image on first screen 16 (also having transmission medium) provided on the instrument panel 13 visible from the vehicle compartment side while the second image is projected on windscreen 14 via reflection from 17 and 19 mirror, therefore providing the first image on transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and working cooperatively with e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while using single projector (image formation means) thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the in-vehicle system display with segment mirror reflecting first image to include a separate screen for the first/(second) image, and which is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment according to teachings of Sato in order to provide the first image on such transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and that can work cooperatively with instrument panel, e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while still relying on single projector, and thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation (see Sato, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16]).
As a result of the combination, the combination still teaches and renders obvious that the first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen, i.e. given that path of image in Tamura, projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122 which had been modified due to combination, to reflect the light onto a separate screen (16 of Sato, Fig. 1) that is added to the in-vehicle system with head-up display and leading to screen on upper part of 101, see Tamura paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], Figs. 3,5, and Sato paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12).
Specifically, Tamura teaches that the vehicle display device (in-vehicle system equipped with a head-up display 1, e.g. Figs. 3,5) forms the first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen (i.e. as path of image projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122, and leading to screen on upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5), and the second optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the second reflection unit, and the windshield (i.e. as path of mage projected from 11, reflected of main reflection mirror 121 and on the windscreen 101, 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5). Specifically, Tamura discloses that the first optical path which leads from the picture generation unit, over the first reflection unit, and to the screen, i.e. as path of image projected from 11, reflected over the split mirror 122, and leading to screen on upper part of 101, paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], figs. 3,5),
As noted Tamura does not disclose the screen, as a part of the windshield (101) projecting image from the projector (11) as a separate screen. Hence, Sato was used as Sato teaches in the same field of invention of a display device for a vehicle (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-24, 68-81,86-94]), and further teaches that screen as separate part from windshield (i.e. as display device for a vehicle with single projection means, projector 18 projecting the first image on first screen 16 (also having transmission medium) provided on the instrument panel 13 visible from the vehicle compartment side while the second image is projected on windscreen 14 via reflection from 17 and 19 mirror, therefore providing the first image on transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and working cooperatively with e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while using single projector (image formation means) thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12).
Therefore, the combination was made to modify Tamura to include the separate screen, since as noted, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the in-vehicle system display with segment mirror reflecting first image to include a separate screen for the first/(second) image, and which is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment according to teachings of Sato in order to provide the first image on such transmission screen that is visible through the opening of the instrument panel from the vehicle compartment side and that can work cooperatively with instrument panel, e.g. speedometer and tachometer, while still relying on single projector, and thereby reducing weight, number of components, installation space and cost, and enabling the first and second images to work in cooperation (see Sato, paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16]).
Thus, as a result of the combination, the combination still teaches and renders obvious that the first optical path leading to the picture generation unit, the first reflection unit, and the screen, i.e. given that path of image in Tamura, projected from 11, reflected of split mirror 122 which had been modified due to combination, to reflect the light onto a separate screen (16 of Sato, Fig. 1) that is added to the in-vehicle system with head-up display and leading to screen on upper part of 101, see Tamura paragraphs [29-37, 39-44], Figs. 3,5, and Sato paragraphs [68-71, 05-06, 16], Figs. 1-12). Additio0nally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Namely, the claim limitations under issue (1) are taught in combination of Tamura having the modification with included separate screen, as disclosed in Sato. The optical path from image projector source over the reflector to the screen is therefore taught by Tamura and Sato. Lastly it is also noted that examples of display of Sato also include optical path from image source projector over reflector to the scree (see e.g. 4, 8-11 and their descriptions). The cited prior art of Sakai was not used in rejection of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments under issue (1) are not found persuasive.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 9 of the Remarks dated 0715/2026.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights