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 .
Claims 16-30 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-15 have been canceled by the applicant and claims 16-30 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 25 November 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Re: claim 16, the limitations “the beam path” in line 1, “the optical axis” in line 12, and “the region of the image plane” in lines 12-13 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Re: claim 19, the limitations “the optical axis” and “the region” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Re: claim 28, the limitation “the wavelengths” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 16-30 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.
Re: claim 16, the meaning of the limitation “a virtual image representation” in line 13 and in line is unclear. It is not clear as to whether these limitations refer to the same virtual image representation recited in line 11 or whether a different virtual image representation is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the same virtual image representation as recited in line 11.
Re: claims 17-30, because they depend upon claim 16, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 17, the meaning of the limitation “at least one imaging aberration” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the at least one imaging aberration in claim 16, lines 14-15 or whether some other at least one imaging aberration is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the at least one imaging aberration recited in claim 16, lines 14-15.
Re: claim 21, the meaning of the limitation “a defined angle of incidence range” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16 or whether some other defined angle of incidence range is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referred to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16.
Re: claim 22, the meaning of the limitation “a defined angle of incidence range” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16 or whether some other defined angle of incidence range is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referred to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16.
Re: claim 23, the meaning of the limitation “at least one defined angle of incidence range” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16 or whether some other defined angle of incidence range is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referred to the defined angle of incidence range recited in line 7 of claim 16.
Re: claim 28, the meaning of the claim in its entirety is unclear. It is not clear as to how the picture generating unit can include, contain, or comprise an “object plane.” An object plane is a 2-D surface where the target object being viewed is located; it is not understood how a picture generating unit can be made from or include a location in space. Because the examiner in good faith could not ascertain the meaning of the claim, it has not been further examined.
Re: claim 30, the meaning of the limitation “a projection surface” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the same projection surface recited in line 1 of claim 27 or whether some other projection surface is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the projection surface recited in line 1 of claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 20-23, 27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldern (US20200400946).
Re: claim 16, Waldern discloses a wavefront manipulator (Figs. 1, 5) for arrangement in the beam path (arrangement disclosed in Fig. 5) of a head-up display 500 between a picture generating unit 101 (Fig. 1; para. 80 discloses polarized light source from LCD or LCoS) and a projection surface 106, 504 (Figs. 1, 5), the wavefront manipulator comprising: a holographic arrangement comprising a first holographic element 502 and a second holographic element 503 (para. 79 discloses "In many embodiments the input grating,...and the output grating are holographic gratings.”), the first and second holographic elements being arranged one directly behind another at least in portions in the beam path (arrangement disclosed in Fig. 5, where light is input into coupler 502, travels in waveguide 501, and is output at output grating 503), and being configured to be reflective for at least one defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range (Fig. 5, where light input into coupler 502 and output by coupler 503 are reflectively coupled; under Bragg’s Law, light reflecting off of periodic structures, like gratings, undergoes constructive interference, which produces a light beam having a specific wavelength and angle), wherein the first holographic element comprises at least one hologram 502 which is assigned to a hologram 503 of the second holographic element for reflection purposes (Fig. 5, where 502 and 503 are assigned to one another), wherein for at least one defined object plane, the wavefront manipulator is configured to create an image plane 508 (Fig. 5, where 507 & 511 are focal points located on plane 508) of a virtual image representation (Fig. 5, where the representation includes rays 505C/505B, 506C/506B, 509C/unlabeled ray extending from 509C, 510C/unlabeled ray extending from 510C), the image plane 508 being tilted through a defined tilt angle with respect to a plane arranged perpendicular to the optical axis in the region of the image plane 508 of a virtual image representation (tilting disclosed in Fig. 5, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]), and wherein the holographic arrangement is configured for at least partial correction of at least one imaging aberration of a virtual image representation created in the tilted image plane (paras. 19-20, 41, and claim 14).
Re: claim 17, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses that the holographic arrangement 502, 503 is configured for at least partial correction of at least one imaging aberration which is caused by the tilt of the image plane (capability to perform the claimed function disclosed in at least Figure 5; it has been held that a 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 of the structural limitations of the claim [see MPEP § 2114.II]. Because Waldern discloses all of the claimed structure of the device, the claimed function does not differentiate the apparatus of Waldern from the claimed apparatus.
Re: claim 20, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses that the wavefront manipulator (Fig. 5) is configured for manipulating a wavefront for creating a multicolored virtual image representation (capability to perform the claimed function disclosed in at least Figure 5; it has been held that a 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 of the structural limitations of the claim [see MPEP § 2114.II]. Because Waldern discloses all of the claimed structure of the device, the claimed function does not differentiate the apparatus of Waldern from the claimed apparatus.).
Re: claim 21, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses that the first 502 and second 503 holographic elements are configured to be reflective for at least two differing defined wavelengths and a defined angle of incidence range (capability to perform the claimed function disclosed in at least Figure 5; it has been held that a 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 of the structural limitations of the claim [see MPEP § 2114.II]. Because Waldern discloses all of the claimed structure of the device, the claimed function does not differentiate the apparatus of Waldern from the claimed apparatus.).
Re: claim 22, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses that first 502 and second 503 holographic elements are configured to be reflective for at least two differing, non-overlapping defined wavelength ranges and a defined angle of incidence range (capability to perform the claimed function disclosed in at least Figure 5; it has been held that a 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 of the structural limitations of the claim [see MPEP § 2114.II]. Because Waldern discloses all of the claimed structure of the device, the claimed function does not differentiate the apparatus of Waldern from the claimed apparatus.).
Re: claim 23, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses the first and second holographic elements are configured to be transmissive for defined wavelength ranges and/or at least one defined angle of incidence range for which they are configured not to be reflective (capability to perform the claimed function disclosed in at least Figure 5; it has been held that a 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 of the structural limitations of the claim [see MPEP § 2114.II]. Because Waldern discloses all of the claimed structure of the device, the claimed function does not differentiate the apparatus of Waldern from the claimed apparatus.).
Re: claim 27, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16, and Waldern further discloses a head-up display for a projection surface (para. 84 discloses HUD), comprising: a picture generating unit 101 (paras. 59, 80).
Re: claim 29, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 27, and Waldern further discloses that the picture generating unit is configured to create a multicolored image representation (para. 80 discloses a liquid crystal display, a device known to be capable of producing multi-color images).
Re: claim 30, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 27, and Waldern further discloses that the head-up display further comprises a projection surface 504 (Fig. 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern.
Re: claim 18, Waldern discloses the limitations of claim 16. While Waldern does not explicitly disclose that the tilt angle is in the range of 10 degrees to 170 degrees, it has been held that. "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” [MPEP 2144.05.II.A]. As noted above in detail in reference to claim 16 and Figure 5, Waldern does disclose the general conditions of the claim. Moreover, the present specification has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected/significant result, or that the claimed values of the range are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize tilt angles in the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization for the purpose of ensuring that output light is directed to a region where the image is visible to a user of the device without obscuring the user’s ability to view the roadside environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 and 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights