DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 and 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 September 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (directed to Claims 2-8) and Species B (directed to Figures 1b-6, 23, and 25a-25b) in the reply filed on 25 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, "wherein Sa1 > Sa2 > Sb, where Sa1 is a curvature of the first concave mirror, Sb is a curvature of the convex mirror, and Sa2 is a curvature of the second concave mirror" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7 and 8 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.
With respect to Claims 7 and 8, the term “substantially parallel” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In Claim 7, “the display includes a display surface substantially parallel to a virtual imaging plane of the aerial image” does not identify the permissible deviation between the two surfaces and/or planes. Similarly, “the display includes a main light beam substantially parallel to an optical axis of the image light” in Claim 8 does not define the permissible angular deviation between the beam and the optical axis. Thus, the claims do not specify how much angular deviation from exact parallelism is permitted. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations with reasonable certainty, the display, display surface, virtual imaging plane of the aerial image, the image light emitted from the display, the main light beam, and the optical axis of the image light have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially parallel.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “substantially parallel” as “parallel or perpendicular.” Examiner notes that specifying an angular tolerance would also help provide an objective standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara et al. US 20200301141 A1 (herein after "Kuzuhara").
With respect to Claim 2, Kuzuhara discloses an aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2), comprising:
a display (display device 110; [0022]);
a first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]) configured to reflect (first mirror 122 has reflecting surface eccentric to reflect; [0031]), in a direction different from (toward second mirror 124; [0031]) a direction toward the display (display device 110; fig. 2), image light (fig. 2) emitted from the display (reflect image displayed by display device 110; [0031]);
a convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]) configured to reflect (second mirror 124 has reflecting surface eccentric to enlarge; [0034]), in a direction different from (at optical path between second mirror 124 and third mirror 125; [0034]) a direction toward the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]), the image light (fig. 2) reflected from the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]); and
a second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) configured to reflect (projected light is reflected by windshield 220; [0022]), in a direction different from (guided into viewpoint region 300 of observer D; [0022]) a direction toward the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]), the image light (fig. 2) reflected from the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]) to form an aerial image as a real image (intermediate image M on windshield 220, wherein Intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]).
Kuzuhara does not appear to explicitly state the following limitation(s): wherein Sa1 > Sa2 > Sb, where Sa1 is a curvature of the first concave mirror, Sb is a curvature of the convex mirror, and Sa2 is a curvature of the second concave mirror.
However, Kuzuhara implicitly illustrates wherein Sa1 > Sa2 > Sb (implicit from fig. 2, surface curvature of convex reflecting surface of second mirror 124 being interpreted as having negative curvature, incident concave surfaces of first mirror 122 and windshield 220 being interpretated as having positive curvature), where Sa1 is a curvature (see examiner annotated fig. 2 below) of the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]), Sb is a curvature (see examiner annotated fig. 2 below, surface curvature of convex reflecting surface of second mirror 124 being interpreted as having negative curvature) of the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]), and Sa2 is a curvature (see examiner annotated fig. 2 below) of the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface curvatures of Kuzuhara to satisfy Sa1 > Sa2 > Sb, for the purpose of providing a less distorted virtual image ([0006]), shaping a free-form surface that enables strain correction of a virtual image caused by reflection ([0031-35]), and projecting an image on a windshield so that an observer can visually recognize the virtual image, as taught by Kuzuhara ([0044-45]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the surface curvatures of the rotationally asymmetric mirrors and windshield because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Examiner notes that the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP § 2112. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125(I).
With respect to Claim 3, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein a maximum diameter (as seen in fig. 2) of a reflective surface (reflected by windshield 220; [0022]) of the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) is greater than a maximum diameter of a reflective surface (maximum diameter of windshield 220 reflection surface greater than maximum diameter of first mirror 122; as seen in fig. 2) of the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]).
With respect to Claim 4, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]) is a freeform concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave, first mirror 122 is shaped to have free-form surface; [0031]), and the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]) is a freeform (second mirror 124 is shaped to have free-form surface; [0034]) convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]).
Kuzuhara does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) is a freeform concave mirror.
However, Kuzuhara further discloses another concave mirror element (reflecting surface of third mirror 125 is concave; [0035]) that is a freeform concave mirror (third mirror 125 is concave and shaped to have a free-form surface; [0035]) having equivalent structure in the art (concave windshield 220 functioning as transparent reflection member, projection optical system 130 reflects, at third mirror 125, projects intermediate image M on windshield 220, with third mirror 125 being disposed on an optical path from intermediate image M to windshield 220; [0022-28], [0044]).
Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the third mirror being concave and shaped to have a free-form surface for the concave windshield functioning as a transparent reflection member, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concave windshield of Kuzuhara to also function as a free-form concave third mirror, for the purpose of enabling strain correction of a virtual image caused by reflection, as taught by Kuzuhara ([0035]).
With respect to Claim 5, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) overlaps (as seen in fig. 2) the display (display device 110; [0022]), the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]), and the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]) when viewed from a rear surface (of windshield 220; as seen in fig. 2) of the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) in a direction parallel (X axis direction as seen in fig. 2) to a virtual imaging plane (plane of virtual image I; [0024]) of the aerial image (intermediate image M on windshield 220, wherein Intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]).
With respect to Claim 6, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) includes (as seen in fig. 2) the display (display device 110; [0022]), the first concave mirror (reflecting surface of first mirror 122 is concave; [0031]), and the convex mirror (reflecting surface of second mirror 124 is convex; [0034]) when viewed from a rear surface (of windshield 220; as seen in fig. 2) of the second concave mirror (concave windshield 220 as transparent reflection member; [0022], [0044]; fig. 2) in a direction parallel (X axis direction as seen in fig. 2) to a virtual imaging plane (plane of virtual image I; [0024]) of the aerial image (intermediate image M on windshield 220, wherein Intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]).
With respect to Claim 7, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein the display (display device 110; [0022]) includes a display surface (display device 110 displays an image on diffusing surface; [0025]; as seen in fig. 2) substantially parallel (fig. 2) to a virtual imaging plane (plane of virtual image I; [0024]) of the aerial image (intermediate image M on windshield 220, wherein Intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]).
With respect to Claim 8, Kuzuhara discloses the aerial image (intermediate image M is an aerial image formed in a space; [0028]) display device ([0022]; fig. 2) according to claim 2, wherein the image light (fig. 2) emitted from the display (display device 110; [0022]) includes a main light beam (beam corresponding to reference beam Lc emitted from center of virtual image I and running from display device 110 to observer D is called reference beam Lc; [0024]) substantially parallel (as seen in fig. 2) to an optical axis (optical paths corresponding to these beams are also called reference beam Lc; [0024]) of the image light (fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Narushima et al. US 20170285338 A1 discloses a vehicular projection display apparatus similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07 October 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights