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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024, 12/23/2024, 04/07/2024, 07/22/2024, 09/05/2025, 12/18/2025, 02/11/2026, 03/13/2026, 04/24/2026, 06/02/2026, 06/23/2026 and 07/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the limitation "toward the projection part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes “toward the projection part” will be read as “toward a projection part”.
Claims 2 to 19 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the input element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes “the input element” will be read as “an input element”.
The above 112 rejected claims are interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kutomi discloses an image display system (Figure 3), comprising:
a light source unit ([0016] discloses: display of a virtual image using a head-up display, therefore considered a light source unit including the liquid crystal panel, and backlight) comprising:
a display device ([0040] discloses: head-up display device) configured to display an image ([0041] discloses: 8, liquid crystal panel, acquires picture information from 11, display controller, receives light from 9, backlight and displays the picture information as an image), and
an imaging optical system ([0040] discloses: 10, mirror, 8, liquid crystal panel, 9, backlight) configured to project a first image (Examiner notes that the first image is the image displayed on 8, liquid crystal panel from 8, backlight) corresponding to the image toward a projection part ([0040] discloses: 6, wind glass; display light of image output form 8, liquid crystal panel, is reflected by 10, mirror toward 6, wind glass), and to thereby display a second image ([0040] discloses: m, virtual image), which is a virtual image visible to a viewer as being located beyond the projection part ([0040] discloses: m, virtual image, formed in front of 6, wind glass); and
a drive unit ([0050] discloses: 11, display controller) configured to modify a position of the first image ([0052] discloses: 11, display controller, varies the display position of the picture information according to the vehicle state) by controlling a position and/or an orientation of the light source unit ([0041] discloses: orientation of 8, liquid crystal panel and 9, backlight is varied using a rotational mechanism) based on a condition signal ([0008] discloses: vehicle state that determines the movement of the display controller, considered the condition signal).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1, wherein:
the projection part is a mirror or a semi-transmissive mirror (Figure 3 depicts: 6, windshield that reflects light from 10, mirror; [0039] discloses: 6, windshield is transparent; therefore the windshield is considered a semi-transmissive mirror).
Claims 2-4, 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Graf et al. (US 2016/0139409).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1, wherein:
the image display system is mounted in a vehicle (Figure 2 depicts: components in a vehicle).
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein the drive unit is configured to control an orientation of the light source unit with respect to an axis extending in a vertical direction of the vehicle as a rotation axis. Kutomi and Graf are related because both disclose head-up displays.
Graf teaches a system wherein the drive unit is configured to control an orientation of the light source unit with respect to an axis extending in a vertical direction of the vehicle as a rotation axis ([0026] teaches: 104, picture generating unit, can be controlled by 106, control unit, to rotate around a vertical axis, with a fulcrum used for rotating 104, picture generating unit, horizontally).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Graf and provide a system wherein the drive unit is configured to control an orientation of the light source unit with respect to an axis extending in a vertical direction of the vehicle as a rotation axis. Doing so would allow for the HUD image/light source unit to be horizontally aimed toward the desired viewing position, thereby improving visibility of the virtual image.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 2, wherein:
the condition signal (vehicle state) indicates a travel direction of the vehicle ([0043] discloses: 27, wheel steering angle sensor and 28, direction indicator); and
the drive unit (11, display controller; [0052] discloses: 11, display controller, varies the display position of the picture information according to the vehicle state) is configured to set a projection direction of the first image by the light source unit ([0041] discloses: orientation of 8, liquid crystal panel and 9, backlight is varied using a rotational mechanism; [0052] discloses: 11, display controller, varies the display position of the picture information according to the vehicle state) to a direction corresponding to the travel direction ([0076] discloses: specific steering angle information outputted from the 27, where steering angle sensor, and whole movement distance x is determined, for movement of the whole display).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 2, wherein:
the condition signal (vehicle state) indicates a direction of a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle ([0054-0055] discloses: 30, sight line detection unit, to detect a sight line of the driver, and the direction and extent of the iris of the eye with respect to the face); and
the drive unit is configured to set a projection direction of the first image by the light source unit ([0052] discloses: 11, display controller, varies the display position of the picture information according to the vehicle state) to a direction corresponding to the direction of the line of sight ([0070] discloses: obtaining L, positional coordinates of drivers eye; [0075-0076] discloses: using L, positional coordinates of drivers eyes to move the whole picture information).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 2, wherein:
the projection part is a front windshield of the vehicle ([0039] discloses: 6, windshield, considered the projection part, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kutomi discloses the automobile, comprising:
the image display system according to claim 2;
the vehicle (Figure 2 depicts: vehicle); and
a condition detecting part configured to detect a condition inside or outside the vehicle ([0043] discloses: 25, vehicle state measurement sensor group); wherein
the image display system is fixed to the vehicle (Figure 2 depicts: image display system fixed to a vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Graf et al. (US 2016/0139409), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Szczerba et al. (US 2012/0169513).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 2 wherein the drive unit is configured to set a projection direction of the first image by the light source unit to a direction ([0052] discloses: 11, display controller, varies the display position of the picture information according to the vehicle state).
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein the condition signal indicates a direction toward an object outside the vehicle; and wherein the projection direction is corresponding to the direction toward the object outside the vehicle. Kutomi and Szczerba are related because both disclose head-up displays.
Szczerba teaches a system wherein the condition signal indicates a direction toward an object outside the vehicle ([0025] teaches: sensor inputs to determine current location of target object, e.g., a potential roadway hazard; thus considered a signal in a direction toward an object outside the vehicle; claim 1 teaches: dynamically registering a location of the graphic upon the windscreen); and
wherein the projection direction is corresponding to the direction toward the object outside the vehicle ([0025] teaches: sensor inputs to determine current location of target object, e.g., a potential roadway hazard; [0031] teaches: able to be coordinated with a vehicle coordinate system, and a direction of occupant's gaze based upon image recognition programming; thus the projection direction is corresponding to the direction toward the object outside the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Szczerba and a system wherein the condition signal indicates a direction toward an object outside the vehicle; and wherein the direction is corresponding to the direction toward the object outside the vehicle. Doing so would allow for control of the projection system relative to an outside object, thereby improving driver safety and overall functionality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yatsu et al. (US 2020/0033596) in view of Amitai et al. (US 2005/0083592).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1,wherein:
the imaging optical system comprises:
an input element ([0040] discloses: 8, liquid crystal panel) on which light emitted from the display device is incident ([0040] discloses: 8, liquid crystal panel, receives light from 9, backlight, receiving side of 8, liquid crystal panel is considered the input element), and
an output element on which light traveling via the input element is incident ([0040] teaches: display light of the image outputted from 8, liquid crystal panel; the output side of 8, liquid crystal panel is considered the output element);
light emitted from the output element forms the first image (the image outputted from 8, liquid crystal panel, is considered the first image, see claim 1).
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein the imaging optical system is substantially telecentric at the first image side; and the light emitted from the display device has a substantially Lambertian light distribution. Kutomi and Yatsu are related because both disclose head-up displays.
Yatsu teaches the imaging optical system is substantially telecentric at the first image side ([0071] teaches: emitting side of liquid crystal display panel is made telecentric). Kutomi and Amitai are related because both disclose display sources.
Amitai teaches a device wherein the light emitted from the display device has a substantially Lambertian light distribution ([0026] teaches: display source exhibits a near-Lambertian distribution of the emitted light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Yatsu and Amitai and provide a system wherein the imaging optical system is substantially telecentric at the first image side; and the light emitted from the display device has a substantially Lambertian light distribution. Doing so would allow for the display device to emit diffuse, wide angle light for uniform image illumination, thereby improving brightness uniformity of the projected HUD image.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Yatsu et al. (US 2020/0033596) in view of Amitai et al. (US 2005/0083592), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Whitfield et al. (US 2014/0036511).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 8.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein the light emitted from the display device has a light distribution pattern in which a luminous intensity in a direction of an angle θ with respect to an optical axis of the light emitted from the display device is approximated by cosn θ times a luminous intensity at the optical axis, where n is a value greater than 0. Kutomi and Whitfield are related because both disclose light systems.
Whitfield teaches a system wherein the light emitted from the display device has a light distribution pattern in which a luminous intensity in a direction of an angle θ with respect to an optical axis ([0205] teaches: Lambertian radiation pattern where the light intensity at any given angle from the axis of the light source is the intensity on the axis multiplied by the cosine of the angle from the axis; teaching Lambertian angle intensity) of the light emitted from the display device is approximated by cosn θ times a luminous intensity at the optical axis, where n is a value greater than 0 (Examiner notes that the Lambertian intensity distribution is
I
θ
=
I
(
θ
)
cos
θ
; there for
I
θ
=
I
(
θ
)
cos
n
θ
, n = 1 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Whitfield and provide a system wherein the light emitted from the display device has a light distribution pattern in which a luminous intensity in a direction of an angle θ with respect to an optical axis of the light emitted from the display device is approximated by cosn θ times a luminous intensity at the optical axis, where n is a value greater than 0. Doing so would allow the display device to emit diffused light over a wide range of angles, thereby improving brightness uniformity of the projected first image.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 9, wherein:
n is not more than 11 (Examiner notes that the Lambertian intensity distribution is
I
θ
=
I
(
θ
)
cos
θ
; there for
I
θ
=
I
(
θ
)
cos
n
θ
, n = 1; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Toyoshima (US 2022/0091417).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein: the display device is an LED display; and the LED display includes a plurality of LED elements. Kutomi and Toyoshima are related because both disclose head-up devices.
Toyoshima teaches a device wherein:
the display device is an LED display ([0043] teaches: LED display); and
the LED display includes a plurality of LED elements ([0038] teaches: plurality of LED light sources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Toyoshima and provide wherein: the display device is an LED display; and the LED display includes a plurality of LED elements. Doing so would allow for the display device to provide a compact, high-brightness image source with individually controllable light emitting elements, thereby improving brightness and visibility of the projected image.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Toyoshima (US 2022/0091417), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Amitai et al. (US 2005/0083592).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 11.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein: light emitted from the LED element has a substantially Lambertian light distribution. Kutomi and Amitai are related because both disclose display sources.
Amitai teaches a system wherein:
light emitted from the LED element (Claim 9 teaches: emitting function distribution of pixels in OLED) has a substantially Lambertian light distribution ([0026] teaches: display sources that exhibit a near-Lambertian distribution of emitted light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Amitai and a system wherein: light emitted from the LED element has a substantially Lambertian light distribution. Doing so would allow for the display device to emit diffuse, wide angle light for uniform image illumination, thereby improving brightness uniformity of the projected HUD image.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Toyoshima (US 2022/0091417), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Schuck, III et al. (US 2018/0231771) hereinafter Schuck.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 11.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein: the display device further comprises a wavelength conversion member located on the LED element; and light emitted from the LED element is incident on the wavelength conversion member. Kutomi and Schuck are related because both disclose imaging systems.
Schuck teaches a system wherein:
the display device further comprises a wavelength conversion member ([0230] teaches: yellow phosphor layer) located on the LED element ([0230] teaches: blue chip coated with a yellow phosphor layer); and
light emitted from the LED element is incident on the wavelength conversion member (Examiner notes that the LED is coated with the phosphor layer, thus the light emitted from the LED is incident on the phosphor layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Schuck and provide a system wherein: the display device further comprises a wavelength conversion member located on the LED element; and light emitted from the LED element is incident on the wavelength conversion member. Doing so would allow for the light emitted from the LED to be wavelength converted to produce desired display light, thereby improving color generation and brightness uniformity of the display system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Abe et al. (US 2006/0114428).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein: the imaging optical system comprises a direction modifying part comprises a bending part and an output element; the bending part comprises the input element; the bending part is configured to bend a plurality of principal rays;
the plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device, cross each other before being incident on the input element, and reach the first image; the bending part is configured to bend the plurality of principal rays to be substantially parallel to each other before and after the first image; and the direction modifying part is configured to modify a travel direction of the plurality of principal rays so that the plurality of principal rays traveling via the bending part are directed toward a formation position of the first image. Kutomi and Abe are related because both disclose projector devices.
Abe teaches a system wherein:
the imaging optical system (Figure 1) comprises a direction modifying part ([0031] teaches: projection optical system) comprises a bending part ([0031] teaches: elements from 6, lens device that input and bend, L11 side of Figure 1) and an output element ([0031] teaches: elements from 6, lens device from which the image light exits, L1 side of Figure 1);
the bending part comprises the input element (Examiner notes that the bending part corresponds to the input area of L11 side of Figure 1);
the bending part is configured to bend a plurality of principal rays (Figure 1 depicts: bending of rays from input side of Figure 1, from 3, liquid crystal panel);
the plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device ([0008] teaches: principle rays of light emitted from various locations of the display device), cross each other before being incident on the input element ([0008] teaches: rays converge: Figure 1 depicts, rays converging before being incident on the input side, right hand side of Figure 1, of the imaging system), and reach the first image (Figure 1 depicts: rays converging before exiting 6, lens device, where the first image is formed);
the bending part is configured to bend the plurality of principal rays to be substantially parallel to each other before and after the first image ([0033] teaches: lenses are telecentric to emit rays of light emitted are parallel to optical axis; [0036] teaches: pixels of LCD panel are telecentric); and
the direction modifying part is configured to modify a travel direction of the plurality of principal rays so that the plurality of principal rays traveling via the bending part are directed toward a formation position of the first image (Examiner notes that the projection optical system of Abe, modifies a travel direction of principle rays traveling from right hand side of Figure 1, are directed toward the exit portion of the optical system, where the first image is considered to be formed; Examiner notes that in the absence of solving a stated problem, is for any particular purpose, positively recited effects of the function/operation or produces an unexpected result, the arrangement of parts is considered a design choice).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Abe and provide a system wherein: the imaging optical system comprises a direction modifying part comprises a bending part and an output element; the bending part comprises the input element; the bending part is configured to bend a plurality of principal rays; the plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device, cross each other before being incident on the input element, and reach the first image. Doing so would allow for a known optimization/design choice of optical system to control and align principle rays from different display positions, thereby improving telecentricity and image quality of the projected first image.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Miyazaki (US 2023/0324708)
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein: the light source unit further comprises a light-shielding member located between the display device and the imaging optical system; the light-shielding member comprises an aperture; a portion of light from the display device toward the imaging optical system passes through the aperture; and another portion of the light from the display device toward the imaging optical system is shielded by the light-shielding member. Kutomi and Miyazaki are related because both disclose vehicle display devices.
Miyazaki teaches a system wherein:
the light source unit further comprises a light-shielding member located between the display device and the imaging optical system ([0066] teaches: light source, with an aperture that restricts the diameter of the light; the laser light analogous to the display device and the imaging optical system following, see Figure 5);
the light-shielding member comprises an aperture ([0066] teaches: aperture);
a portion of light from the display device toward the imaging optical system passes through the aperture ([0066] teaches: aperture restricts the diameter of the light, thus allowing a portion of light to pass through); and
another portion of the light from the display device toward the imaging optical system is shielded by the light-shielding member ([0066] teaches: aperture restricts the diameter of the light, this shielding some of the light from entering the imaging optical system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Miyazaki and provide a system wherein: the light source unit further comprises a light-shielding member located between the display device and the imaging optical system; the light-shielding member comprises an aperture; a portion of light from the display device toward the imaging optical system passes through the aperture; and another portion of the light from the display device toward the imaging optical system is shielded by the light-shielding member. Doing so would allow the optical system to limit and define the bundle of principle rays passing through the system, thereby improving telecentricity, brightness uniformity, and image quality at the first image.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Fukushima et al. (US 2020/0285054).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 1.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system further comprising: a reflection unit separated from the light source unit; the reflection unit reflecting light emitted from the imaging optical system; and
the first image is formed between the light source unit and the reflection unit. Kutomi and Fukushima are related because both disclose head-up displays.
Fukushima teaches a system further comprising:
a reflection unit (Figure 1 depicts: 16, mirror) separated from the light source unit (Figure 1 depicts: 16, mirror, separate from 10, display device/light source unit);
the reflection unit reflecting light emitted from the imaging optical system ([0018] teaches: 16, mirror, reflects L display light received by 15, screen); and
the first image is formed between the light source unit and the reflection unit ([0018] teaches:15, screen, displays an image, analogous to the first image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Fukushima and provide a system further comprising: a reflection unit separated from the light source unit; the reflection unit reflecting light emitted from the imaging optical system; and
the first image is formed between the light source unit and the reflection unit. Doing so would allow for reflection components to optimize the light path, thereby improving the overall light-use efficiency of the optical system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Fukushima et al. (US 2020/0285054), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Kotchick et al. (US 6,975,455).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 16.
Kutomi fails to disclose a system further comprising: a reflective polarizing element located in an optical path from the display device to the reflection unit; wherein: the reflective polarizing element is configured to transmit first polarized light of light emitted from the display device; and the reflective polarizing element is configured to reflect second polarized light of the light emitted from the display device so that the second polarized light returns to the display device. Kutomi and Kotchick are related because both disclose optical displays.
Kotchick teaches a system further comprising:
a reflective polarizing element (Figure 6 depicts: 306, transflective layer; considered a reflective polarizing element) located in an optical path from the display device to the reflection unit (Examiner notes that the transflective display of Kotchick is considered the reflection unit; thus the device is located in the optical path from the display device to the reflection and the LCD and backlight is the display/light source side); wherein:
the reflective polarizing element is configured to transmit first polarized light of light emitted from the display device (Col. 4, lines 40-45 teach: a reflecting polarizer that has high reflectivity for light in one polarization state and high transmission for light in the orthogonal polarization state; Examiner notes that the reflecting polarizer is the transflective layer; lines 60-67 teach: 320, ray is transmitted through the transflective layer, without polarization); and
the reflective polarizing element is configured to reflect second polarized light of the light emitted from the display device (Col. 5 lines1-10 teach: 322, back light is originally reflected by the transflector layer but may pass through after having its polarization randomized; considered the second polarization) so that the second polarized light returns to the display device (Col. 5 lines 1-10 teach: 322, ray is recycled until its polarization allows transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Kotchick and provide a system further comprising: a reflective polarizing element located in an optical path from the display device to the reflection unit; wherein: the reflective polarizing element is configured to transmit first polarized light of light emitted from the display device; and the reflective polarizing element is configured to reflect second polarized light of the light emitted from the display device so that the second polarized light returns to the display device. Doing so would allow for light of a usable polarization state to be transmitted toward the reflection unit while reflecting and recycling light of an unusable polarization state back toward the display, thereby improving light use efficiency and brightness of the projected image.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kutomi (US 2017/0038595) in view of Fukushima et al. (US 2020/0285054) in view of Kotchick et al. (US 6,975,455), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Abe et al. (US 2006/0114428).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kutomi discloses the image display system according to claim 17, wherein:
the reflective polarizing element is located in a part of the optical path from the display device to the reflection unit (Examiner notes that the reflective polarizing element is considered to be between the reflective polarizing element and the display device).
Kutomi fails to disclose a system wherein a plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device, pass through the first image, and are substantially parallel to each other at the part of the optical path. Kutomi and Abe are related because both disclose projector devices.
Abe teaches disclose a system wherein
a plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device ([0008] teaches: principle rays of light emitted from various locations of the display device), pass through the first image, and are substantially parallel to each other at the part of the optical path ([0033] teaches: lenses are telecentric to emit rays of light emitted are parallel to optical axis; [0036] teaches: pixels of LCD panel are telecentric; Examiner notes that the principle rays are considered to pass through the first image in the lens drive of Abe; the first image is the image carried by the optical system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kutomi in view of Abe and provide a system wherein a plurality of principal rays are emitted from mutually-different positions of the display device, pass through the first image, and are substantially parallel to each other at the part of the optical path. Doing so would allow for a known optimization/design choice of optical system to control and align principle rays from different display positions, thereby improving telecentricity and image quality of the projected first image.
Compact Prosecution
Applicant may consider amending the claim, if supported by the specification, to require that the first image is a real intermediate image formed at a defined position between the light source unit and a separate reflection unit, and that the drive unit physically rotates the light source unit about a vehicle vertical axis to move the real first image formation position before reflection by the separate reflection unit. Such clarification would better distinguish over HUD systems that only shift virtual image display position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yata et al. (US 2018/0124364) discloses a head-up display but fails to disclose a moving display, Cha et al. (US 2015/0234260) discloses a projector system but fails to disclose the correct system alignment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights