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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.12,130,436. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, US Patent ‘436 teaches an optical system comprising:
a curved optical stack that for a substantially normally incident light having a wavelength in a range from about 400 nm to about 700 nm, is configured to reflect at least 70% of the incident light having a first polarization state, and absorb at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Column 6, Lines 1-13); and
first and second displays disposed on opposite sides of the curved optical stack and configured to emit respective first and second images configured to be viewed by a same viewer after being respectively reflected and transmitted by the optical stack (Column 5, Lines 55-67).
Regarding Claim 2, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the curved optical stack comprises a reflective polarizer facing the first display and an absorbing polarizer facing the second display (Column 5, Lines 63-65).
Regarding Claim 3, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the reflective polarizer reflects at least 70% of the incident light the first polarization state and transmits at least 70% of the incident light having the second polarization state (Column 6, Lines 4-8).
Regarding Claim 4, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the absorbing polarizer absorbs at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having the first polarization state and transmits at least 70% of the incident light having the second polarization state (Column 6, Lines 9-16).
Regarding Claim 5, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the first and second images are both polarized (Column 5, Lines 51-67).
Regarding Claim 6, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the second display is a real-world object in a real-world scene (Column 6, Lines 17-18).
Regarding Claim 7, US Patent ‘436 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
US Patent ‘436 further teaches the second display is an electronic display configured to emit polarized light (Column 6, Lines 28-29).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al (US 2006/0007055; hereinafter referred to as Larson) in view of Tei (US 2015/0362728).
Regarding Claim 1, Larson discloses an optical system (Figure 2; Head-Up Display 30) comprising:
a curved optical stack (Figure 2; Multilayer Combiner 36; Paragraph [0018]; wherein the multilayer combiner 36 is described as being curved); and
first and second displays (Figure 2; Display Source 32 and Object 18) disposed on opposite sides of the curved optical stack (see Figure 2; wherein the object 18 and the display source 32 are disposed on opposite sides of the multilayer combiner 36) and configured to emit respective first and second images configured to be viewed by a same viewer (Figure 2; Observer 20) after being respectively reflected and transmitted by the optical stack (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0018]).
Larson does not expressly disclose that the curved optical stack for a substantially normally incident light having a wavelength in a range fm about 400 nm to about 700 nm, is configured to reflect at least 70% of the incident light having a first polarization state, and absorb at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having an orthogonal second polarization state.
Tei discloses an optical system (Figure 1; Polarization Laminate 1) comprising:
an optical stack (Figure 1; Absorption Polarization Layer 2 and Diffusion Layer 3); wherein
the optical stack (Figure 1; Absorption Polarization Layer 2 and Diffusion Layer 3) for a substantially normally incident light having a wavelength in a range from about 400 nm to about 700 nm, is configured to reflect at least 70% of the incident light having a first polarization state (see Paragraphs [0087]-[0088]; wherein it is disclosed that the diffusion polarization layer may have a total light reflectance (a back scattering rate) of a linearly polarized light in the above-mentioned direction of not less than 50%, for example, not less than 60% (e.g., about 60 to 95%), preferably about 65 to 90%, and more preferably about 70 to 85% (particularly about 75 to 85%)), and absorb at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having an orthogonal second polarization state (see Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the curved optical stack of Larson such that the curved optical stack for a substantially normally incident light having a wavelength in a range from about 400 nm to about 700 nm, is configured to reflect at least 70% of the incident light having a first polarization state, and absorb at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having an orthogonal second polarization state, as taught by Tei, because doing so would improve the view of the other side of the screen (see Tei Paragraphs [0087] and [0111]-[0112]).
Regarding Claim 2, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tei further discloses the curved optical stack (Figure 1; Absorption Polarization Layer 2 and Diffusion Layer 3) comprises a reflective polarizer (Figure 1; Diffusion Layer 3) facing the first display (Figure 1; Projector 4) and an absorbing polarizer (Figure 1; Absorption Polarization Layer 2) facing the second display (see Figure 1). object
Regarding Claim 3, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Tei further discloses the reflective polarizer (Figure 1; Diffusion Layer 3) reflects at least 70% of the incident light the first polarization state and transmits at least 70% of the incident light having the second polarization state (see Paragraphs [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding Claim 4, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Tei further discloses the absorbing polarizer (Figure 1; Absorption Polarization Layer 2) absorbs at least 50% and at most 85% of the incident light having the first polarization state and transmits at least 70% of the incident light having the second polarization state (see Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]).
Regarding Claim 5, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tei further discloses the first and second images are both polarized (see Figure 1 and Paragraph [0156]).
Regarding Claim 6, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Larson further discloses the second display (Figure 2; Object 18) is a real-world object in a real-world scene (see Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 7, Larson as modified by Tei discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Larson further discloses the second display (Figure 2; Display Source 32) is an electronic display configured to emit polarized light (see Paragraph [0017]).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights