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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 and 11/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, the microstructure satisfying “
θ
C
=
90
°
-
2
θ
A
+
θ
B
,
α
=
sin
-
1
1
N
×
sin
θ
C
, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θB is a predefined included angle downward relative to the head-up sight of the driver, and N is a refractive index of the microstructure” as required by claims 3 and 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Notably, while the drawings show θA and θB, they do not show how these angles provide for the relationship of α. Additionally, “in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I” as required by claims 7 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the figures do not show “angle A” or “angle I” or the claimed reflectivity of the P waves. 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
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein image light is emitted by the display apparatus toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure in a propagation direction and reflected to an ocular point of a driver on the side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing the interior of the transport vehicle, a light emitting angle is defined between the propagation direction and a normal direction of the display surface, and a peak value of intensity distribution of the light emitting angle is located outside the normal direction of the display surface.” However, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the HUD architecture performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material, structure, or element must be present in the HUD architecture to perform the function of providing the peak value of intensity distribution. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Additionally, such a limitation depends upon not only the display apparatus but also the reflection surface, the details of the light display, the ocular point of the driver, among other factors. As each of these are variable features, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim and what is positively required to be included.
Moreover, it is unclear if the “peak value of intensity distribution of the light emitting angle” being located outside the normal direction is referring to an incident angle or an emitted angle of the light. Specifically, as the light emitting angle is specifically defined to be between the propagation direction and a normal direction of the display surface, it necessarily follows that the peak value of intensity distribution of such an angle must be outside the normal direction, as it is specifically defined that way.
For the purposes of examination, any display surface that reflects light from a display apparatus to a driver at an angle oblique to the display surface will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 2 recites that “the display apparatus does not comprise an optical film configured to concentrate light emitted by a light source module toward a normal of the display surface.” However, it is unclear what is encompassed by the claim as it is unclear if any optical film that modifies light can be included so long as the light modification does not concentrate the light is allowed by the claimed limitation. Moreover, it is unclear if an optical film that concentrates light in a direction that is not normal to the display surface can be included. Further, as the claim language is open-ended, it is unclear if the claim encompasses an optical film that concentrates light but is outside of the display apparatus (e.g. between the display apparatus and the front windshield). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined. Furthermore, it is unclear if “a normal of the display surface” is intended to be the “normal” defined in claim 1 or a different “normal” vector. Additionally, as a normal to a surface is a vector, it is unclear how an optical film could concentrate light toward a normal, as light would be concentrated toward a point and not a directional vector. Thus, any optical film could theoretically be included, even if it concentrates light, as the light would be concentrated toward a point and not toward a normal.
For the purposes of examination, the claimed limitation will be interpreted as requiring that any light concentrating film is not provided within the display apparatus itself.
Claim 3 recites that “the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer arranged on the display surface, the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2.”
The terms “close” and “away” in claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “close” and “away” are 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. It is unclear how a first side surface can be “inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure” or connected to a side of the top portion “close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure” how a second side surface can be “inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure” or connected to a side of the top portion “away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure.”
Further, it is unclear how to define “a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure” or “a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure” as it is unclear how a distance can be “close” to or “away” from any element.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the interior included angles should be defined between a point of the side surfaces intersecting the display surface or any point along the side surfaces.
For the purposes of examination, any microstructure layer having microstructures of a trapezoidal shape will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-5 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 3 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites “that H1 is greater than or equal to 0, α > 0, and β is less than or equal to 90°.” However, as H1 is defined in claim 3 to be a distance, H1 is necessarily greater than 0 by the definition of “distance.” It is unclear what is intended to be required by the limitation “H1 is greater than or equal to 0.” Furthermore, as there are no units provided for the angle α, it is unclear how this limitation should be defined. Moreover, any angle formed between two surfaces that extend away from each other will necessarily be greater than 0 by definition. Thus, it is unclear what is intended to be required by the limitation “α > 0.” Additionally, there is no frame of reference for the angles α or β, and as such, it is unclear how the angles should be defined.
For the purposes of examination, any microstructure layer having microstructures of a trapezoidal shape will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, since such a shape would have angles formed with a bottom surface that are not perpendicular.
Claim 5 recites “
θ
C
=
90
°
-
2
θ
A
+
θ
B
,
α
=
sin
-
1
1
N
×
sin
θ
C
, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θB is a predefined included angle downward relative to the head-up sight of the driver, and N is a refractive index of the microstructure.” However, a “head-up sight of the driver” is dependent not only upon the system but also upon the height and eyesight of the driver and will vary based upon the driver. As such, the angle θA is variable and the conditions of the claim cannot be clearly defined. Specifically, while a system may meet the claimed condition for one driver, if another shorter driver is provided, the system may not meet the claimed condition. Further, any head-up sight of a driver necessarily encompasses a range of angles, as eyesight includes a field of view and not a single line. As such, it is unclear what structure is positively required by the claim. Moreover, as there is no required range on the angles θA or θB, the value of α could be a negative value, given the definition of the sin function. It is unclear how a microstructure could be provided to meet the requirements of claim 3 while having a negative value of α. As such, the construction of the claims is unclear.
For the purposes of examination, any microstructure layer having microstructures of a trapezoidal shape will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, since such a shape would have angles formed with a bottom surface that are not perpendicular.
Claims 6 and 10 recite “a composite film, bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to the driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films arranged in a stack.” However, it is unclear which side of the front windshield is intended to be “opposite to the driver.” Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would potentially interpret such a limitation as requiring the composite film to be on a side of the front windshield such that the front windshield is between the film and the driver. However, the instant specification merely describes and shows that the composite film is located on a side of the front windshield such that the composite film is between the front windshield and the driver. As such, it is unclear what configuration is required by the claims.
For the purposes of examination, any composite film bonded to a front windshield will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Moreover, it is unclear how the composite film can comprise “a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films arranged in a stack.” Specifically, it is unclear if the “different thermoplastic resin films” are merely referring to the separate films of the stack, or if each film is intended to comprise a different thermoplastic material.
For the purposes of examination, any composite film comprising a plurality of thermoplastic resin films will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 7-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 6 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claims 11-13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 10 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claims 7 and 11 recite “in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I.” However, it is unclear how “reflectivity (%) of each P wave” should be defined. Specifically, it is unclear if “P wave” is referring to a polarization state of the wave or some other type of wave.
Furthermore, it is unclear how to define “a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface” as it is unclear where the film surface should be provided and how an angle can be greater than another angle relative to a normal. It is unclear if the claim is requiring that each angle be defined relative to a normal, or if the angles are being defined relative to each other.
Additionally, a “head-up sight of the driver” is dependent not only upon the system but also upon the height and eyesight of the driver and will vary based upon the driver. As such, the angle θA is variable and the conditions of the claim cannot be clearly defined. Specifically, while a system may meet the claimed condition for one driver, if another shorter driver is provided, the system may not meet the claimed condition. Further, any head-up sight of a driver necessarily encompasses a range of angles, as eyesight includes a field of view and not a single line. As such, it is unclear what structure is positively required by the claim.
Further, it is unclear what constitutes “angle A” and “angle I” and if these angles should be different from θA and θI. Specifically, θA and θI appear to be an “angle A” and an “angle I” and the definitions appear to be self-referential.
Moreover, such a relationship between angle A and angle I appears to merely be stating that an angle of incidence is equal to an angle of reflection, which is a known law of reflective surfaces.
For the purposes of examination, any system that has higher reflectivity at greater angles of light incident on the display surface will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 12 recite “an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield.” However, it is unclear which side of the composite film is intended to be “opposite to the driver.” Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would potentially interpret such a limitation as requiring the inner glass to be on a side of the composite film such that the composite film is between the inner glass and the driver. However, the instant specification merely describes and shows that the inner glass is located on a side of the composite film such that the inner glass is between the composite film and the driver. As such, it is unclear what configuration is required by the claims.
For the purposes of examination, any inner glass bonded to a composite film or front windshield will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smeeton et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0314802; hereinafter – “Smeeton”).
Regarding claim 1, Smeeton teaches a head-up display (HUD) architecture for a transport vehicle, comprising:
a transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103); and
a display apparatus (608), arranged on a side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing an interior of the transport vehicle and comprising a display surface (602) facing the transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103),
wherein image light is emitted by the display apparatus toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure in a propagation direction and reflected to an ocular point of a driver on the side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing the interior of the transport vehicle, a light emitting angle is defined between the propagation direction and a normal direction of the display surface, and a peak value of intensity distribution of the light emitting angle is located outside the normal direction of the display surface (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0015, 0023, 0027, 0100-0103, 0107-0111, and 0118).
Regarding claim 2, Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that the display apparatus does not comprise an optical film configured to concentrate light emitted by a light source module toward a normal of the display surface (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103).
Regarding claim 3, Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer (606, 712, 812, 912, 1012) arranged on the display surface, the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2 (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Regarding claim 4, Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that H1 is greater than or equal to 0, α > 0, and β is less than or equal to 90° (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that
θ
C
=
90
°
-
2
θ
A
+
θ
B
,
α
=
sin
-
1
1
N
×
sin
θ
C
, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θB is a predefined included angle downward relative to the head-up sight of the driver, and N is a refractive index of the microstructure (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uto et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0138772; hereinafter – “Uto”).
Regarding claim 1, Uto teaches a head-up display (HUD) architecture for a transport vehicle, comprising:
a transport vehicle front windshield structure (Paragraph 0051); and
a display apparatus, arranged on a side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing an interior of the transport vehicle and comprising a display surface facing the transport vehicle front windshield structure (Paragraphs 0009, 0011, 0051, and 0114),
wherein image light is emitted by the display apparatus toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure in a propagation direction and reflected to an ocular point of a driver on the side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing the interior of the transport vehicle, a light emitting angle is defined between the propagation direction and a normal direction of the display surface, and a peak value of intensity distribution of the light emitting angle is located outside the normal direction of the display surface (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 2, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Uto further teaches that the display apparatus does not comprise an optical film configured to concentrate light emitted by a light source module toward a normal of the display surface (Paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 6, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Uto further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure comprises: a front windshield; and a composite film, bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to the driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films arranged in a stack (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Uto further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 8, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Uto further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 9, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Uto further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass, the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer, the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer, and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 10, Uto teaches a transport vehicle front windshield structure, comprising: a front windshield; and a composite film, bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films arranged in a stack (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 11, Uto teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Uto further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 12, Uto teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Uto further teaches an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 13, Uto teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Uto further teaches an inner glass, wherein the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer, the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer, and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-13 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappuccilli et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0091414; hereinafter – “Cappuccilli”).
Regarding claim 1, Cappuccilli teaches a head-up display (HUD) architecture for a transport vehicle, comprising:
a transport vehicle (2) front windshield structure (3) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraph 0080); and
a display apparatus (1), arranged on a side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing an interior of the transport vehicle and comprising a display surface (10) facing the transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080 and 0100-0104),
wherein image light is emitted by the display apparatus toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure in a propagation direction and reflected to an ocular point of a driver on the side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing the interior of the transport vehicle, a light emitting angle is defined between the propagation direction and a normal direction of the display surface, and a peak value of intensity distribution of the light emitting angle is located outside the normal direction of the display surface (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080 and 0100-0119).
Regarding claim 2, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the display apparatus does not comprise an optical film configured to concentrate light emitted by a light source module toward a normal of the display surface (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080 and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 6, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure comprises: a front windshield (11); and a composite film (12-14), bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to the driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (13, 13.1, 13.2) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080-0082 and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 7, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080 and 0100-0119).
Regarding claim 8, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12) bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080-0082 and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 9, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12), the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer (14), the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer (14), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0065-0067, 0080-0082, and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 10, Cappuccilli teaches a transport vehicle front windshield structure, comprising:
a front windshield (11); and a composite film (12-14), bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (13, 13.1, 13.2) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080-0082 and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 11, Cappuccilli teaches transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080 and 0100-0119).
Regarding claim 12, Cappuccilli teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12) bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080-0082 and 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 13, Cappuccilli teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12), the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer (14), the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer (14), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0065-0067, 0080-0082, and 0100-0104).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Meulen et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0338864; hereinafter – “Van der Meulen”).
Regarding claim 10, Van der Meulen teaches a transport vehicle front windshield structure, comprising:
a front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0033, 0045, and 0061); and a composite film (7, 8) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (4, 5, 6, 7) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 11, Van der Meulen teaches transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Van der Meulen further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070).
Given that Van der Meulen teaches a front windshield structure having an identical structure and composition, it follows that the structure of Van der Meulen meets the claimed limitations. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 12, Van der Meulen teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Van der Meulen further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2) bonded to a side of the composite film (7, 8) opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass (2) is less than a thickness of the front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0037-0047 and 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 13, Van der Meulen teaches the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, as above.
Van der Meulen further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2), the front windshield (3) and the composite film (7, 8) are bonded by a first adhesive layer (11), the composite film (7, 8) and the inner glass (2) are bonded by a second adhesive layer (10), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0061-0066 and 0070).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uto in view of Smeeton.
Regarding claim 3, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Uto fails to explicitly disclose that the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer arranged on the display surface, the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2
However, Smeeton teaches a display system and light control film therefore comprising a transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103); and a display apparatus (608), arranged on a side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing an interior of the transport vehicle and comprising a display surface (602) facing the transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103) wherein the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer (606, 712, 812, 912, 1012) arranged on the display surface, the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2 (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Smeeton teaches this microstructure layer as it “prevents a viewer from experiencing glare due to sunlight at the eye-box of a head-up display, for example when the head-up display is used in a vehicle where a pupil expander (or other optical component thereof) may be arranged to receive sunlight” in order “to allow transmission of image light from the head-up display to the eye-box at the desired range of angles” and “to avoid the formation of ghost images due to diffraction” and to prevent. “specularly reflected sunlight from reaching the eye-box and causing glare…whilst ensuring that image light is still propagated to the eye-box so as to provide a full image” (Paragraph 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture of Uto with the microstructure layer of Smeeton as it “prevents a viewer from experiencing glare due to sunlight at the eye-box of a head-up display, for example when the head-up display is used in a vehicle where a pupil expander (or other optical component thereof) may be arranged to receive sunlight” in order “to allow transmission of image light from the head-up display to the eye-box at the desired range of angles” and “to avoid the formation of ghost images due to diffraction” and to prevent. “specularly reflected sunlight from reaching the eye-box and causing glare…whilst ensuring that image light is still propagated to the eye-box so as to provide a full image,” as taught by Smeeton (Paragraph 0118).
Regarding claim 4, Uto in view of Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that H1 is greater than or equal to 0, α > 0, and β is less than or equal to 90° (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Regarding claim 5, Uto in view of Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that
θ
C
=
90
°
-
2
θ
A
+
θ
B
,
α
=
sin
-
1
1
N
×
sin
θ
C
, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θB is a predefined included angle downward relative to the head-up sight of the driver, and N is a refractive index of the microstructure (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappuccilli in view of Smeeton.
Regarding claim 3, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer (12a) arranged on the display surface (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0102-0103).
Cappuccilli fails to explicitly disclose that the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2
However, Smeeton teaches a display system and light control film therefore comprising a transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103); and a display apparatus (608), arranged on a side of the transport vehicle front windshield structure facing an interior of the transport vehicle and comprising a display surface (602) facing the transport vehicle front windshield structure (See e.g. Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0023, 0027, and 0101-0103) wherein the display apparatus further comprises a microstructure layer (606, 712, 812, 912, 1012) arranged on the display surface, the microstructure layer comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged on a side of the microstructure layer opposite to the display surface, and each of the plurality of microstructures comprises: a bottom portion, parallel to the display surface; a top portion, located above the bottom portion; a first side surface, inclined toward a driver from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the first side surface and the display surface is defined as α; and a second side surface, inclined toward the transport vehicle front windshield structure from bottom to top from a side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, and connected to a side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure, wherein an inner included angle between the second side surface and the display surface is defined as β, wherein α < β, a distance between the side of the top portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the top portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H1, a distance between the side of the bottom portion close to the transport vehicle front windshield structure and the side of the bottom portion away from the transport vehicle front windshield structure is defined as H2, and H1 < H2 (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Smeeton teaches this microstructure layer as it “prevents a viewer from experiencing glare due to sunlight at the eye-box of a head-up display, for example when the head-up display is used in a vehicle where a pupil expander (or other optical component thereof) may be arranged to receive sunlight” in order “to allow transmission of image light from the head-up display to the eye-box at the desired range of angles” and “to avoid the formation of ghost images due to diffraction” and to prevent. “specularly reflected sunlight from reaching the eye-box and causing glare…whilst ensuring that image light is still propagated to the eye-box so as to provide a full image” (Paragraph 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture of Cappuccilli with the microstructure layer of Smeeton as it “prevents a viewer from experiencing glare due to sunlight at the eye-box of a head-up display, for example when the head-up display is used in a vehicle where a pupil expander (or other optical component thereof) may be arranged to receive sunlight” in order “to allow transmission of image light from the head-up display to the eye-box at the desired range of angles” and “to avoid the formation of ghost images due to diffraction” and to prevent. “specularly reflected sunlight from reaching the eye-box and causing glare…whilst ensuring that image light is still propagated to the eye-box so as to provide a full image,” as taught by Smeeton (Paragraph 0118).
Regarding claim 4, Cappuccilli in view of Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that H1 is greater than or equal to 0, α > 0, and β is less than or equal to 90° (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Regarding claim 5, Cappuccilli in view of Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 3, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that
θ
C
=
90
°
-
2
θ
A
+
θ
B
,
α
=
sin
-
1
1
N
×
sin
θ
C
, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θB is a predefined included angle downward relative to the head-up sight of the driver, and N is a refractive index of the microstructure (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0100-0118).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Van der Meulen.
Regarding claim 6, Smeeton teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 1, as above.
Smeeton fails to explicitly disclose that the transport vehicle front windshield structure comprises: a front windshield; and a composite film bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films arranged in a stack.
However, Van der Meulen teaches a laminated pane comprising: a front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0033, 0045, and 0061); and a composite film (7, 8) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (4, 5, 6, 7) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070).
Van der Meulen teaches this structure of the laminated pane in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture of Smeeton to have the composite film bonded to the front windshield as taught by Van der Meulen in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified,” as in Van der Meulen (Paragraph 0011), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Smeeton in view of Van der Meulen the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Smeeton further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (See e.g. Figs. 6-10; Paragraphs 0015, 0023, 0027, 0100-0103, 0107-0111, and 0118).
Van der Meulen further teaches that in a case that reflectivity (%) of each P wave incident at a first angle, a second angle greater than the first angle, and a third angle greater than the second angle relative to a normal of a film surface is defined as Rθ1, Rθ2, and Rθ3, a relationship of Rθ1 ≤ Rθ2 < Rθ3 is met, wherein angle A = (180-θA)/2, angle I = (180-θI)/2, θA is an included angle between the transport vehicle front windshield structure and a head-up sight of the driver, θI is an included angle between the image light and the display surface, angle A > angle I, reflectivity at angle A < reflectivity at angle I, and transmittance at angle A > transmittance at angle I (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 8, Smeeton in view of Van der Meulen teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Van der Meulen further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2) bonded to a side of the composite film (7, 8) opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass (2) is less than a thickness of the front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0037-0047 and 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 9, Smeeton in view of Van der Meulen teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6, as above.
Van der Meulen further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2), the front windshield (3) and the composite film (7, 8) are bonded by a first adhesive layer (11), the composite film (7, 8) and the inner glass (2) are bonded by a second adhesive layer (10), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0061-0066 and 0070).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uto in view of Manz et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0202177; hereinafter – “Manz”).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6 and the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, respectively, as above.
Uto further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
While Uto teaches a structure reading on the claimed structure with layers reading on the inner glass, composite film, and front windshield, Examiner further submits reference Manz.
Manz teaches a laminated pane comprising: a front windshield (1.2); and a composite film (2, 3, 4, 10) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (2, 3, 4) arranged in a stack, wherein the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6; Paragraphs 0069-0073).
Manz teaches this inner glass with a thickness less than the front windshield as it “ensures that the spatial offset between the primary reflection and the layer reflection is small, and the virtual images coincide such that a sharp, true-color correction image develops in the eye of the observer” (Paragraph 0069) and “ensures that the composite pane 1 as a whole has sufficient mechanical stability, breaking resistance, and torsional stiffness” (Paragraph 0072).
Therefore, even if Uto did not disclose the requisite structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture and front windshield structure of Uto to have an inner glass with the thickness of Manz as it “ensures that the spatial offset between the primary reflection and the layer reflection is small, and the virtual images coincide such that a sharp, true-color correction image develops in the eye of the observer” and “ensures that the composite pane 1 as a whole has sufficient mechanical stability, breaking resistance, and torsional stiffness,” as taught by Manz (Paragraphs 0069 and 0072), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappuccilli in view of Manz.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6 and the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, respectively, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12) bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0080-0082 and 0100-0104).
While Cappuccilli teaches a structure reading on the claimed structure with layers reading on the inner glass, composite film, and front windshield, Examiner further submits reference Manz.
Manz teaches a laminated pane comprising: a front windshield (1.2); and a composite film (2, 3, 4, 10) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (2, 3, 4) arranged in a stack, wherein the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass bonded to a side of the composite film opposite to the driver, and a thickness of the inner glass is less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6; Paragraphs 0069-0073).
Manz teaches this inner glass with a thickness less than the front windshield as it “ensures that the spatial offset between the primary reflection and the layer reflection is small, and the virtual images coincide such that a sharp, true-color correction image develops in the eye of the observer” (Paragraph 0069) and “ensures that the composite pane 1 as a whole has sufficient mechanical stability, breaking resistance, and torsional stiffness” (Paragraph 0072).
Therefore, even if Cappuccilli did not disclose the requisite structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture and front windshield structure of Cappuccilli to have an inner glass with the thickness of Manz as it “ensures that the spatial offset between the primary reflection and the layer reflection is small, and the virtual images coincide such that a sharp, true-color correction image develops in the eye of the observer” and “ensures that the composite pane 1 as a whole has sufficient mechanical stability, breaking resistance, and torsional stiffness,” as taught by Manz (Paragraphs 0069 and 0072), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uto in view of Van der Meulen.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Uto teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6 and the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, respectively, as above.
Uto further teaches an inner glass, wherein the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer, the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer, and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0023, and 0050-0053).
While Uto teaches a structure reading on the claimed structure with layers reading on the composite film and the adhesive layers, Examiner further submits reference Van der Meulen.
Van der Meulen teaches a laminated pane comprising: a front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0033, 0045, and 0061); and a composite film (7, 8) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (4, 5, 6, 7) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070), wherein the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2), the front windshield (3) and the composite film (7, 8) are bonded by a first adhesive layer (11), the composite film (7, 8) and the inner glass (2) are bonded by a second adhesive layer (10), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0061-0066 and 0070).
Van der Meulen teaches this structure of the laminated pane in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, even if Uto did not disclose the requisite structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture and front windshield structure of Uto to have the composite film bonded to the front windshield and inner glass with adhesive layers as taught by Van der Meulen in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified,” as in Van der Meulen (Paragraph 0011), since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappuccilli in view of Van der Meulen.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Cappuccilli teaches the HUD architecture according to claim 6 and the transport vehicle front windshield structure according to claim 10, respectively, as above.
Cappuccilli further teaches that the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (12), the front windshield and the composite film are bonded by a first adhesive layer (14), the composite film and the inner glass are bonded by a second adhesive layer (14), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0065-0067, 0080-0082, and 0100-0104).
While Cappuccilli teaches a structure reading on the claimed structure with layers reading on the composite film and the adhesive layers, Examiner further submits reference Van der Meulen.
Van der Meulen teaches a laminated pane comprising: a front windshield (3) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0033, 0045, and 0061); and a composite film (7, 8) bonded to a side of the front windshield opposite to a driver, and comprising a plurality of different thermoplastic resin films (4, 5, 6, 7) arranged in a stack (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0061-0066, and 0069-0070), wherein the transport vehicle front windshield structure further comprises an inner glass (2), the front windshield (3) and the composite film (7, 8) are bonded by a first adhesive layer (11), the composite film (7, 8) and the inner glass (2) are bonded by a second adhesive layer (10), and a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer are less than a thickness of the front windshield (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0061-0066 and 0070).
Van der Meulen teaches this structure of the laminated pane in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, even if Cappuccilli did not disclose the requisite structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD architecture and front windshield structure of Cappuccilli to have the composite film bonded to the front windshield and inner glass with adhesive layers as taught by Van der Meulen in order “to create a method for producing a laminated pane, as well as a laminated pane in which wrinkling is avoided and the production of the laminated pane is simplified,” as in Van der Meulen (Paragraph 0011), since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xia et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2024/0077652) teaches a light control film in a heads-up display having a similar microstructure.
Chen (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0305297) teaches an optical film, head up display, and vehicle comprising a microstructure film with a similar construction.
Gomer et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0228993) teaches a composite pane with a holographic element and method for the production thereof comprising a stack of thermoplastic layers.
Wade et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,300,682) teaches cellulose ester multilayer interplayers comprising a stack of thermoplastic layers.
Walk et al. (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,979,499 & 7,230,767) teach image display systems utilizing light emitting material having a similar stack of thermoplastic layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights