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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 14, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
2. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,407. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,407 as U.S. Patent No. 12,151,407 appears to encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stenzel et al. (U.S. 2010/0086744).
Stenzel discloses a forming mold of a PVB film for HUD (title, abstract, paragraphs 9, 13). Stenzel suggests a cross section of the mold cavity in one direction is wedged, and a cross section of the mold cavity in another direction is curved (abstract, paragraphs 22-23, FIG. 1-2). Because Stenzel discloses a PVB film with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Stenzel will inherently possess the accuracy error of HUD imaging claimed. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, because Stenzel has the same chemical structure, the properties, including the accuracy error of HUD imaging are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Stenzel discloses the film has a cross section in one direction that is wedged and in another perpendicular direction is curved (Stenzel FIG. 1-2).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
6. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. (U.S. 2010/0086744) in view of Smith (U.S. 5,013,134 A).
Stenzel discloses a forming mold of a PVB film for HUD (title, abstract, paragraphs 9, 13) and is taken as above. Stenzel does not explicitly disclose the cross sections of the PVB film in two directions are both curved. Smith teaches
most automotive windshields are not simple planar, flat structures, but instead include curvature in the horizontal and vertical directions and that the use of a wedged, curved windshield in accordance with the invention provides further improvement, and results in substantial elimination of the ghost image (paragraphs 5, 31). Smith teaches the article is curved in both perpendicular directions (FIG. 8, 9A-B, paragraphs 5,31).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Stenzel to include the curved cross sections of Smith, in order to eliminate ghosting, as in claims 3-4.
Concerning claim 5, the phrase, “curved surfaces can compensate imaging accuracy based on a curved surface of a glass used by HUG imaging” constitutes a ‘capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 6, Stenzel discloses a forming mold of a PVB film for HUD (title, abstract, paragraphs 9, 13). Stenzel suggests a cross section of the mold cavity in one direction is wedged, and a cross section of the mold cavity in another direction is curved (abstract, paragraphs 22-23, FIG. 1-2). Because Stenzel discloses a PVB film with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Stenzel will intrinsically possess the accuracy error of HUD imaging claimed. Stenzel discloses the film has a cross section in one direction that is wedged and in another perpendicular direction is curved (Stenzel FIG. 1-2). Stenzel does not explicitly disclose the cross sections of the PVB film in two directions are both curved. Smith teaches most automotive windshields are not simple planar, flat structures, but instead include curvature in the horizontal and vertical directions and that the use of a wedged, curved windshield in accordance with the invention provides further improvement, and results in substantial elimination of the ghost image (paragraphs 5, 31). Smith teaches the article is curved in both perpendicular directions (FIG. 8, 9A-B, paragraphs 5,31).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Stenzel to include the curved cross sections of Smith, in order to eliminate ghosting. In claim 6, the phrase, “curved surfaces can compensate imaging accuracy based on a curved surface of a glass used by HUG imaging” constitutes a ‘capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights