DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) — (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration
2. Oath and declaration filed on is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by application in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/5/2024 and 1/9/2025 have all been considered and made of record ( note the attached copy of form PTO – 1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,2,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (12,560,809 B2) in view of Poulos et al (9,563,331 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al discloses (refer to figure 1) an augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) system (100) (column 3, lines 10-15) with a double-side emissive display function (10) (column 3, lines 10-15) , comprising a plane mirror (40) , disposed on the first side and configured to reflect the first incident light into a zeroth reflected light; and a free-form mirror (50) (column 5, lines 1-5) , disposed on the second side and configured to reflect the zeroth reflected light into a first reflected light and reflect the second incident light into a second reflected light (L1 and L2).
Takahashi et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except an image generator configured to emit incident lights respectively a first side and a second side opposite to each other.
Poulos discloses an image generator (120) (column 7, lines 13-14) configured to emit incident lights first side and a second side opposite to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide an image generator in to the Takahashi et al an augmented reality head-up display system weblike hierarchical menu display system as taught by Poulos (column 1, lines 34-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, combination of Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al discloses wherein the image generator (120) (Poulos et al , figure 2) is a double-side emissive display, the image generator comprises a plurality of light-emitting components, at least one first light-emitting component among the plurality of light-emitting components emits the first incident light to the first side and at least one second light-emitting component among the plurality of light-emitting components emits the second incident light to the second side.
Regarding claim 8, combination of Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al discloses wherein the image generator (120) comprises a flat panel, a first single-side emissive display and a second single-side emissive display, the first single-side emissive display is disposed on a first surface of the flat panel facing the first side to emit the first incident light to the first side, and the second single-side emissive display is disposed on a second surface of the flat panel facing the second side to emit the second incident light to the second side.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al discloses wherein the flat panel comprises a graphite sheet or a metal material.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (12,560,809 B2) in view of Poulos et al (9,563,331 B2) further in view of
Amafuji et al (6,771,424 B1).
Regarding claim 4, depends on claim 2, Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al discloses, the image generator comprises a first light-emitting region, a second light-emitting region, and a non-light-emitting region.
Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al did not disclose the at least one first light-emitting component is disposed in the first light-emitting region, the at least one second light-emitting component is disposed in the second light-emitting region, and no light-emitting component is disposed in the non-light-emitting region.
Amafuji et al discloses the at least one first light-emitting component is disposed in the first light-emitting region, the at least one second light-emitting component is disposed in the second light-emitting region, and no light-emitting component is disposed in the non-light-emitting region (figure 3. Light component s and non light component).
It would have been obvious to teaching of Amafuji light component and non light component in to the Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al display device for the better position above eye as taught by Amafuji .
Regarding claim 5, combination of Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al and further in view of Amafuji et al discloses wherein the first light-emitting region and the second light-emitting region are located at two ends of the image generator respectively, and the non-light-emitting region is located between the first light-emitting region and the second light-emitting region.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (12,560,809 B2) in view of Poulos et al (9,563,331 B2) in view of
Amafuji et al (6,771,424 B1) further in view of ONISHI et al (2009/0021680 A1).
Regarding claim 6, depends on claim 4, Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al in view of Amafuji et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except wherein the image generator comprises a flexible substrate to have a curvature.
ONISHI et al discloses the image generator comprises a flexible substrate (122) (paragraph 0045) to have a curvature.
It would have been obvious to teaching of ONISHI et al discloses the image generator comprises a flexible substrate in to the Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al in view of Amafuji et al in to the head mounted display device display panel a film defective part developed as taught by ONISHI( paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi et al in view of Poulos et al (9,563,331 B2) further in view ONISHI et al discloses, wherein the image generator (120) is L-shaped or V-shaped.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the image generator comprises a substrate and a reflective metal layer, the at least one first light-emitting component and the at least one second light-emitting component are both disposed on a first surface of the substrate facing the first side, the reflective metal layer is disposed above the at least one second light-emitting component, the at least one first light-emitting component emits the first incident light toward the first side, and the at least one second light-emitting component emits the second incident light toward the first side, and the second incident light is reflected by the reflective metal layer to the second side.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED A HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights