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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakada et al (US 2020/0353817; hereinafter referred to as Nakada).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Nakada teaches a cockpit system (Figure 9; HUD Device 101B), comprising:
a projector (Figure 9; Light Source Unit 124) disposed in a vehicle (see Figure 9), the projector (Figure 9; Light Source Unit 124) being configured to be provided in a cockpit of the vehicle (see Figure 9);
an operating system (Figure 9; First and Second Projection Lens 110 and 116) configured to display content emitted from the projector (see Paragraph [0072]; wherein it is disclosed that the first projection lens 110 is for projecting light from the DMD 106 on the windshield 114 located above, and the second projection lens 116 is for projecting light from the DMD 106 to an area ahead of the vehicle);
a screen (Figure 9; Scanning Mechanism 128) disposed between the projector (Figure 9; Light Source Unit 124) and the operating system (Figure 9; First and Second Projection Lens 110 and 116), the screen (Figure 9; Scanning Mechanism 128) being configured to receive and display a portion of the content (see Figure 9 and Paragraphs [0102]-[0103]); and
a housing (Figure 11; Base 157) disposed between the screen (Figure 9; Scanning Mechanism 128) and the projector (Figure 9; Light Source Unit 124), the housing (Figure 11; Base 157) being configured to change a position of the screen (see Paragraph [0099]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Nakada teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Nakada further teaches the operating system (Figure 9; First and Second Projection Lens 110 and 116) comprises:
a first lens (Figure 9; Second Projection Lens 116) configured to display first content emitted from the projector (see Paragraph [0072]; wherein it is disclosed that the second projection lens 116 for projecting light from the DMD 106 to an area ahead of the vehicle); and
a second lens (Figure 9; First Projection Lens 110) configured to display second content emitted from the projector (see Paragraph [0072]; wherein it is disclosed that the first projection lens 110 for projecting light from the DMD 106 on the windshield 114 located above).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakada teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Nakada further teaches the second lens (Figure 9; First Projection Lens 110) comprises: an image plane on which an operating system screen is displayed from among the content emitted from the projector (see Paragraph [0072]; wherein it is disclosed that the first projection lens 110 for projecting light from the DMD 106 on the windshield 114 located above); and a light boundary generated by default light generated from the projector (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakada discloses the limitations of claim 10 as detailed above.
Nakada further discloses the adjusting of the position further comprises adjusting a distance between the second lens (Figure 9; First Projection Lens 110) and the screen (see Figure 9; Paragraphs [0098]-[0099]; wherein as the scanning mechanism oscillates a distance between the scanning mechanism and the lens 110 changes).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakada discloses the limitations of claim 11 as detailed above.
Nakada further discloses the adjusting of the distance changes a gradation between an image plane and a light boundary (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakada discloses the limitations of claim 9 as detailed above.
Nakada further discloses the screen (Figure 9; Scanning Mechanism 128) comprises: a projection region (Figure 11; Reflective Surface 156) configured to cover a portion of light emitted from the projector (see Figure 9).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al (US 2020/0353817; hereinafter referred to as Nakada) as applied to claim 3, in view of Zawacki (US 2017/0329210).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakada teaches the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above.
Nakada does not expressly disclose that the second lens further comprises: a gradation pattern disposed between an edge portion of the image plane and the light boundary.
Zawacki discloses a lens (Figure 2A; Lens 30) which comprises: a gradation pattern disposed between an edge portion of an image plane and a light boundary (see Paragraph [0028]; wherein it is disclosed that surface 34 includes substantially transparent portions 300 surrounded by opaque portions 301).
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 second lens of Nakada such that the second lens further comprises: a gradation pattern disposed between an edge portion of the image plane and the light boundary, based upon the teachings of Zawacki, because doing so would provide a value-added lighting feature (see Zawacki Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakada as modified by Zawacki discloses the limitations of claim 4 as detailed above.
Zawacki further discloses the gradation pattern is applied to the image plane using one or more of laser etching, gradation pattern film lamination, and gradation pattern painting (see Paragraph [0005]; wherein it is disclosed that the lenses may be circular discs or plates having a painted or plated surface as the opaque portion. Alternatively, the lenses may have an etched surface as the opaque portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 13-15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require the screen comprises: a projection region configured to cover a portion of light emitted from the projector, and wherein the second lens enables light emitted from the projector to be scattered at an edge of the projection region so that a gradation is applied between the image plane and the light boundary.
Dependent claims 7-8 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made by virtue of their dependency upon claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require the second lens enables light emitted from the projector to be scattered at an edge of a projection region of the screen so that a gradation is applied between an image plane and a light boundary.
Dependent claims 14-15 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made by virtue of their dependency upon claim 13.
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