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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sulyok et al. (US 20240210685 A1), hereinafter Sulyok.
Regarding independent claim 1, Sulyok discloses a direct reflection system of a head up display (HUD) configured for use in a vehicle, the direct reflection system comprising:
a windshield display (2; Fig. 3; ¶0031), the windshield display (2) comprising: an image source (body of 2; ¶0031 states the screen 2 itself produces the image) and a display surface (surface of 2) (Fig. 3; ¶0031-¶0032);
a filter film (20; Fig. 3; ¶0035);
a reflective surface (3; Fig. 3; ¶0035); and
a reflection pathway defined by the windshield display (2) and the reflective surface (3) (Fig. 3; ¶0032);
wherein the image source (body of 2) is configured to emit light which is transmitted to the display surface such that an image is exhibited upon the display surface (¶0032);
wherein light from the image is reflected along the reflection pathway such that the image is reflected off the reflective surface (3) (Fig. 3);
wherein the filter film (20) permits the light from the image to be reflected along the reflection pathway while blocking a peripheral sightline of the windshield display (2) (Fig. 3; ¶0035).
Regarding claim 4, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the system additionally comprising an anti-reflective coating (¶0030).
Regarding claim 7, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the filter film (20) is a louver film (Fig. 4; ¶0036).
Regarding claim 8, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 4, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the filter film (20) comprises a plurality of louvers (Fig. 4; ¶0036).
Regarding claim 12, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses wherein the windshield display (2) is mounted within a dashboard of the vehicle (Fig. 3) such that a top surface (upper surface of 2 in Fig. 3) of a direct reflection system assembly (2, 20) is flush with an external surface of the dashboard (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 12, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses wherein the top surface (upper surface of 2 in Fig. 3) is an outer surface of the windshield display (2) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the windshield display (2) is embedded within a well of a dashboard (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the reflective surface (3) is a windshield (Fig. 3; ¶0005).
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 8, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints:
Constraint 1: P > ABS [ H/(tan(angle s)) - H/ (tan(angle α))]
Constraint 2: P > ABS [ H/ (tan(angle t)) - H/ (tan(angle α))]
Constraint 3: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ts)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] and
Constraint 4: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ss)) - H/ (tan(angle α))].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Sulyok has all the claimed elements of the direct reflection system including a windshield display, a reflective surface, and a filter film comprising a plurality of louvers, configured to reflect light along the reflection pathway while blocking a peripheral sightline of the windshield display, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pitch fall within the constraints for the purpose of allowing light to pass through to the reflective surface while obscuring the windshield display when viewed from the detection area (Fig. 3; ¶0035 of Sulyok).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the invention of Sulyok to have a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints: Constraint 1: P > ABS [ H/(tan(angle s)) - H/ (tan(angle α))], Constraint 2: P > ABS [ H/ (tan(angle t)) - H/ (tan(angle α))], Constraint 3: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ts)) - H/ (tan(angle α))], and Constraint 4: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ss)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] for the purpose of allowing light to pass through to the reflective surface while obscuring the windshield display when viewed from the detection area (Fig. 3; ¶0035 of Sulyok).
Claim(s) 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Zachar et al. (US 20210316611 A1), hereinafter Zachar.
Regarding claim 2, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose the filter film is optically bonded to the windshield display.
However, Zachar teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (12; Figs. 1-2, 3, 8; ¶0046, ¶0055) and a filter film (14; Figs. 1-4; ¶0046), wherein the filter film (14) is optically bonded to the windshield display (12) (Fig. 1; ¶0048; instant application states in ¶00069 that the optical bonding layer can be an adhesive layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate the filter film being optically bonded to the windshield display for the purpose of improving visibility of display contents and saving structural space (¶0007 of Zachar).
Regarding claim 20, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose the windshield display is a thin-film-transistor, or TFT.
However, Zachar teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (12; Figs. 1-2, 3, 8; ¶0046, ¶0055) and a filter film (14; Figs. 1-4; ¶0046), wherein the windshield display (12) is a thin-film-transistor, or TFT (¶0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate the windshield display being a TFT for the purpose of improving visibility of display contents and saving structural space (¶0007 of Zachar).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Dobler et al. (US 20240019694 A1), hereinafter Dobler.
Regarding claim 3, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose the system additionally comprising an infrared coating film.
However, Dobler teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (1, 5; Figs. 5, 7; ¶0045) and a filter film (83; Figs. 5, 7-8; ¶0044), and further comprising an infrared coating film (24; Fig. 1; ¶0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate an infrared coating film as taught by Dobler for the purpose of filtering out an infrared component of sunlight (¶0039 of Dobler).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Itagaki (JP 2022155676 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose the reflection on the reflective surface is configured to be visible at varying heights.
However, Itagaki teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (22; Fig. 2; ¶0039), a filter film (34; Fig. 2; ¶0041), and a reflective surface (2; Fig. 2; ¶0039), wherein the reflection on the reflective surface (2) is configured to be visible at varying heights (Fig. 2; ¶0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate the reflection being visible at varying heights as taught by Itagaki for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Regarding claim 6, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the filter film (20) is configured to obscure the windshield display (2) from view (Fig. 3; ¶0035). Sulyok does not disclose the filter film is configured to obscure the windshield display from view at varying heights.
However, Itagaki teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (22; Fig. 2; ¶0039), a filter film (34; Fig. 2; ¶0041), and a reflective surface (2; Fig. 2; ¶0039), wherein the filter film (34) is configured to direct the light so that the reflection on the reflective surface (2) is configured to be visible at varying heights (Fig. 2; ¶0052) by adjusting the angle of the of the louvers in the filter film (Fig. 2; ¶0007). Due to the combination of Sulyok with Itagaki, it then necessarily follows that the filter film would obscure the windshield display from view at varying heights.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate the filter film being configured to obscure the windshield display from view at varying heights as taught by Itagaki for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Regarding claim 9, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 8, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose wherein, to ensure that the reflection of the windshield display is configured to be visible at varying heights, a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints:
Constraint 1: P > ABS [ H/(tan(angle s)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] and
Constraint 2: P > ABS [ H/ (tan(angle t)) - H/ (tan(angle α))].
However, Itagaki teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (22; Fig. 2; ¶0039), a filter film (34; Fig. 2; ¶0041), and a reflective surface (2; Fig. 2; ¶0039), wherein the reflection of the windshield display (22) is configured to be visible at varying heights (Fig. 2; ¶0052). Itagaki does not explicitly disclose a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints: Constraint 1: P > ABS [ H/(tan(angle s)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] and Constraint 2: P > ABS [ H/ (tan(angle t)) - H/ (tan(angle α))].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Sulyok in view of Itagaki has all the claimed elements of the direct reflection system including a windshield display, a reflective surface, and a filter film comprising a plurality of louvers, configured to have a reflection of the display visible at varying heights, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pitch fall within the constraints for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the invention of Sulyok in view of Itagaki to have a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints: Constraint 1: P > ABS [ H/(tan(angle s)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] and Constraint 2: P > ABS [ H/ (tan(angle t)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Regarding claim 10, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 8, as set forth above. Sulyok does not explicitly disclose wherein, to ensure that the windshield display is configured to be blocked from view at varying heights, a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints:
Constraint 3: P ABS [ H/(tan(angle ts)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] And
Constraint 4: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ss)) - H/ (tan(angle α))].
However, However, Itagaki teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (22; Fig. 2; ¶0039), a filter film (34; Fig. 2; ¶0041), and a reflective surface (2; Fig. 2; ¶0039), wherein the reflection of the windshield display (22) is configured to be visible at varying heights (Fig. 2; ¶0052). Due to the combination of Sulyok with Itagaki, it then necessarily follows that windshield display would be blocked from view at varying heights. Itagaki does not explicitly disclose a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints: Constraint 3: P ABS [ H/(tan(angle ts)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] And Constraint 4: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ss)) - H/ (tan(angle α))].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Sulyok in view of Itagaki has all the claimed elements of the direct reflection system including a windshield display, a reflective surface, and a filter film comprising a plurality of louvers, configured to have a reflection of the display visible at varying heights and block the windshield display from view at varying heights, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the pitch fall within the constraints for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the invention of Sulyok in view of Itagaki to have a pitch of the plurality of louvers fits within the following Constraints: Constraint 3: P ABS [ H/(tan(angle ts)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] And Constraint 4: P < ABS [ H/(tan(angle ss)) - H/ (tan(angle α))] for the purpose of displaying a virtual image in front of the driver according to the driver’s height (¶0001, ¶0007 of Itagaki).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Ulrich et al. (DE 102021109713 A1), hereinafter Ulrich.
Regarding claim 13, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 12, as set forth above. Sulyok further discloses the direct reflection system assembly comprises the windshield display (2) and the filter film (20). Sulyok does not disclose the top surface is an outermost surface of the direct reflection system assembly, such that the outermost surface of the direct reflection system assembly is an external surface of the filter film.
However, Ulrich teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (2; Fig. 1; ¶0032), a filter film (10; Fig. 1; ¶0036), and a reflective surface (5; Fig. 1; ¶0034), wherein a top surface of a direct reflection system assembly (2, 10) is flush with an external surface (8; Fig. 1; ¶0033) of the dashboard (7; Fig. 1; ¶0033), wherein the top surface is an outermost surface of the direct reflection system assembly (2, 10), where the direct reflection system assembly (2, 10) comprises the windshield display (2) and the filter film (10), such that the outermost surface of the direct reflection system assembly (2, 10) is an external surface of the filter film (10) (Fig. 1; ¶0033). It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to have the outermost surface of the direct reflection system assembly be an external surface of the filter film and be flush with an external surface of the dashboard as taught by Ulrich for the purpose of improving the arrangement for reflection suppression in the direct reflection system (¶0010 of Ulrich) and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Hofhaus (DE 102019131636 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not disclose the windshield display is mounted on top of an external surface of a dashboard.
However, Hofhaus teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (2; Fig. 3b; ¶0027) and a reflective surface (5; Fig. 3b; ¶0034), wherein the windshield display (2) is mounted on top of an external surface of a dashboard (Fig. 3b). It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to have the windshield display mounted on top of an external surface of a dashboard as taught by Hofhaus for the purpose of taking into account different visual habits or weaknesses of the driver (¶0001 of Hofhaus).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Bronstein et al. (US 20240278539 A1), hereinafter Bronstein.
Regarding claim 17, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not disclose a viewing portion of the reflective surface is tinted or otherwise darkened with a dark colored print.
However, Bronstein teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (Figs. 1, 10; ¶0029) and a reflective surface (10; Fig. 1; ¶0036), wherein a viewing portion (18; Fig. 1; ¶0045) of the reflective surface is tinted or otherwise darkened with a dark colored print (¶0026, ¶0036, ¶0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate a viewing portion of the reflective surface being tinted or darkened as taught by Bronstein for the purpose of providing a dark background for the reflection and increasing visibility by providing a higher image contrast and blocking external light (¶0036 of Bronstein).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulyok (US 20240210685 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 20230302899 A1), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 19, Sulyok discloses the direct reflection system of claim 1, as set forth above. Sulyok does not disclose a plurality of windshield displays are mounted upon or embedded in a dashboard.
However, Chang teaches a similar direct reflection system comprising a windshield display (34, 52, 54; Figs. 3, 8; ¶0039-¶0041) and a reflective surface (32; Figs. 3, 8; ¶0051), and further comprising a plurality of windshield displays (34, 52, 54) are mounted upon or embedded in a dashboard (Figs. 1-2; ¶0052). It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sulyok to incorporate a plurality of windshield displays for the purpose of providing multiple information to multiple occupants (¶0052 of Chang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wille et al. (US 20230341680 A1) discloses a similar direct reflection assembly comprising a filter film with a plurality of louvers with adjustable angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 7th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
