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 § 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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. US 2008/0049331 in view of Weber et al. US 2004/0135742 and further in view of Asakura et al. US Patent No. 5,999,314.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a head-up display device comprising:
a display unit that is provided in a vehicle and that display a virtual image by reflecting display light emitted toward a reflection member capable of transmitting light, by the reflection member toward an eye point side (Fig. 1, paras. 0031, 0035: discloses a vehicle display unit 1 including HUD 10 that projects display light L onto a vehicle windshield 3, thereby displaying a virtual image S that is visually recognized at the driver’s eye point I); and
a housing having an opening facing the reflection member, to which the display unit is assembled (Fig. 1 and para. 0032: discloses case 11 having opening 11a through which display light is directed toward windshield),
wherein the display unit includes a display instrument that is accommodated inside the housing, and emits the display light (paras. 0032-0033: display source 12 received inside case 11 and configured to display and emit display light L),
a reflection mirror that is accommodated inside the housing, and reflects enlarged display light obtained by enlarging the display light emitted from the display instrument, toward the reflection member via the opening (paras. 0032, 0034-0035 and Fig. 1: discloses reflecting member 13 accommodated inside case 11 and that reflective member 13 may be a reflecting mirror or a magnifying mirror that reflects display light from display source 12 toward windshield 3 through opening 11a), and
a transparent cover that blocks the opening, and transmits the enlarged display light reflected by the reflection mirror (para 0037 and Fig. 1: discloses translucent synthetic resin cover 20 mounted over and closing opening 11a, while permitting display light L reflected by reflecting member 13 to pass toward windshield 3),
the transparent cover includes a first surface portion positioned on the reflection mirror side, and a second surface portion positioned on an opposite side of the reflection mirror side (Figs. 2-4 and paras. 0038, 42-45: discloses incident surface 23 positioned toward reflecting member 13 and emitting surface 24 positioned toward windshield 3),
the display light guided to the eye point includes regular light transmitted through the transparent cover without being reflected by the first surface portion and the second surface portion of the transparent cover, and guided to the eye point (Figs. 2-4 and paras. 38, 54-56: discloses direct light LB that passes straight through cover body 21 without reflection and is projected by windshield 3 toward eye point I), and
irregular light transmitted through the transparent cover after being reflected by the first surface portion and the second surface portion of the transparent cover, and guided to the eye point (Figs. 2-4, paras. 0038, 42-45, 54-56: discloses reflected light LR that enters cover body 21 through incident surface 23 is internally reflected at emitting surface 24 is again reflected at incident surface 23, exits through emitting surface 24 and is reflected by windshield 3 toward eye point I).
Nakamura does not expressly teach: the first surface portion of the transparent cover has an incidence surface with an incidence angle of 65° or less, the incidence angle being an angle at which the irregular light enters the first surface portion, and the incidence surface causes the irregular light to enter at an angle that sets the luminance of the irregular light with respect to the luminance of the regular light, to 2% or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Weber teaches the first surface portion of the transparent cover has an incidence surface with an incidence angle of 65° or less, the incidence angle being an angle at which the irregular light enters the first surface portion (para. 30 and Fig. 2: Weber teaches a transparent glass or plastic member having a first surface 18a upon which display light is incident at an acute angle θ1 measured relative to the normal axis, and that ordinary glass and plastic material have Brewster angles of approximately 55 to 60 degree, and that P-polarized light incident at or near such angles has nonzero but very low reflectivity, thereby avoiding a ghost image (see para 0030), and the light experiences no significant reflection at the second major surface, thereby avoiding another ghost image (see para 0031)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Nakamura’s incident surface 23 and display light path so that the reflected light LR enters at an incidence angle of 65 degree or less as taught by Weber in order to reduce surface reflectivity and consequently reduce the luminance of the twice reflected light that produce the known ghost image.
The combination Nakamura and Weber do not expressly teach: the incidence surface causes the irregular light to enter at an angle that sets the luminance of the irregular light with respect to the luminance of the regular light, to 2% or less.
Asakura, which is in the same field of endeavor of vehicle HUD system teaches at least the incidence surface causes the irregular light to enter at an angle that sets the luminance of the irregular light with respect to the luminance of the regular light, to 2% or less (col. 7 lines 59-65 through col. 8 lines 1-13: teaches directing display light toward a transparent optical member at or around the Brewster angle to produce no reflection and thereby prevent formation of a double image. Asakura specifically teaches a Brewster angle of 63 degree for TiO2 film, 54 degree for MgF2 film and 56.6 for ordinary glass, which all are withing the claimed range of 65 degree or less (see col. 8 lines 31-39), Asakura further discloses that the reflectivity at the interface between Brewster angle regulating film 3 and glass plate 1B is approximately 0.75% (see col. 5 lines 1-9). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the transparent cover of Nakamura, as modified by Weber using the incident angle and low reflectivity teaching of Asakura so that the luminance of the twice reflected irregular light is no mor than 2% of the luminance to prevent ghost image.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakamura, Weber, and Asakura teach the head-up display device according to claim 1, and Nakamura further teaches wherein the display instrument directly emits the display light to the reflection mirror, and the reflection mirror reflects the enlarged display light obtained by enlarging the display light directly emitted from the display instrument to the reflection member via the transparent cover (Fig. 1 and paras. 34, 36 and 39: teaches that display source 12 and reflecting member 13 are opposed to each other inside case 11 and display light emitted from light source 12 it directed to the reflecting member 13, and the reflected from reflecting mirror 13 is directed to the windshield via transparent cover 20 i.e., opening 11a).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Weber and Asakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US 2001/0009478.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nakamura, Weber, and Asakura teaches the head-up display device according to claim 1, except for wherein a free curved surface that performs aberration correction on the enlarged display light reflected by the reflection mirror is formed on the incidence surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches forming an anamorphic aspherical surface on the light entrance face of a transparent optical member (see Figs. 3A-5B and paras. 69-70). Yamazaki further teaches that the entrance face has an anamorphic aspherical surface with variable curvature depending on the azimuthal angle, thereby providing satisfactory correction of eccentric aberration (see para 98). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incidence surface of Nakamura’s transparent cover to include the anamorphic aspherical curvature as taught by Yamazaki in order to correct aberrations in the enlarged display light reflected by Nakamura’s reflection mirror and thereby to improve the optical quality of the displayed virtual image.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakamura, Weber, Asakura and Yamazaki teaches the head-up display device according to claim 2, and Nakamura further teaches wherein the display instrument directly emits the display light to the reflection mirror, and the reflection mirror reflects the enlarged display light obtained by enlarging the display light directly emitted from the display instrument, to the reflection member via the transparent cover (Fig. 1 and paras. 34, 36 and 39: teaches that display source 12 and reflecting member 13 are opposed to each other inside case 11 and display light emitted from light source 12 it directed to the reflecting member 13, and the reflected from reflecting mirror 13 is directed to the windshield via transparent cover 20 i.e., opening 11a).
Conclusion.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wood et al. US Patent No. 4,961,625: discloses HUD projection lens that includes a rotationally nonsymmetric aspheric optical element to compensate for aberration introduced by an aspheric windshield (see abstract, col. 3 lines 1-23), wood further analyzes reflection components produced at the inner and outer surface of a transparent windshield as a function of angle of incidence (Figs. 3-4 and col. 6 lines 5-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights