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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted February 26, 2025, since the IDS is blank is it has been x’ed out.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 19, 2026 and February 27, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “polarizing plate is arranged on both sides of the display panel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent translation/grammatical error. Page 8 lines 9-13 states:
“A windshield 6, a rear window glass 6′, side window glasses 6″ (collectively referred to also as a “shield glass”) exist in front of a driver's seat of an automobile main body 1 as a translucent projected member for projecting and displaying video light.”
It is respectfully noted that side and rear windows do not “exist in front of a driver's seat of an automobile”. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding the term “shield glass” page 8 lines 9-13 indicates “shield glass” collectively refers to a windshield (6), a rear window glass (6′), and/or a side window glasses (6″). This interpretation is reasonable and well within the grasp of the ordinarily skilled and consistent the broadest reasonable interpretation as is required be the MPEP §2111.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use: “The display apparatus according to claim [[2] 1, further …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6 “wherein the polarizing plate is arranged on both sides of the display panel” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the polarizing plate is shaped to be on two sides of a display, e.g. U-shaped, or if the polarizing plate is on either side of a display, or if the polarizing plate is two polarizing plates or if this is an indefinitely referencing to a structural (inherent?) feature of an LCD (unclaimed) display. In light of the specification, see page 13 lines 8-12, indicates this is an inherent part of an LCD display. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein is a liquid crystal display.”
Regarding claim 8 “the shield glass is a window glass” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if “window glass” is limiting the material or if it limiting the shield glass to a front window glass (a.k.a. a windshield) or something else. In light of the specification, see page 8 lines 9-13, that defines “shield glass” as collectively referring to a windshield (6), a rear window glass (6′), and/or a side window glasses (6″) and in combination with claim 9 limiting “the shield glass is a rear window glass or a side window glass” it is interpreted that windshield (6) is meant. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “the shield glass is a windshield.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knoll et al. US Patent 5,552,935, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Knoll discloses a display apparatus (title e.g. see figure 2) comprising: a display panel (e.g. display elements 1) configured to emit video light (axiomatic, e.g. luminous flux 6); and a polarizing plate (e.g. second polarizer 9) configured to absorb a specific polarized wave (axiomatic), wherein the video light emitted from the display panel (e.g. 6) is reflected (see figure 2) on a shield glass of a vehicle (e.g. windshield 24) to project the video light output from the display panel toward a driver of the vehicle as a virtual image (e.g. image 15 or 16).
Regarding claim 2 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll further discloses it is further comprising a protective cover (e.g. first polarizer 11) having a membrane or film configured to absorb or reflect polarized wave component from outside the vehicle (axiomatic).
Regarding claim 4 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll further discloses it is further comprising a protective cover (e.g. 11) provided on a light emission surface of the display panel and configured to reduce surface reflection of outside light (axiomatic).
Regarding claim 5 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll further discloses wherein the polarizing plate (e.g. 9) is arranged (see figure 2) between the display panel (e.g. 1) and the shield glass (e.g. 24).
Regarding claim 6 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll further discloses wherein the display panel (e.g. 1) is a liquid crystal display (column 2 line 7 “liquid crystal displays”).
Regarding claim 8 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll further discloses the shield glass (e.g. 24) is a.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoll et al. US Patent 5,552,935, of record, in view of Matsushita et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0184996.
Regarding claim 3 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above. Knoll does not disclose it is further comprising a phase difference plate on a light emission side of the membrane or the film of the protective cover.
Matsushita teaches a display apparatus (title e.g. figure 5) comprising: a display panel configured to emit video light (e.g. display device 12); and a polarizing plate (e.g. figure 3 combination of first polarization plate 12A & substrate 12B) configured to absorb a specific polarized wave (axiomatic), wherein the video light emitted from the display panel is reflected (see figure 5) on a shield glass of a vehicle (e.g. windshield W) to project the video light output from the display panel toward a driver of the vehicle as a virtual image (e.g. display image 80), and has a cover (e.g. combination of substrate 12D & second polarization plate 12E) having a membrane or film configured to absorb or reflect polarized wave component from outside the vehicle (inherent that any light, incident would be filtered by the polarizer); and further teaches it is further comprising a phase difference plate (e.g. phase difference plate 60) on a light emission side of the membrane or the film of the protective cover (e.g. see figure 3) for the purpose of having a display image that is viewable even if the user is wearing polarized sunglasses (inter alia paragraphs [0011-12 & 0021-22] e.g. polarized sunglasses 70). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the display apparatus as disclosed by Knoll to have a phase difference plate on a light emission side of the membrane or the film of the protective cover as taught by Matsushita for the purpose of having a display image that is viewable even if the user is wearing polarized sunglasses.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoll et al. US Patent 5,552,935, of record, in view of Arai et al. foreign patent document JP200584172, of record.
Regarding claim 7 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll does not disclose it is further comprising a linear Fresnel sheet between the display panel and the shield glass.
Arai teaches a similar display apparatus (title, e.g. figures 2 & 5) including a display panel configured to emit video light (e.g. LCD 2); and the video light emitted from the display panel is reflected on a shield glass of a vehicle (e.g. front windshield 9) to project the video light output from the display panel as a virtual image (e.g. display image 8) toward a driver of the vehicle (e.g. driver’s eyes 5); and further teaches it is further comprising a linear Fresnel sheet (e.g. prism sheet 1) between the display panel (e.g. 2) and the shield glass (e.g. 9) for the purpose of refracting the optical path in a predetermined direction to save space (paragraph [0004]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the display apparatus as disclosed by Knoll to have a linear Fresnel sheet between the display panel and the shield glass for the purpose of refracting the optical path in a predetermined direction to save space.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoll et al. US Patent 5,552,935, of record, in view of Cui et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0254019.
Regarding claim 9 Knoll discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knoll does not disclose wherein the shield glass is a rear window glass or a side window glass.
Cui teaches a similar display apparatus (e.g. figure 1 head-up display/HUD 150) that projects an image onto a shield glass (paragraph [0053] “HUD 150 includes a windscreen equipped with features capable of displaying an image projected thereupon”); and further teaches the shield glass may be a rear window glass or a side window glass (paragraph [0053] “One will appreciate that while HUD 150 includes the windscreen in the front of the vehicle, other surfaces within the vehicle could be used for projection, including side windows and a rear window”) for the purpose of having a continuous image (paragraph [0053]) and/or providing graphical images to assist the driver when parking the vehicle (paragraph [0175]) and/or entertainment purposes (paragraph [0190]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the display apparatus as disclosed by Knoll to have the shield glass be a rear window glass or a side window glass as taught by Cui for the purpose of having a continuous image and/or providing graphical images to assist the driver when parking the vehicle and/or entertainment purposes.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,270,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the independent claims of ‘993 are narrower they necessarily fall under the scope claimed by the broader claims of the instant application.
12,270,993
Instant application
1. A vehicle information display apparatus for using a part of a shield glass of a vehicle as a display region to display information on an inside of the vehicle, the vehicle information display apparatus comprising:
a video display apparatus provided inside the vehicle, the video display apparatus being configured to project video light of the information;
a transparent sheet provided on an inner surface of the display region set to the part of the shield glass; and
a light direction converting panel configured to convert a direction of the video light from the video display apparatus toward the transparent sheet,
wherein the transparent sheet includes a phase difference plate, an absorption type polarizing plate configured to absorb a specific polarized wave, and a transparent sheet member having a light diffusion effect in order from a side of the shield glass toward the video display apparatus, and
wherein the information by the video light whose direction is converted by the light direction converting panel is displayed to the inside of the vehicle.
1. A display apparatus comprising:
a display panel configured to emit video light; and
a polarizing plate configured to absorb a specific polarized wave,
wherein the video light emitted from the display panel is reflected on a shield glass of a vehicle to project the video light output from the display panel toward a driver of the vehicle as a virtual image.
3. The display apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising
a phase difference plate on a light emission side of the membrane or the film of the protective cover.
2. The vehicle information display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a protective cover provided on one surface of the light direction converting panel, the protective cover being configured to reduce surface reflection of outside light.
4. The display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
a protective cover provided on a light emission surface of the display panel and configured to reduce surface reflection of outside light.
5. The vehicle information display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the light direction converting panel is formed by a linear Fresnel lens.
7. The display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
a linear Fresnel sheet between the display panel and the shield glass.
6. The vehicle information display apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the protective cover has a membrane or film configured to absorb or reflect polarized wave components from an outside of the vehicle.
2. The display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
a protective cover having a membrane or film configured to absorb or reflect polarized wave component from outside the vehicle.
7. An information display system for vehicle for using a part of a shield glass of a vehicle to display information,
wherein at least one of the vehicle information display apparatuses respectively described in claim 1 is provided in the vehicle, and
wherein the part of the shield glass of the vehicle is used as a display region, and video light from the vehicle information display apparatus is projected toward the transparent sheet provided on the inner surface of the display region that is provided at the part of the shield glass of the vehicle.
1. A display apparatus comprising:
a display panel configured to emit video light; and
a polarizing plate configured to absorb a specific polarized wave,
wherein the video light emitted from the display panel is reflected on a shield glass of a vehicle to project the video light output from the display panel toward a driver of the vehicle as a virtual image.
8. The information display system for vehicle according to claim 7,
wherein the shield glass is a windshield.
8. The display apparatus according to claim 1,
the shield glass is a window glass.
11. The information display system for vehicle according to claim 7,
wherein the shield glass is a rear window glass or a side window glass.
9. The display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the shield glass is a rear window glass or a side window glass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights