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 02/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a controller” in claim 1; and
“an integrated controller” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a photosensitive area formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle by coating ultraviolet photosensitive agent or attaching an ultraviolet photosensitive film to the windshield, the photosensitive area configured to change transparency based on incident ultraviolet light.” However, it is unclear what is required such that the photosensitive area can be “configured to change transparency based on incident ultraviolet light.” This limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the photosensitive area performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the photosensitive area to perform the function of changing transparency based on incident ultraviolet light. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). That is, it is unclear if any photosensitive material, including photopolymers, photoconductors, and photoresists would read on the claimed photosensitive area or if a specific structure is required. For the purposes of examination, the claimed photosensitive area will be interpreted as requiring a photochromic material or a material that fluoresces under ultraviolet light.
Claim 1 additionally recites “a reflective display formed on a lower part of the windshield and configured to output an image and reflect the image onto the photosensitive area.” However, it is unclear if the display must include a reflective structure such that it can “reflect the image onto the photosensitive area” or if the display is merely intended to direct the image to the photosensitive area such that it reflects off the photosensitive area. For the purposes of examination, any display that outputs an image onto the photosensitive area will be interpreted as reading on the claimed “reflective display.”
Claim 1 further recites “a controller configured to receive signals from the outside, generate image information based on the received signals, and transmit the image information to the reflective display.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outside” in the claim. It is unclear what signals constitute “signals from the outside” as it is unclear if the signals should be outside the vehicle, outside the controller, outside the display, or some other location.
Moreover, claim limitation “controller” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Similarly, claim limitation “integrated controller” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The claimed “controller” or “integrated controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above. However, the description provides no structure for the “controller,” merely describing it by the function it achieves or indicating that it includes an “integrated controller” which also includes no structure. At best, the “controller” or “integrated controller” could be interpreted as a general purpose computer. However, “The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. As such, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. See MPEP §2181.II.B. Thus, even if the claimed “controller” were intended to be a general purpose computer, such structure would not be sufficient, and the claimed structure is unclear.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites “a luminance sensor installed in the vehicle to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the luminance of the photosensitive area” and it is unclear how the “photosensitive area” can have a luminance, as it does not appear to emit light itself. For the purposes of examination, any luminance sensor that can sense luminance from an inside of a vehicle including the photosensitive area will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Additionally, claim 3 recites that “the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the luminance sensor.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the brightness of the reflective display” and it is unclear how such a brightness can be controlled. It is unclear if the controller is intended to control a brightness of a light source in the display, to control the photosensitive area to change a brightness of the reflected image, or some other control. For the purposes of examination, any controller that adjusts a displayed image based on a luminance sensor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 3 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites that “the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display with increased activity as the luminance value from the luminance sensor increases, and control the brightness of the reflective display with reduced activity as the luminance value decreases.” However, the terms “increased activity” and “reduced activity” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “increased activity” and “reduced activity” not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what “activity” should be either increased or reduced, and how an increased activity or reduced activity should be defined. For the purposes of examination, any controller that adjusts a displayed image based on a luminance sensor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 5 recites “an ultraviolet sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the intensity of ultraviolet light” and it is unclear if any ultraviolet light is required or how such an intensity should be defined. For the purposes of examination, any ultraviolet sensor capable of detecting ultraviolet light on an exterior of the vehicle will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Additionally, claim 5 recites that “the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the brightness of the reflective display” and it is unclear how such a brightness can be controlled. It is unclear if the controller is intended to control a brightness of a light source in the display, to control the photosensitive area to change a brightness of the reflected image, or some other control. For the purposes of examination, any controller that adjusts a displayed image based on an ultraviolet sensor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 5 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 7 recites “a luminance sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the luminance of the photosensitive area” and it is unclear how the “photosensitive area” can have a luminance, as it does not appear to emit light itself. For the purposes of examination, any luminance sensor that can sense luminance from an inside of a vehicle including the photosensitive area will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 7 further recites “an ultraviolet sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the intensity of ultraviolet light” and it is unclear if any ultraviolet light is required or how such an intensity should be defined. For the purposes of examination, any ultraviolet sensor capable of detecting ultraviolet light on an exterior of the vehicle will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Additionally, claim 7 recites that “the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the values from the luminance sensor and the ultraviolet sensor.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the brightness of the reflective display” and it is unclear how such a brightness can be controlled. It is unclear if the controller is intended to control a brightness of a light source in the display, to control the photosensitive area to change a brightness of the reflected image, or some other control. For the purposes of examination, any controller that adjusts a displayed image based on a luminance sensor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 7 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claims 8-10 recite “a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent” and it is unclear that any such change is required and how it should be defined. Moreover, it is unclear how the time information can be “based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident.” For the purposes of examination, any device having an adjustable brightness based on a stored value will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 recites that “the photosensitive area comprises an adhesive area where the windshield is bonded to a body of the vehicle.” However, it is unclear how such an “adhesive area” is to be defined, as any such adhesive area that is bonded to the body of the vehicle would not be viewable inside the vehicle. Moreover, it is unclear if the adhesive area is intended to be the area where the photosensitive film is attached to the window or some other area. For the purposes of examination, any photosensitive area that is provided in a region of the windshield that includes a portion where the windshield is bonded to a body of the vehicle will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2026/0244011; hereinafter – “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a windshield display system comprising:
a photosensitive area (20, 22) formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle by coating ultraviolet photosensitive agent or attaching an ultraviolet photosensitive film to the windshield, the photosensitive area configured to change transparency based on incident ultraviolet light (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025-0030);
a reflective display (30) formed on a lower part of the windshield and configured to output an image and reflect the image onto the photosensitive area (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0025, 0029-0030, and 0032-0033); and
a controller (10, 40, 58, 60) configured to receive signals from the outside, generate image information based on the received signals, and transmit the image information to the reflective display (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches that in the controller comprises: an integrated controller configured to receive the signals from the outside, generate the image information based on the received signals, and control the reflective display based on the generated image information; and a control display linked to the reflective display to receive an image control input from a user and transmit the received image control signal to the integrated controller (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches a luminance sensor (40, 58) installed in the vehicle to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the luminance sensor (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0046, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 3, as above.
Huang further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display with increased activity as the luminance value from the luminance sensor increases, and control the brightness of the reflective display with reduced activity as the luminance value decreases (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0046, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches an ultraviolet sensor (60) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0046, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Huang further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display to decrease as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor increases; and control the brightness of the reflective display to increase as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor decreases (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0046, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches a luminance sensor (40, 58) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area; and an ultraviolet sensor (60) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the values from the luminance sensor and the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0046, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Huang further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 6, as above.
Huang further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 7, as above.
Huang further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches a heat dissipator (31) configured to dissipate heat generated by the reflective display (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Huang further teaches that the photosensitive area comprises an adhesive area where the windshield is bonded to a body of the vehicle (See e.g. Figs. 1-6 and 8-9; Paragraphs 0025-0030).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lottes et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0413288; hereinafter – “Lottes”).
Regarding claim 1, Lottes teaches a windshield display system comprising:
a photosensitive area (42, 58, 60) formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle by coating ultraviolet photosensitive agent or attaching an ultraviolet photosensitive film to the windshield, the photosensitive area configured to change transparency based on incident ultraviolet light (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0023-0024, 0041-0043, and 0045);
a reflective display (40) formed on a lower part of the windshield and configured to output an image and reflect the image onto the photosensitive area (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0038-0045); and
a controller (36, 38) configured to receive signals from the outside, generate image information based on the received signals, and transmit the image information to the reflective display (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0038-0047).
Regarding claim 2, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes further teaches that in the controller comprises: an integrated controller configured to receive the signals from the outside, generate the image information based on the received signals, and control the reflective display based on the generated image information; and a control display linked to the reflective display to receive an image control input from a user and transmit the received image control signal to the integrated controller (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0038-0047).
Regarding claim 3, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes further teaches a luminance sensor (38) installed in the vehicle to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the luminance sensor (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0039, 0044, and 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 3, as above.
Lottes further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display with increased activity as the luminance value from the luminance sensor increases, and control the brightness of the reflective display with reduced activity as the luminance value decreases (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0039, 0044, and 0047).
Regarding claim 12, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes further teaches that the photosensitive area comprises an adhesive area where the windshield is bonded to a body of the vehicle (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0023-0024, 0041-0043, and 0045).
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneyama (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0024359).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneyama teaches a windshield display system comprising:
a photosensitive area (2) formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle by coating ultraviolet photosensitive agent or attaching an ultraviolet photosensitive film to the windshield, the photosensitive area configured to change transparency based on incident ultraviolet light (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0037-0040 and 0085);
a reflective display (4-7, 40, 50) formed on a lower part of the windshield and configured to output an image and reflect the image onto the photosensitive area (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0031-0033 and 0043-0056); and
a controller (60) configured to receive signals from the outside, generate image information based on the received signals, and transmit the image information to the reflective display (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0031-0036, 0050-0052, 0055-0066, 0068-0095, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 2, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches that in the controller comprises: an integrated controller configured to receive the signals from the outside, generate the image information based on the received signals, and control the reflective display based on the generated image information; and a control display linked to the reflective display to receive an image control input from a user and transmit the received image control signal to the integrated controller (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0031-0036, 0050-0052, 0055-0066, 0068-0095, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 3, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a luminance sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the luminance sensor (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 4, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 3, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display with increased activity as the luminance value from the luminance sensor increases, and control the brightness of the reflective display with reduced activity as the luminance value decreases (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 5, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches an ultraviolet sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 6, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display to decrease as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor increases; and control the brightness of the reflective display to increase as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor decreases (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 7, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a luminance sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area; and an ultraviolet sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the values from the luminance sensor and the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 8, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage (60) configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Regarding claim 9, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 6, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Regarding claim 10, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 7, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Regarding claim 12, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches that the photosensitive area comprises an adhesive area where the windshield is bonded to a body of the vehicle (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0037-0040 and 0085).
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) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottes in view of Yoneyama.
Regarding claim 5, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes fails to explicitly disclose an ultraviolet sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor.
However, Yoneyama teaches a projection type display device comprising a photosensitive area formed on a portion of a windshield of a vehicle, reflective display, a controller, and an ultraviolet sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Yoneyama teaches this ultraviolet sensor “to provide a projection type display device and a projection display method that can prevent high brightness external light from entering eyes of an operator without hindering the front field of view of the operator of a vehicle” (Paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield display system of Lottes with the ultraviolet sensor of Yoneyama “to provide a projection type display device and a projection display method that can prevent high brightness external light from entering eyes of an operator without hindering the front field of view of the operator of a vehicle,” as in Yoneyama (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 6, Lottes in view of Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches that the controller is further configured to: control the brightness of the reflective display to decrease as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor increases; and control the brightness of the reflective display to increase as the intensity of ultraviolet light sensed by the ultraviolet sensor decreases (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 7, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes further teaches a luminance sensor (38) installed in the vehicle to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the luminance sensor (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0039, 0044, and 0047).
Lottes fails to explicitly disclose an ultraviolet sensor installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the value from the ultraviolet sensor.
However, Yoneyama teaches a projection type display device comprising a photosensitive area formed on a portion of a windshield of a vehicle, reflective display, a controller, a luminance sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the luminance of the photosensitive area; and an ultraviolet sensor (9, 61, 63) installed in the vehicle and configured to sense the intensity of ultraviolet light outside the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the values from the luminance sensor and the ultraviolet sensor (See e.g. Figs 1-5; Paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0057-0060, 0063-0074, 0077-0093, and 0097-0098).
Yoneyama teaches this ultraviolet sensor “to provide a projection type display device and a projection display method that can prevent high brightness external light from entering eyes of an operator without hindering the front field of view of the operator of a vehicle” (Paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield display system of Lottes with the ultraviolet sensor of Yoneyama “to provide a projection type display device and a projection display method that can prevent high brightness external light from entering eyes of an operator without hindering the front field of view of the operator of a vehicle,” as in Yoneyama (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 8, Lottes in view of Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 5, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage (60) configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Regarding claim 9, Lottes in view of Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 6, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Regarding claim 10, Lottes in view of Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 7, as above.
Yoneyama further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Yoneyama, or Lottes in view of Yoneyama, as applied to claims 5-7 above, and further in view of Kilcher et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0003966).
Regarding claims 8-10, Huang, Yoneyama, and Lottes in view of Yoneyama each teaches the windshield display system of claims 5-7, respectively, as above.
Huang further teaches a storage configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0025, 0029, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043-0047, 0049, and 0051-0058).
Additionally, Yoneyama further teaches a storage (60) configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0057-0098).
Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Kilcher.
Kilcher teaches a variable transmissivity virtual image projection system comprising a photosensitive area (105), a reflective display (135, 160), a controller (110), a sensor (190), and a storage (115) configured to store time information related to the change in transparency of the photosensitive area from transparent to opaque and from opaque to transparent, based on the intensity of ultraviolet light and whether ultraviolet light is incident, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the reflective display based on the information stored in the storage (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6-9; Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028, 0031, 0035-0040, 0088-0090, and 0180-0185).
Kilcher teaches this storage storing time information related to the change in transparency such that “the HUD may adjust the transmissivity of the projection surface to compensate for ambient light conditions” and “The modified-transmissivity zone may be located based on various factors, including, without limitation, a location of the projection zone, user eye gaze location, a location of the virtual image, brightness of ambient light incident on the projection surface, and/or the like” (Paragraph 0016) and in order to “selectively compensate for bright ambient light and/or ambient light of non-uniform brightness while providing a distinct virtual image superimposed on a real-world view” (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, even if Huang and Yoneyama did not teach the storage, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield display system of Huang, Lottes, or Yoneyama with the storage storing time information related to the change in transparency of Kilcher such that “the HUD may adjust the transmissivity of the projection surface to compensate for ambient light conditions” and “The modified-transmissivity zone may be located based on various factors, including, without limitation, a location of the projection zone, user eye gaze location, a location of the virtual image, brightness of ambient light incident on the projection surface, and/or the like” and in order to “selectively compensate for bright ambient light and/or ambient light of non-uniform brightness while providing a distinct virtual image superimposed on a real-world view,” as taught by Kilcher (Paragraphs 0016-0017).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottes in view of Hu (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0286053).
Regarding claim 11, Lottes teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Lottes fails to explicitly disclose a heat dissipator configured to dissipate heat generated by the reflective display.
However, Hu teaches a head-up display system comprising a photosensitive area (1) formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle, a reflective display (2), and a heat dissipator (3) configured to dissipate heat generated by the reflective display (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5-6; Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0038).
Hu teaches this heat dissipator such that “the flat display panel can be directly placed on the top of the dashboard of the vehicle, so that the installation space of a conventional HUD system can be saved” in order to provide “a flat display panel having a light source with sufficient luminous flux that can directly project a display image on a transparent reflecting medium in a lensless way such that an observer, such as a driver, can clearly see the image under normal daylight conditions” (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield display system of Lottes with the heat dissipator of Hu such that “the flat display panel can be directly placed on the top of the dashboard of the vehicle, so that the installation space of a conventional HUD system can be saved” in order to provide “a flat display panel having a light source with sufficient luminous flux that can directly project a display image on a transparent reflecting medium in a lensless way such that an observer, such as a driver, can clearly see the image under normal daylight conditions,” as taught by Hu (Paragraph 0039).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Hu.
Regarding claim 11, Yoneyama teaches the windshield display system of claim 1, as above.
Yoneyama fails to explicitly disclose a heat dissipator configured to dissipate heat generated by the reflective display.
However, Hu teaches a head-up display system comprising a photosensitive area (1) formed on at least a portion of a windshield of a vehicle, a reflective display (2), and a heat dissipator (3) configured to dissipate heat generated by the reflective display (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5-6; Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0038).
Hu teaches this heat dissipator such that “the flat display panel can be directly placed on the top of the dashboard of the vehicle, so that the installation space of a conventional HUD system can be saved” in order to provide “a flat display panel having a light source with sufficient luminous flux that can directly project a display image on a transparent reflecting medium in a lensless way such that an observer, such as a driver, can clearly see the image under normal daylight conditions” (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield display system of Yoneyama with the heat dissipator of Hu such that “the flat display panel can be directly placed on the top of the dashboard of the vehicle, so that the installation space of a conventional HUD system can be saved” in order to provide “a flat display panel having a light source with sufficient luminous flux that can directly project a display image on a transparent reflecting medium in a lensless way such that an observer, such as a driver, can clearly see the image under normal daylight conditions,” as taught by Hu (Paragraph 0039).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2025/0130423) teaches a head-up display system and vehicle system with a similar photosensitive area.
Nakano (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0299784) teaches a vehicle interior display system with a similar dimming film and reflective display.
Lambert et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0020102) teaches a system and method of using fluorescent material to display information on a vehicle window.
Yamamoto et al. (U.S. PG-Pub. No. 2009/0141496) teaches an image display apparatus comprising a similar photosensitive area.
Nagtegaele et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2025/248055) teaches a head-up display device with a similar photosensitive area.
Forster et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2025/011696) teaches a vehicle windshield with a switchable black printed area, and a HUD, which can be used from the interior and the exterior, for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
