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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on 03/02/2026. Claims 1 and 3-10 have been amended. No claim has been cancelled. No claim has been newly added. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
The claim interpretation to claim 1 under 35 USC § 112(f) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ) sixth paragraph has been acknowledged by Applicant in view of amendment to claim 1.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “That is, Kobayashi merely describes the ability to display different images from different display units at different positions based on the focal length of the utilizes reflecting surfaces mirror 4 and the utilized display unit. While Kobayashi references an optical path distance from the viewpoint 20 to the virtual image X1/X2, Kobayashi does not teach or suggest that optical path distance is considered when controlling the display images. As such, Kobayashi fails to disclose "a control unit configured to control the display light depending on an eye point of the occupant or an eye box that is a range of the eye points that enables the visual perception of the virtual image".” (Remarks, page 11, the second paragraph)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusions. Claim 1 states “a control unit configured to control the display light depending on an eye point of the occupant or an eye box that is a range of the eye points that enables the visual perception of the virtual image”. Paragraph 39 of Kobayashi discloses it is possible to vary the distance from the position of the eyes of the driver to the position where the virtual image is displayed, and therefore, it is possible to present a plurality of virtual images at the same time in positions where the distances from the position of the eyes of the driver are different (corresponds to the claim limitation “depending on an eye point of the occupant that enables the visual perception of the virtual image”). As above, if Applicant believes that the current invention is different from Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art, the claim language should be amended to reflect the difference and more clearly define Applicant’s invention. However, based on the currently pending claim language, Examiner maintains the rejections of the independent claim 1.
Applicant further submits “However, Imamura expressly describes changing the light of a display area end portion (A2) in which the light guide element is disposed compared to a display area (A1) in which a light guide element is not disposed. Imamura does not teach or suggest that A2 and A1 are first edges defining lower edges of the virtual image in a vertical direction or second edges defining upper edges of the virtual image in the vertical direction.” (Remarks, page 11, the fourth paragraph)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusions. Applicant argues the first edge and the second edge of the current application are in the vertical direction (upper edge and lower edge); while Imamura teaches to make illuminance of the irradiation light higher at a first edge (left) then a second edge (right). However, “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). What’s more, if rotating the display of Imamura, the left edge and the right edge will become the upper edge and the lower edge. Therefore, the orientation of edges is relative. The core teaching of Imamura is to adjusting the illumination of one edge to reduce unevenness in luminance of the display light as claimed in claim 1. As above, if Applicant believes that the current invention is different from Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art, the claim language should be amended to reflect the difference and more clearly define Applicant’s invention. However, based on the currently pending claim language, Examiner maintains the rejections of the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0067311, hereinafter “Yokota”) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US. Pub. No. 2013/0242404, hereinafter “Kobayashi”), further in view of Imamura et al. (US. Pub. No. 2011/0279487, hereinafter “Imamura”).
As to claim 1, (currently amended) Yokota discloses a vehicle display device [figure 1, vehicle display device 10] comprising:
a housing [figure 1, housing 14];
a display device [figure 1, display device, 21, 24, 25, 11, 12 to emit display information as display light] including a backlight and a light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit [figure 1, backlight 21 and a light-transmitting plate-shaped display 12], configured to emit display information as display light, visually perceived by an occupant within a vehicle interior as a virtual image [figure 1, visually perceived by an occupant 16 within a vehicle interior as a virtual image 17], within the housing;
at least one reflector [figure 1, reflective member 13 to reflect the display light emitted from the display device and cause the display light to be projected onto a projection target portion 15 through an opening of the housing 14a] configured to reflect the display light emitted from the display device within the housing and cause the display light to be projected onto a projection target portion within the vehicle interior through an opening of the housing; and
wherein the the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is configured to cause irradiation light incident from the irradiation surface to an irradiation target surface to be transmitted and emitted from an emission surface as the display light,
the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, between the irradiation surface and the reflector arranged in an optical axis direction of the backlight irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface is greater than a distance between second edges (bottom edges) defining upper edges of virtual image 17].
Yokota does not expressly disclose a control unit configured to control the display light depending on an eye point of the occupant or an eye box that is a range of the eye points that enables the visual perception of the virtual image;
the control unit controls the backlight light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit.
Kobayashi teaches a control unit [figure 2, display control circuit 7] configured to control a display light depending on an eye point of an occupant or an eye box that is a range of the eye points that enables the visual perception of a virtual image [figure 2, control a display light L1/L3/L5 that enables the visual perception of virtual image X1/X2/X3 depending on an eye point 20, paragraph 13, The display control circuit 7 controls the display body 5 installed within the instrument panel 3 and selects necessary data from among data output from the driving parameter detection device 8 and transmits the data to the display body 5, and thereby forming a display image. The display image displayed on the display body 5 is projected onto the reflector 2 via the concave mirror 4 which is a reflection unit. The reflector 2 is provided on the inside of a windshield 1 in the vehicle. The reflector 2 is called a combiner, and reflects again the reflected light from the concave mirror 4 and guides the light to the viewpoint 20 of the driver, and thereby, the driver visually recognizes virtual images X1 and X2 of the display images ahead of the windshield].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle display device of Yokota to comprise a control unit to control a display light depending on an eye point of an occupant or an eye box that is a range of the eye points that enables the visual perception of a virtual image, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to present virtual images in different positions to an observer (Kobayashi, abstract).
Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi, does not disclose the control unit controls the backlight to make illuminance of the irradiation light to be incident from the irradiation surface to the irradiation target surface higher at the first edge than at the second edge, reducing unevenness in luminance of the display light to be emitted from the emission surface of the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit.
Imamura teaches a control unit controls a backlight to make illuminance of an irradiation light to be incident from an irradiation surface to an irradiation target surface higher at a first edge than at a second edge, reducing unevenness in luminance of the display light to be emitted from the emission surface of a light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit [figure 1, to control the backlight unit to make illuminance of an irradiation light to be incident from an irradiation surface of LED to an irradiation target surface (display panel) higher at a first edge (A2) than at a second edge (A1) to reduce unevenness, paragraphs 73-75, a method of adjusting, for example, driving currents for the light sources so that luminance of light sources for illuminating the display area end portion A2 becomes higher than luminance of light sources for illuminating the normal display area A1, it is possible to reduce a difference in luminance of the display device between the areas].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle display device of Yokota to comprise the control unit controls the backlight to make illuminance of the irradiation light to be incident from the irradiation surface to the irradiation target surface higher at the first edge than at the second edge, reducing unevenness in luminance of the display light to be emitted from the emission surface of the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit, as taught by Imamura, in order to reduce a difference in luminance of the light-transmitting plate-shaped display device between the areas (Imamura, paragraph 19).
As to claim 2, (original) Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi and Imamura, discloses the vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the light source is arranged at a plurality of positions between a first light source position associated with the irradiation light from the first edge of the irradiation surface and a second light source position associated with the irradiation light from the second edge of the irradiation surface [Kobayashi, figure 2, light source 6 is arranged at a plurality of positions between a first light source 61 position associated with the irradiation light from the first edge of irradiation surface 51 and a second light source 63 position associated with the irradiation light from the second edge 53], and
the control unit increases luminance of the light source arranged closer to the first light source position in an arrangement direction of the light sources compared to luminance of the light source arranged at the second light source position, making the illuminance of the irradiation light to be incident from the irradiation surface to the irradiation target surface higher at the first edge than at the second edge [Imamura, figure 1, to control the backlight unit to make illuminance of an irradiation light to be incident from an irradiation surface of LED to an irradiation target surface (display panel) higher at a first edge (A2) than at a second edge (A1) to reduce unevenness, paragraphs 73-75, a method of adjusting, for example, driving currents for the light sources so that luminance of light sources for illuminating the display area end portion A2 becomes higher than luminance of light sources for illuminating the normal display area A1, it is possible to reduce a difference in luminance of the display device between the areas]. In addition, the same rationale is used as in rejection for claim 1.
As to claim 3, (currently amended) Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi and Imamura, discloses the vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, in a case where external light entering through the opening of the housing is reflected by the at least one reflector and reaches the emission surface, the external light reflected by the emission surface is prevented from being directed back toward the at least one reflector [Yokota, figure 2, 12 is tilted such that in a case where external light entering through the opening 14a is reflected by 13, the external light reflected is prevented from being directed back toward 13].
As to claim 4, (currently amended) Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi and Imamura, discloses the vehicle display device according to claim 2, wherein the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, in a case where external light entering through the opening of the housing is reflected by the at least one reflector and reaches the emission surface, the external light reflected by the emission surface is prevented from being directed back toward the at least one reflector [Yokota, figure 2, 12 is tilted such that in a case where external light entering through the opening 14a is reflected by 13, the external light reflected is prevented from being directed back toward 13].
As to claim 7, (currently amended) Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi and Imamura, discloses the vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one reflector is provided as one at least one reflector between the display device and the housing [Yokota, figure 1, 12 is provided as one reflective member between display device and the housing],
the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface are each provided in an arrangement such that an upper side in the vertical direction corresponds to the first edge and a lower side in the vertical direction corresponds to the second edge [Yokota, figure 1, the irradiation surface of L2 and the irradiation target surface of 12 are each provided in an arrangement such that an upper side in the vertical direction corresponds to the first edge and a lower side in the vertical direction corresponds to the second edge],
the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, between the irradiation surface and the one reflector, a distance between upper edges of the upper side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface is greater than a distance between lower edges of the lower side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface [Yokota, figure 1, 12 is between irradiation surface of L2 and reflective member 13, 12 is tilted such that a distance between upper edges of irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface is greater than a distance between lower edges of the lower side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface], and
the control unit controls the backlight
As to claim 8, (currently amended) Yokota, as modified by Kobayashi and Imamura, discloses the vehicle display device according to claim 2, wherein
the at least one reflector is provided as one reflector between the display device and the housing [Yokota, figure 1, 12 is provided as one reflective member between display device and the housing],
the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface are each provided in an arrangement such that an upper side in the vertical direction corresponds to the first edge and a lower side in the vertical direction corresponds to the second edge [Yokota, figure 1, the irradiation surface of L2 and the irradiation target surface of 12 are each provided in an arrangement such that an upper side in the vertical direction corresponds to the first edge and a lower side in the vertical direction corresponds to the second edge],
the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, between the irradiation surface and the one reflector, a distance between upper edges of the upper side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface is greater than a distance between lower edges of the lower side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface [Yokota, figure 1, 12 is between irradiation surface of L2 and reflective member 13, 12 is tilted such that a distance between upper edges of irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface is greater than a distance between lower edges of the lower side in the vertical direction on the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface], and
the control unit controls the backlight .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, made of record, singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the features presented in the combination limitations of dependent claims 5-6 and 9-10, such as “wherein the control unit adjusts the illuminance of the irradiation light to be incident from the irradiation surface to the irradiation target surface for each of partitioned regions obtained by partitioning the emission surface of the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit into a plurality of regions depending on illuminance of the external light for each of the partitioned regions, reducing unevenness in luminance of the display light to be emitted from the emission surface of the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit”, recited by claims 5-6, respectively; and “the at least one reflector includes a first reflector configured to reflect the display light emitted from the display device and a second reflector configured to reflect the display light reflected by the first reflector and cause the display light to be projected onto the projection target portion through the opening of the housing, the irradiation surface and the irradiation target surface are each provided in an arrangement such that one edge in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction corresponds to the first edge and the other edge in the orthogonal direction corresponds to the second edge, the light-transmitting plate-shaped display unit is tilted relative to the irradiation surface such that, between the irradiation surface and the first irradiation target surface higher at the one edge than at the other edge”, recited by claims 9-10, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAN-YING YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENJAMIN LEE can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/NAN-YING YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629