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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12292649 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 recited the same limitations as U.S. Patent No. 12292649 B2 verbatim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130201424 A1 to Uchida et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Uchida discloses local dimming system of a head up display (HUD), the local dimming system comprising: a light array (Fig. 7 light emitting section 31); a Fresnel lens array (Fig. 7 Fresnel lens 39); a lenticular lens system (Fig. 7 microlens arrays MLA1, para 126); and a liquid crystal display (LCD) (Fig. 7 liquid crystal panel 37); wherein the Fresnel lens array is operatively connected to the light array, configured to receive light produced by the light array, and configured to produce a collimated backlight output (as shown in Fig. 7); wherein the lenticular lens system is operatively connected to the Fresnel lens array, configured to receive the collimated backlight-output from the Fresnel lens array, and configured to transmit light to the LCD (as shown in Fig. 7); wherein the LCD is configured to receive the light from the lenticular lens system and produce an image (as shown in Fig. 7); and wherein the Fresnel lens array is configured to reflect stray light and eliminate light bleed, thereby reducing or eliminating a display-boundary around the image (This is a function limitation that does not structurally differentiate the claim from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 2. Uchida further discloses the light array comprises a plurality of independent light sources which are operatively connected to a plurality of lighting zones on the LCD (as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 6. Uchida further discloses the plurality of lighting zones on the LCD is consistent with the number of independent light sources (as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 7. Uchida further discloses the Fresnel lens array comprises a plurality of Fresnel lenses (para 119).
Regarding Claim 8. Uchida further discloses there is a 1:1:1 ratio between the members independent light sources within the light array, members of the plurality of Fresnel lenses within the Fresnel lens array, and members of the plurality of lighting zones on the LCD (See para 119).
Regarding Claim 9. Uchida further discloses the plurality of Fresnel lenses defines a single molded component, defining a Fresnel lens sheet (See Fig. 7 and para 119).
Regarding Claim 11. Uchida further discloses the light array assembly comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (LED) (See Fig. 7 and para 114).
Regarding Claim 19. Uchida further discloses the lenticular lens system comprises at least one lenticular lens and a light guiding diffuser (Fig. 7 diffuser 38).
Regarding Claim 20. Uchida further discloses the lenticular lens system comprises two lenticular lenses and a light guiding diffuser (Fig. 7 microlens arrays MLA1, microlens arrays MLA2 and diffuser 38).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to Claim 2 in view of US 20210200028 A1 to Zhang et al.
Regarding Claim 3. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 2.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that the plurality of independent light sources are configured to be selectively active or inactive such that selective activation of the plurality of independent light sources forms a plurality of active independent light sources, a plurality of inactive independent light sources, and a plurality of neighboring active independent light sources.
However, Zhang discloses the plurality of independent light sources are configured to be selectively active or inactive such that selective activation of the plurality of independent light sources forms a plurality of active independent light sources, a plurality of inactive independent light sources, and a plurality of neighboring active independent light sources (para 42) to achieve “local dimming” (para 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the plurality of independent light sources are configured to be selectively active or inactive such that selective activation of the plurality of independent light sources forms a plurality of active independent light sources, a plurality of inactive independent light sources, and a plurality of neighboring active independent light sources.
Regarding Claim 4. Zhang further discloses the light array is configured to facilitate a localized dimming of the collimated backlight output through the selective activation of the plurality of independent light sources, wherein members of the plurality of lighting zones operatively connected to the plurality of inactive independent light sources are dimmed and members of the plurality of lighting zones operatively connected to the active independent light sources are not dimmed (para 42).
Regarding Claim 5. Uchida further discloses the Fresnel lens array is configured to decrease light bleed from the plurality of neighboring active independent light sources into the lighting zones associated with the plurality of inactive independent light sources (This is a function limitation that does not structurally differentiate the claim from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP 2114).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 9.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that the Fresnel lens sheet contains 72 total Fresnel lenses with Fresnel lens sheet dimensions of 12 lenses by 6 lenses.
However, the total number of Fresnel lenses and its corresponding dimensions of a Fresnel lens sheet are result-effective variables. In that, the total number of lens and dimensions would be dependent on the appropriate size of the lens and size and dimension of the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the Fresnel lens sheet contains 72 total Fresnel lenses with Fresnel lens sheet dimensions of 12 lenses by 6 lenses to provide an appropriate sized Fresnel lens sheet is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claim 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that each of the plurality of LEDs has a current of at least 70 mA (though this can be interpreted as merely a process of using the device).
However, the current going through an LED is a result-effective variables. In that, the amount of current can affect the lifespan, efficiency and brightness of the LED.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that each of the plurality of LEDs has a current of at least 70 mA to provide an appropriate balance of operational properties is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 13. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that each of the plurality of LEDs has a luminous flux of at least 56 lm.
However, the brightness of an LED is a result-effective variables. In that, a minimum brightness of the LED is required to properly view an image displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that each of the plurality of LEDs has a luminous flux of at least 56 lm to provide an appropriate brightness is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 14. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that each of the plurality of LEDs has a voltage of at least 3.0V (though this can be interpreted as merely a process of using the device).
However, the voltage of an LED is a result-effective variables. In that, a minimum brightness of the LED is required to properly view an image displayed and the voltage applied would be a factor for a desired brightness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that each of the plurality of LEDs has a voltage of at least 3.0V.to provide an appropriate brightness is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 15. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that the light array assembly comprises 6-72 LEDs.
However, the total number of LEDs is a result-effective variables. In that, the amount LEDs would be dependent on the appropriate size of the LEDs, a desired brightness and size and dimension of the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the light array assembly comprises 6-72 LEDs to satisfy a particular design is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 16. Uchida does not specifically disclose that the light array assembly comprises 72 LEDs, defining 72 lighting zones on the LCD.
However, the total number of LEDs, defining a total number of lighting zones is a result-effective variables. In that, the amount LEDs would be dependent on the appropriate size of the LEDs, a desired brightness and size and dimension of the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the light array assembly comprises 72 LEDs, defining 72 lighting zones on the LCD to satisfy a particular design is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 17. Uchida does not specifically disclose that the 72 LEDs are arranged in a sheet with dimensions of 12 LEDs by 6 LEDs.
However, the total number of LEDs, and dimensions are a result-effective variables. In that, the amount LEDs and dimensions would be dependent on the appropriate size of the LEDs, a desired brightness and size and dimension of the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the 72 LEDs are arranged in a sheet with dimensions of 12 LEDs by 6 LEDs to satisfy a particular design is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18. As stated above Uchida discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Uchida does not specifically disclose that the LCD is a 3.1-inch display with pixel pitch 0.0855×0.0855.
However, size of the LCD and pixel pitch are a result-effective variables. In that, the size of the LCD would be dependent on device application and usage, and the pixel pitch can be balanced from cost efficiencies and resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the LCD is a 3.1-inch display with pixel pitch 0.0855×0.0855 to provide an appropriate balance of operational properties and design incentives are based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
