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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding indefiniteness:
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 claims:
“The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the dashboard is devoid of mechanical dashboard instruments integrated into the dashboard and digital dashboard instruments integrated into the dashboard different from the control device.”
Because the specification is bereft of who or where the “digital dashboard instruments integrated into the dashboard [is] different from the control device,” the claim limitations are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Labrot et al., U.S. 2011/0073773 (see IDS).
On claim 1, Labrot cites:
A control device suitable for integration into a vehicle to display control information of the vehicle including all the dashboard instruments of the vehicle, the control device comprising:
an opaque panel having a useful surface, at least part of which is suitable for being positioned opposite the upper body of a driver in the driving position,
figures 1 and 2, and [0015] a first outer sheet, of which one face is turned towards the outside of the vehicle and the other face is in contact with the insert or multilayer leaf, said other face being in addition coated on at least one of its edges with a layer of an opaque, non-transparent material, preferably black
[0016] a second inner sheet, of which one face is in contact with the insert or the multilayer leaf and the other face is turned towards the inside of the vehicle
[0043] FIG. 2 shows in greater detail the succession of leaves, in section, of a windshield according to the invention. Thus, the succession will be seen of layers: outer glass sheet 9/black enamel 6/plastic insert 3/luminophore layer (printed pictogram) 10/inner glass sheet 2. As shown in FIG. 2, the luminophore layer 10, in the form of a pictogram, is deposited on the innermost face of the plastic insert leaf. It will not however fall outside the scope of the invention if the deposit is produced on the inner face of the glass sheet 2 or preferably on the outer face of the glass sheet 2. The terms inner and outer used in the present description are employed with reference to the passenger compartment 20 of the vehicle (cf. FIG. 1). In general, the plastic insert leaves have the property of highly absorbing incident UV radiation. However, in the case of the use of a plastic insert sheet not absorbing UV or in the case of the use of an incident IR radiation (up conversion), it would not fall outside the scope of the invention if the luminophore layer was deposited on the outer face of the PVB or directly on the black background 6.
b. a reflective element covering the useful surface of the opaque panel , the reflective element being at least partially reflective,
[0056] According to another variant, it is also possible according to the invention to add, before the luminophore layer 10, for example on one of the faces of the glass sheet 2, a layer of a material known to be antireflecting for the excitant radiation used, notably with the aim of improving the contrast of the pre-printed pictogram. According to a variant that may be complementary to the preceding embodiment, the windshield may also be provided with a layer reflecting visible light, disposed in the laminated windshield between the luminophore layer and the black background, preferably directly behind the layer of luminophores, for example on the inner face of the sheet 2, in order to increase the luminescence or even the contrast.
(furthermore, figure 2 discloses a light path from radiation source 4 to layer 10 reflect to eye 5).
and
c. an emission for control information of the vehicle, the emission unit being suitable for emitting at least one light beam towards the reflective element so that the reflection of the light beam on the reflective element forms at least one useful image in an observation window of the driver in the driving position.
[0046] As shown in FIG. 1, a source of electromagnetic radiation 4 is used to convey an incident radiation 7 of suitable wavelengths, preferably but not exclusively in the ultraviolet region.
On claim 2, Labrot cites:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a
windshield comprising a transparent surface
figure 3, central zone of vision A
and a screen-printed area surrounding the transparent surface,
[0061] FIG. 3 shows a front elevation view of the windshield according to the invention. On the windshield 1, the various zones of vision for the driver according to European standard ECE 43, annex 18, have been shown schematically: the zone A that corresponds to the central zone of vision of the driver, the zone B that corresponds to an intermediate zone and a peripheral zone C that overlays, on currently marketed windshields, the black background 6 made of enamel, (according to this description, black background 6, made of enamel, is what comprises peripheral zone C).
the screen-printed area
deposited typically by screen printing on all the periphery of the laminated windshield
comprising a lower part having a base
as above, the black background 6
and a raised portion protruding from the base, the opaque panel being formed by the raised portion.
[0061] As shown in FIG. 3, black enamel is also deposited in a supplementary zone 11 in the region of the lower edge of the glazing and in a central position, for example as far as the limit of the zone B.
[0019] Preferably, the windshield according to the invention is characterized in that:
[0020] it includes at least one layer, deposited in the form of a pictogram, of at least one luminophore material chosen to respond to an exciting incident light wave in the ultraviolet or IR region by re-emitting light radiation in the visible region,
[0021] said pictogram is positioned on the windshield at the angle of vision of the driver, in the region of the layer of opaque material.
[0042] A layer 10 is deposited in the region of the black enamel layer 6, containing at least one luminophore adapted to respond to an external excitation source 4. "In the region of the black enamel layer" is understood to mean, within the context of the present description, that the luminophore layer 10 is superimposed on the black enamel layer, if reference is made to the field of vision of the eye 5 of the driver of the vehicle.
(the claimed “raised portion” is the cited pictogram).
On claim 4, Labrot cites:
The control device according to claim 3, wherein the raised portion comprises a raised area more raised than the strip and protruding from the raised area being an area opposite the upper body of the driver in the driving position.
See the rejection of claim 3 regarding the screen-printed area, or the pictogram.
On claim 5, Labrot cites:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is suitable for integrating into the dashboard of the vehicle .
Figure 3 and [0042] Moreover, the luminophore layer is deposited so that it draws a characteristic schematic sign marking for example instructions, information or imminent danger, of the pictogram type
(Per the applicant’s published specification: [0035] In the integration mode of FIG. 1, the control device 16 is integrated into the dashboard 14 of the vehicle 10. By the term “integrated,” it is understood that the control device 16 is incorporated in a manner adapted to the dashboard 14. Such incorporation was, e.g., carried out during the design of said dashboard 14 (in the industrialization phase of the vehicle 10). The control device 16 is therefore different from a device installed as an aftermarket and which would have only been placed in the vehicle 10 without specific incorporation into the dashboard 14. The control device 16 is suitable for displaying control information of the vehicle 10, including all the dashboard instruments 19 of the vehicle.)
On claim 9, Labrot cites: A vehicle wherein a control device according to claim 1 is integrated.
Figure 3 and [0042] Moreover, the luminophore layer is deposited so that it draws a characteristic schematic sign marking for example instructions, information or imminent danger, of the pictogram type
(see the rejection of claim 9 wherein the control device 15 is used to display control information for vehicle 10)
On claim 10, Labrot cites:
The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the dashboard is devoid of mechanical dashboard instruments integrated into the dashboard and digital dashboard instruments integrated into the dashboard different from the control device.
Figure 3 and [0064] In the same way as for the preceding embodiment, the layers of luminophores 12, 13, 14 of the same nature or emitting visible light of various colors are also deposited by screen printing in the region of the supplementary zone 11 so as to form a collection of pictograms in the upper part of the windshield. In this embodiment, the device for generating the exciting light, for example an LED grid, is very easily placed in the region of the roof of the vehicle, particularly behind the curved cover of the interior light of the vehicle.
Figure 3 discloses using luminophores 12-14, which are symbols lit by an external light source. Figure 3 lacks a physical tachometer, speedometer, or gauges which are mechanical devices. Furthermore, figure 3 does not disclose any numerical displays which would qualify as “digital dashboard instruments”).
(figure 4 of the applicant’s specification discloses control devices integrated into the windshield).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Labrot et al., U.S. 2011/0073773 (see IDS) in view of Kanamori, U.S. 2002/0135573.
On claim 8, Labrot cites except as underlined:
The control device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to be automatically turned on when the vehicle is started and to be automatically turned off when the vehicle is turned off.
Labrot discloses:
[0032] According to an advantageous embodiment, the display device according to the invention may include means for modulating the power of the generating source according to at least two configurations: a configuration for night vision, in which the power of the source is adjusted so that the luminance of the pictogram lies typically between approximately 30 and approximately 100 Cd/m.sup.2 and a configuration for daytime vision in which the power of the source is adjusted so that the luminance of the pictogram lies typically between approximately 200 and approximately 2000 Cd/m.sup.2.
In the related art of vehicle electronics, Kanamori cites:
Figure 4 and [0031] The control circuit 100 includes a microcomputer as its main component, and drives driving circuits 110, 120 and 130 for controlling displays on the LCD panel 60 and light emission of the first and second LED groups of LEDs 40 band 40c. A voltage is applied to various circuits including the circuit 100 from an onboard battery B via an ignition switch IG.
In short, switch IG controls the circuits disclosed in Kanamori.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into the display system’s power source disclosed in Labrot the ignition switch disclosed in Kanamori such that the claimed invention is realized. Kanamori discloses a known embodiment for turning power on and off in a vehicle, such as the power source in Labrot. One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to prevent battery drain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are objected to for depending on a rejected claim but are otherwise allowable subject matter.
Claim 3, claims, in part, “ends of the base of the screen-printed area which are clear, so as to clear the visibility of the environment at the pillars of the vehicle.” Referring to figure 5 of the applicant’s figure, the area 64 includes a gap between lines 52 and 50, which is illustrated as an absence of material otherwise found in raised area 60, that allows for uninterrupted visibility between pillars 42 and raised area 60. A search for this particular embodiment failed to disclose references meeting this claim limitation.
Claim 6 claims:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the emission unit is suitable for emitting, towards the reflective element, a polarized light beam according to a main polarization, called the incident beam, the incident beam arriving on the reflective element with an angle of incidence and defining with the reflective element a plane of incidence, the main polarization being a polarization contained in the plane of incidence, called P polarization, the reflective element being optimized to have greater reflectivity, over a range of angles of incidence comprising the angle of incidence, for P-polarized light than a non-optimized reflective element.
In other words, the claimed display unit disclosed under figure 2 of the applicant’s figures includes an incident beam emanating from screen 40 towards a reflective element 22. The incident beam may have either a P-polarized beam or a non-polarized beam. The reflective element 22 is optimized for P-polarized beams and, according to the claim limitations, allows the incident beam to have optimized transmissivity towards the user 18 as opposed to an non-polarized incident beam. The P-polarized incident beam is allowed a greater latitude for transmission to the user over a range of different angles of incidents with respect to the reflective element than the non-polarized incident beam.
The closest reference of record is a publication to Schulz, U.S. 2024/0010071, figures 3, 4, [0084-85]. The embodiments disclosed here include a similar application of light reflecting elements in which incident lights having s-polarization and p-polarization, arrive at reflection layer 9. While at least figure 4 discloses that a “large proportion with p-polarization of incident light 10 is reflected,” there is no mention of non-polarized light. Keep in mind the present invention directly references the transmission of non-polarized light as it affects its display. Because of this difference, Schulz does not anticipate claim 6.
A further search for embodiments meeting this claim limitation did not result in a satisfactory return. Accordingly, claim 6 is deemed allowable subject matter. Because claim 7 depends from claim 6, claim 7 is allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights