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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 11-17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (US 20070019297).
As to claim 11, Stewart discloses a display apparatus (hud system 10) [abstract & fig. 1] for arrangement on a roof inner side of a motor vehicle (ceiling A) [fig. 1 & para. 58, 39, & 64], comprising:
a screen device (hud system 10) [figs. 1-5], wherein the screen device includes:
a first side (side of housing 12 of hud system 10 attached to ceiling via mounting elements 14) [figs. 1-3b] configured to be arranged on and/or to abut against the roof inner side, and
a second side (side opposing ceiling side) [figs. 1-3b] opposite the first side, wherein the second side has a screen (lcd panel 24) [figs. 3b-5 & para. 62-64] that displays an image (display images) [figs. 3b-5 & para. 62-64];
a reflector device (optical combiner 18) [figs. 2e & 5 & para. 63-64 & 66] that reflects and projects the image displayed by the screen [fig. 5]; and
a movement device (rotatable/telescopic composite arm 16) [figs. 2e & para. 66-68] that translationally moves the reflector device relative to the screen device [figs. 2e & para. 66-68].
As to claim 12, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the screen device is configured for fixed and/or non-movable arrangement on or in the roof inner side (mounting elements 14) [fig. 1 & para. 58 & 61].
As to claim 13, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the movement device is configured to move the reflector device parallel or obliquely downward and/or upward with respect to a width direction of the screen device and/or a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle between different positions for use (note movement arrows) [figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 14, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the movement device is configured for rotational movement of the reflector device relative to the screen device (first pivot points 36) [figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61], and wherein the rotational movement comprises pivoting about a pivot axis which is orientated parallel in a state offset with respect to the second side of the screen device (first pivot points 36) [figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 15, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the rotational movement is coupled to the translational movement and/or the movement device is configured to automatically carry out the rotational movement in accordance with the translational movement [figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 16, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the movement device is configured for tilting movement of the reflector device about a tilting axis perpendicularly to the pivot axis [figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 17, Stewart discloses the display apparatus of claim 16, wherein the display apparatus is configured to correct a tilting of an image reflected and projected by the reflector device by means of: a tilting movement of the reflector device using the movement device (second pivot point 38 utilized for angling of optical combiner 18) [fig. 2e & para. 66], and/or rotating the image displayed by the screen (flipped) [para. 62 & 65].
As to claim 19, Stewart discloses a motor vehicle [fig. 1 & para. 58, 39, & 64], comprising the display apparatus of claim 11.
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.
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.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart, in view of Kim (US 20120154441).
As to claim 18, Stewart teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the display apparatus further comprises:
a detection device (ambient light sensor 32) [para. 71] that detects: an eye position of a user who is located in a situation for use of the display apparatus behind the display apparatus, and/or a distance between the reflector device and an object arranged in the situation for use in front of the display apparatus (maintain presentation of virtual image at 6m from pilot’s eyes on background scenery) [para. 71]; and
a control apparatus (controller 34) [fig. 4b & para. 60].
Stewart does not explicitly teach wherein the control apparatus configured to control the movement device to move the reflector device depending on the detected eye position of the user and/or the detected distance.
Kim teaches the concept of a display apparatus [abstract], wherein a detection device (eye position tracking camera 420) [fig. 4 & para. 48 & 53-54] that detects: an eye position of a user who is located in a situation for use of the display apparatus behind the display apparatus [fig. 2]; and
a control apparatus (head front display device controller 440) [figs. 4 & 2 & para. 50-54 & 40-41] configured to control a movement device (mechanically drive of the head front display device 410) [para. 50-54] to move a reflector device (head front display device 410) [figs. 2 & 4 & para. 50] depending on detected eye position of a user and/or the detected distance (eye position tracking camera 420) [fig. 4 & para. 48 & 53-54].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movement device, the detection device, and the control apparatus of the display apparatus of Stewart, such that the detection device further detects an eye position of a user who is located in a situation for use of the display apparatus behind the display apparatus; and the control apparatus is configured to control the movement device to move the reflector device depending on the detected eye position of the user and/or the detected distance, as taught by Kim, to improve usability by calibrating the display apparatus of Stewart to the operator’s previously used settings when the operator starts the motor vehicle, as taught by Kim [para. 53].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart, in view of Gassman et al. (US 20190092170).
As to claim 20, Stewart teaches the motor vehicle of claim 19, wherein the display apparatus is arranged on the roof inner side in the motor vehicle [fig. 1 & para. 58, 39, & 64].
Stewart does not explicitly teach wherein the display apparatus is arranged on the roof inner side in a rear of the motor vehicle.
Gassman teaches the concept of a motor vehicle [abstract & figs. 5 & 15-18], wherein a display apparatus is arranged on a roof inner side in a rear of the motor vehicle [figs. 5 & 15-18 & para. 67, 69, 57, 71, & 75-77].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning of the display apparatus of the motor vehicle of Stewart, such that the display apparatus is arranged on the roof inner side in a rear of the motor vehicle, as taught by Gassman, to improve usability of the motor vehicle by providing a display apparatus to entertain rear passengers, as taught by Gassman [para. 77].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights