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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 [Remarks: pg. 4, last para. – pg. 5, 2nd para.] have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 20070019297), in view of Imasaka et al. (US 20160062117).
As to claim 11, Stewart teaches 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] so as to produce a virtual image at a viewing distance [figs. 5-6 & para. 37, 71, & 76]; 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].
Stewart does not explicitly teach wherein a movement device that translationally moves the reflector device relative to the screen device so as to adjust the viewing distance of the virtual image.
Imasaka teaches the concept of a display apparatus (virtual image display device 200) [abstract & figs. 1 & 4], that utilizes a movement device that translationally moves (slide parts 32 & arms 8 move combiner 5 along x axis direction) [fig. 4 & para. 66-68] a reflector device (combiner 5 utilizing a concave shape) [figs. 1, 4, & 9-10 & para. 49] relative to a screen device so as to adjust the viewing distance of a virtual image (adjustment of position of virtual image Iv [distance b], based on distance between combiner 5 & display 110 [distance a], see gaussian thin lens formula, equation (1)) [figs. 1, 4, & 10 & para. 68 & 96-99].
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 reflector device and the movement device of Stewart, such that the movement device translationally moves the reflector device relative to the screen device so as to adjust the viewing distance of the virtual image, as taught by Imasaka, to improve the usability by providing adjustability for coping with different height of ceilings per vehicle and different sizes of users, as taught by Imasaka [para. 68].
As to claim 12, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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) [Stewart: fig. 1 & para. 58 & 61].
As to claim 13, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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) [Stewart: figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 14, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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) [Stewart: 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) [Stewart: figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 15, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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 [Stewart: figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 16, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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 [Stewart: figs. 2e & 3a-3b & para. 66-68 & 61].
As to claim 17, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches 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) [Stewart: fig. 2e & para. 66], and/or rotating the image displayed by the screen (flipped) [Stewart: para. 62 & 65].
As to claim 19, Stewart as modified by Imasaka teaches a motor vehicle [Stewart: fig. 1 & para. 58, 39, & 64], comprising the display apparatus of claim 11.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart, in view of Imasaka, and further in view of Kim (US 20120154441).
As to claim 18, Stewart as modified by Imasaka 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 as modified by Imasaka 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 as modified by Imasaka, 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 as modified by Imasaka 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 Imasaka, and further in view of Gassman et al. (US 20190092170).
As to claim 20, Stewart as modified by Imasaka 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 as modified by Imasaka 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 as modified by Imasaka, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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