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
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 06/12/2026, in which:claim 2 is amended; new claims 18 and 19 are added; and the rejections of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and an Office Action on the merits follows.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement filed 06/18/2026, has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the PTO-1449 forms is included in this correspondence.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 11, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminksi et al. US 20090295681 in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20220165188.
Consider claim 1. Kaminski discloses a projection assembly for displaying a virtual image for a viewer whose eye position is located in an eyebox fig. 2-4 virtual image system 100, comprising:
a laminated pane fig. 2 [0026] laminated windshield 102 having a projection region [0024] virtual image is desired to be between sight lines SL2 and SL3, a main see-through region [0024] clear unobstructed view of road ahead, an upper edge, a lower edge, and two lateral pane edges fig. 4 and fig. 5 only one lateral side and a lower side are shown however [0043] windshield of motor vehicle i.e. has four sides, wherein the projection region is arranged outside the main see-through region see figs. 2-4 the film 130 which reflects the virtual image is only in the lower part of the windshield away from top two thirds (approximately) which has the see through area, and the laminated pane comprises an outer pane having an outer surface and an interior surface fig. 2-4 outer glass pane 104 and inner glass pane 106, an inner pane having an outer surface and an interior surface fig. 2-4 inner glass pane 106 with surface labeled ‘3’ and ‘4’, and a thermoplastic intermediate layer arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane fig. 2-4 plastic layer 108 [0003] plastic layer is commonly composed of PVB which is a thermoplastic, and has an opaque masking layer outside the main see-through region, at least in the projection region figs. 2-4 110, 130-150 150’ [0027] 130 is a black glossy sheet or [0029] frit 110,
an image display device arranged on an interior side, which is directed towards the projection region figs. 2-4 image source 112, wherein the image display device is a matrix display [0026] LED, LCD, OLED etc., and
Kaminski does not explicitly disclose a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different positions of the eyebox.
Yamazaki however discloses a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different positions of the eyebox fig. 3 control system using local dimming to display images in different portions of multilayer surface 334 which is in the windshield. Also see fig. 4A 4B based on detected face location first portion image is displayed in portion 414.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski to include a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different positions of the eyebox, as taught by Yamazaki, to improve contrast of display screen which in turn enhances vehicle viewing experience [0003].
Consider claim 2. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the control element is configured to control a first matrix for at least an upper position of the eyebox, a second matrix for a middle position of the eyebox and a third matrix of the image display device for a lower position of the eyebox See Yamazaki fig. 3 control system using local dimming to display images in different portions of multilayer surface 334. [0043][0061] local dimming driver 324 and local dimming driver 312 select or more portions of the surface 334 based on projection data and position of the occupant.
Motivation to combine is similar to motivation in claim 1.
Consider claim 3. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the opaque masking layer is arranged in a peripheral edge region Kaminski fig. 2-4 the black glossy sheet 130 or frit 110 is located in the bottom edge area of the windshield.
Consider claim 11. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the opaque masking layer is formed as a coating of the interior surface of the outer pane or of the outer surface of the inner pane, as an opaque insert element arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane, or as an opaque colored region of the thermoplastic intermediate layer Kaminski fig. 4A 150 black matte material in the interior surface of the outer pane.
Consider claim 13. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the motor vehicle having a projection assembly according to claim 1 Kaminski [0002][0043] motor vehicle windshield also see fig. 2- 4.
Consider claim 15. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the use of a projection assembly according to claim 1 in a vehicle for traffic on land, in the air, or on water Kaminski [0002][0043] motor vehicle windshield also see fig. 2- 4.
Consider claim 16. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 3, wherein the opaque masking layer, in a section which overlaps with the projection region, has a greater width than in sections different therefrom Kaminski figs. 2-4 110, 130-150 150’ [0027] 130 is a black glossy sheet or [0029] frit 110. note that the black sheet or frit are in a projection region (have a width) which are at the bottom region and are not in the upper region of the windshield. Thus, the black sheet or frit have a width of zero.
Consider claim 17. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the use according to claim 15, wherein the laminated pane is a windshield Kaminski [0002][0043] motor vehicle windshield also see fig. 2- 4.
Consider claim 18. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, wherein different matrices of the image display device are at least partially overlapping sub regions of the matrix display Yamazaki fig. 3 [0056] The local dimming driver 312 may include suitable logic, circuitry, and interfaces that may be configured to control the amount of voltage applied to the one or more portions of each layer of the multilayer surface 334 based on the control signals received from the local dimming controller 324. The control of the amount of voltage on the one or more portions of the multilayer surface 334 may enable effective control of the opacity level of the multilayer surface 334. Note that the different matrices are a subset of the matrix display . So, they inherently are overlapping regions of the matrix display.
Consider claim 19. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, wherein a non-active region of the image display device, laying outside the controlled matrix is switched off Yamazaki fig. 3 [0056] The local dimming driver 312 may include suitable logic, circuitry, and interfaces that may be configured to control the amount of voltage applied to the one or more portions of each layer of the multilayer surface 334 based on the control signals received from the local dimming controller 324. The control of the amount of voltage on the one or more portions of the multilayer surface 334 may enable effective control of the opacity level of the multilayer surface 334. Thus, as shown in fig. 4 dimming is only active in 414 and the other areas are off.
2. Claims 4-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminksi et al. US 20090295681 in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20220165188 and further in view of Banay et al. US 20170059872
Consider claim 4. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, further comprising an adaptation unit that ascertains the position of the face corresponding to the face position from information regarding his face position and outputs an electrical signal to the control element configured to selectively control the matrix corresponding to the ascertained position of the face Yamazaki fig. 3 and figs. 4A 4B. [0061] local dimming driver 324 and local dimming driver 312 select or more portions of the surface 334 based on projection data and position of the occupant. [0067] [0069] determine amount of glare on the face and output a portion on the windshield based on the determined amount of glare.
Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose do not explicitly disclose the position of the eyebox entered by the viewer corresponding to the eye position.
Banay however discloses the position of the eyebox entered by the viewer corresponding to the eye position [0005] The vertical position of the eyebox must be adapted to the sitting height of the specific driver. For this purpose, the driver has the option of adjusting the height position of the eyebox until it is optimally visible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki to include a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different positions of the eyebox, as taught by Banay, to improve visibility by having the eyes of the driver are located well within the eyebox [0005].
Consider claim 5. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a detection device for detecting the face position of the viewer and an electronic control device that is configured to ascertain the position of the face corresponding to the face position on the basis of the face position ascertained by the detection device, and to output an electrical signal to the control element to selectively control the matrix corresponding to the ascertained position of the face Yamazaki fig. 3 and figs. 4A 4B. [0061] local dimming driver 324 and local dimming driver 312 select or more portions of the surface 334 based on projection data and position of the occupant. [0067] [0069] determine amount of glare on the face and output a portion on the windshield based on the determined amount of glare.
Banay however discloses detecting the eyebox position of the viewer and ascertain the position of the eyebox and controlling the system to adjust the display based on the eyebox position [0005] The vertical position of the eyebox must be adapted to the sitting height of the specific driver. For this purpose, the driver has the option of adjusting the height position of the eyebox until it is optimally visible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki to include detecting the eyebox position of the viewer and ascertain the position of the eyebox and controlling the system to adjust the display based on the eyebox position, as taught by Banay, to improve visibility by having the eyes of the driver are located well within the eyebox [0005].
Consider claim 6. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki and Banay disclose the projection assembly according to claim 5, wherein the detection device performs infrared detection and has a radiation source for emitting infrared radiation and a radiation receiver for receiving infrared radiation Banay [0021] fig. 1 camera 6 can be an infrared camera and the driver’s head is illuminated with infrared light. [0022] true eye tracking is carried on the basis of the camera image.
Motivation to combine is similar to motivation in claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected mutatis mutandis to claim 1 and claim 4.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminksi et al. US 20090295681 in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20220165188 in view of Banay et al. US 20170059872 and further in view of Naradikian et al. US 20200143184
Consider claim 7. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki and Banay disclose the projection assembly according to claim 6, but do not disclose wherein the laminated pane additionally has a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation, and the radiation source and the radiation receiver are arranged so that infrared radiation emitted by the radiation source is reflectable by the functional layer onto the face of the viewer as first reflection radiation, the first reflection radiation is reflectable by the face of the viewer onto the functional layer as second reflection radiation, and the second reflection radiation reflected by the functional layer as third reflection radiation can be reflected to the radiation receiver and received by the radiation receiver.
Naradikian however discloses wherein the laminated pane additionally has a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation [0018] IR reflective coating on inner surface of the windshield, and the radiation source fig. 1 IR camera and LED 2 202 and the radiation receiver fig. 1 IR camera and LED are arranged so that infrared radiation emitted by the radiation source is reflectable by the functional layer onto the face of the viewer as first reflection radiation fig. 1 see IR light reflected of windshield and on driver 28 eyes, the first reflection radiation is reflectable by the face of the viewer onto the functional layer as second reflection radiation fig. 2 206 receive IR energy reflected by face of the driver and reflected off the coating on the windshield , and the second reflection radiation reflected by the functional layer as third reflection radiation can be reflected to the radiation receiver and received by the radiation receiver. [0023] Next, in step 206, infra-red energy reflected by a face of the driver and reflected off the coating of the windshield is received by the IR camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki and Banay to include wherein the laminated pane additionally has a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation, and the radiation source and the radiation receiver are arranged so that infrared radiation emitted by the radiation source is reflectable by the functional layer onto the face of the viewer as first reflection radiation, the first reflection radiation is reflectable by the face of the viewer onto the functional layer as second reflection radiation, and the second reflection radiation reflected by the functional layer as third reflection radiation can be reflected to the radiation receiver and received by the radiation receiver, as taught by Naradikian, to enable IR driver monitoring to be integrated into HUD system [0006].
4. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminksi et al. US 20090295681 in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20220165188 and further in view of Watanabe et al. US 20170082854
Consider claim 8. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1 but do not disclose wherein the image display device is curved in plan view.
Watanabe however discloses wherein the image display device is curved in plan view see fig. 3 and 4A display surface 10A is curved [0054]. Also see fig. 7 display 10B is curved. fig. 9 curved display 10a
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki to include detecting the eyebox position of the viewer and ascertain the position of the eyebox and controlling the system to adjust the display based on the eyebox position, as taught by Watanabe, to correct the aberrations of the image surface curvature due to the curved surface of the windshield [0081].
Consider claim 9. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1 but do not disclose wherein the laminated pane is bent.
Watanabe however discloses wherein the laminated pane is bent. see fig. 1 windshield WS is curved[0069][0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki to include wherein the laminated pane is bent, as taught by Watanabe, to externally decrease wind resistance and internally to allow for clear distortion free and properly focused virtual image.
Consider claim 10. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki and Watanabe disclose the projection assembly according to claim 8, further comprising a distortion element. Watanabe see fig. 1 windshield WS is curved which causes distortions [0069][0081].
Motivation to combine is similar to motivation in claim 8.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminksi et al. US 20090295681 in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20220165188 and further in view of Nakayama et al. US 12162248
Consider claim 12. Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki disclose the projection assembly according to claim 1, opaque masking layer when viewed through the laminated pane see Kaminski fig. 1A 1B 28 or 18 or fig. 2-3 130-140, 110 fig. 4A-B 150 150’, 110.
but do not disclose wherein a reflective element for reflecting visible light is arranged in the projection region between the outer pane and the inner pane or on the interior surface of the inner pane,
Nakayama however discloses wherein a reflective element for reflecting visible light is arranged in the projection region between the outer pane and the inner pane see fig. 3 lamination structure of the laminated glass has first and second glass layer with interlayer film 11A and 11B and infrared reflective is between 11A and 11B or on the interior surface of the inner pane, fig. 3 infrared reflective layer 13 is in front of 11A and wherein the reflective element is arranged spatially in front of the opaque masking layer when viewed through the laminated pane fig. 3 infrared reflective layer 13 is between 11A and 11B. Note that 11A or 11B is equivalent to plastic layer 16 of Kaminski. As a result, when the infrared reflective layer is combined with windshield lamination of Kaminski it would sit in front of black masking layer 110 130-150 150’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection assembly of Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki to include wherein a reflective element for reflecting visible light is arranged in the projection region between the outer pane and the inner pane or on the interior surface of the inner pane, and wherein the reflective element is arranged spatially in front of the opaque masking layer when viewed through the laminated pane, as taught by Nakayama, to provide a laminated glass by which monitoring can be properly carried out using infrared radiation even when an infrared monitoring system is introduced in various vehicles Col. 4 lines 32-36.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 6-7 ) that Kaminski as modified by Yamazaki does not disclose “a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different position of the eyebox”. The reasoning the Applicant provides is that the invention of Kaminski is directed towards eliminating ghost virtual images and the solution the problem is structural. The Applicant contends that Kaminski never discloses addressing pixel sub regions and never describes any adaptation to the driver’s eye height and nothing that can be characterized as different matrices.
The Office however respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., address different sub regions of the projection device and adaptations to the driver’s eye height ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding addressing a matrix display. Kaminski clearly discloses a LED, LCD, and OLED display which is clearly a matrix display.
Regarding Yamazaki, the Applicant argues (page 8-9) that the reference’s first multilayer surface is not an image display device and does not display images in different portions of that surface but rather controls opacity levels on a per portion basis. The Applicant references [0022][0055-0056] which describes the technology behind the “plurality of layers”. The Applicant contends that Yamazaki’s separate projection device 310 is the actual image source and is an LCD projection device , LCOS or DLP device [0026]. The Applicant contends that Yamazaki never discloses addressing pixel sub regions and never describes any adaptation to the driver’s eye height and nothing that can be characterized as different matrices.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, claim 1 is direct towards a “projection assembly” and not a singular projection device. Secondly, claim 1 never recites that the control element is part of a projection device but rather is part of the projection assembly. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a control element that is configured to selectively control different matrices of the image display device for displaying the virtual image for different positions of the eyebox”. Thus, claim 1’s limitations do not require the control element to be part of the image display device but rather to control different matrices of the image display device. This is clearly disclosed in Yamazaki [0056] fig. 3 and fig. 4a-b. where the local dimming driver along with the plurality of layers control display of the matrices of the image source by either blocking or letting through light.
On page 9-10 of the remarks the Applicant clarifies that the different matrices are equivalent to sub regions of the image display and that Yamazaki only controls the opacity of an image behind the HUD. The Applicant argues that this is a sun glare contrast technique. The Applicant concludes that for this reasons Yamazaki does not teach that the HUD is to be sub-region addressed for the purpose of eyebox repositioning.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Yamazaki discloses that the local dimming of the multilayer surface occurs at different locations (is not static) and is relative to the users’ eyes e.g. see fig. 4A-4B . Also see [0088] fig 6a. the content is positioned relative to the first occupant with respect to the first multilayer surface 504 and also relative to a second occupant fig. 6B.
The Applicant also argues (pages 11-14) that the combination of Kaminski and Yamazaki is not a valid one because it does not fall under the KSR rationale and the combination would not be possible because of incompatibility issues.
The Office respectfully disagrees. The rationale to combine falls under Rationale(G) of KSR. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is to improve contrast of display screen which in turn enhances vehicle viewing experience as mentioned in [0003] of Yamazaki. The motivation to combine does not have to be the one highlighted by the Applicant. In response to Applicant's argument that Yamazaki is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Yamazaki is in the same field of endeavor -a display projection system for a vehicle that projection images from a dashboard region to a windshield and then to a user’s eyes. In response to applicant's argument that Kaminski and Yamazaki are incompatible because they have different architecture , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
To overcome the current rejection the Examiner suggests clarifying what the control element is, how it controls the different matrices, and the conditions under which the image’s height is adjusted for a user’s eyes.
IV. 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 extension fee 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 IBRAHIM A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7998. The examiner can normally be reached on 10am-6pm.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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 Information 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 PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
IBRAHIM A. KHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2628
/IBRAHIM A KHAN/ 06/30/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights