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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0295681 by Kaminski et al. (“Kaminski”).
As to claim 1, Kaminski discloses a laminated glazing (Kaminski, laminated windshield 102a, Figure 4A), comprising:
a first glass sheet (Kaminski, outer glass pane 104a, Figure 4a) having first and second opposing surfaces (top and bottom surfaces, respectively, of outer glass pane 104a);
a second glass sheet (Kaminski, inner glass pane 106a, Figure 4a) having third and fourth opposing surfaces (top and bottom surfaces, respectively, of outer glass pane 106a);
an interlayer (Kaminski, plastic layer 108a, Figure 4a) between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet; As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the plastic layer 108a is between the bottom surface of the outer glass pane 104a and the top surface of the inner glass pane 106a.
a first opaque layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a); and
a first reflective layer (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]) on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet, wherein the first reflective layer on the second glass sheet is in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer. As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150.
As to claim 2, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing further comprising a second opaque layer (Kaminski, peripheral frit 110, Figure 4a) on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet. As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the peripheral frit 110 is on the bottom surface of the inner glass plane 106a.
As to claim 8, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing further comprising a masking layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a) over the first reflective layer. As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150.
As to claim 9, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing wherein the masking layer includes a film (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a) adhered over the first reflective layer. As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150.
As to claim 10, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing further comprising a protective layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a) over the first reflective layer. As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150.
As to claim 11, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer provides a first display surface (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]), such that the first opaque layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a) is a background for the first display surface, As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150 which provides a background or the virtual image 120.
the laminated glazing further comprises a second display surface not aligned with the first opaque layer. As shown in figure 5 of Kaminski, there are multiple virtual images 120 presented in the virtual image system 100 formed as a plurality of side-by-side telltales 160. These additional virtual images are not aligned with the matte black material 150 of the original virtual image.
As to claim 13, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing further comprising a second reflective layer in the area of the second display (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]).
As to claim 15, Kaminski discloses a head-up display system (Kaminski, The virtual image system according to the present invention provides a high contrast virtual image to the driver, the image seemingly being through the windshield, ¶ [0008]), comprising:
a laminated glazing (Kaminski, laminated windshield 102a, Figure 4A), comprising:
a first glass sheet (Kaminski, outer glass pane 104a, Figure 4a) having first and second opposing surfaces (top and bottom surfaces, respectively, of outer glass pane 104a),
a second glass sheet (Kaminski, inner glass pane 106a, Figure 4a) having third and fourth opposing surfaces (top and bottom surfaces, respectively, of outer glass pane 106a),
an interlayer (Kaminski, plastic layer 108a, Figure 4a) between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet, As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the plastic layer 108a is between the bottom surface of the outer glass pane 104a and the top surface of the inner glass pane 106a.
a first opaque layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a), and
a first reflective layer (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]) on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet, wherein the first reflective layer on the second glass sheet is in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer; As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150.
a first projector (Kaminski, image source 112, Figure 4) for projecting first light toward the first reflective layer of the laminated glazing, wherein a first image is produced as a virtual image from a reflection of the first light off the first reflective layer (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]).
As to claim 16, Kaminski discloses the head-up display system wherein the first reflective layer provides a first display surface (Kaminski, The image source 112 produces real image rays 118 which reflect at the windshield 102a, 102b such that a virtual image 120 thereof is viewable to the driver along virtual image rays 122, Figure 4a, ¶ [0037]), such that the first opaque layer (Kaminski, matte black material 150, Figure 4a) is a background for the first display surface, As shown in figure 4a of Kaminski, the projected image is reflected off a bottom surface of the inner glass pane 106a which is in an area overlapping the matte black material 150 which provides a background or the virtual image 120.
the laminated glazing further comprises a second display surface not aligned with the first opaque layer, As shown in figure 5 of Kaminski, there are multiple virtual images 120 presented in the virtual image system 100 formed as a plurality of side-by-side telltales 160. These additional virtual images are not aligned with the matte black material 150 of the original virtual image.
the first projector or a second projector (Kaminski, image source 112, Figure 4) emits a second light to the second display surface, wherein a second image is produced as a virtual image from a reflection of the second light off the second display surface. As shown in figure 5 of Kaminski, there are multiple virtual images 120 presented in the virtual image system 100 formed as a plurality of side-by-side telltales 160.
Inventorship
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 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.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0295681 by Kaminski et al. (“Kaminski”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0316534 by Fischer et al. (“Fischer”).
As to claim 3, Kaminski discloses the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer is electrically conductive and electrically connected to a power source.
Fischer teaches a head-up display system wherein the first reflective layer is electrically conductive and electrically connected to a power source (Fischer, the conductive coating can, for example, be provided as an IR-reflecting solar protection coating or also as a heatable coating that is electrically contacted and heats up when current flows through it. The term “transparent coating” means a coating that has average transmittance in the visible spectral range of at least 70%, preferably at least 80%, which thus does not substantially restrict vision through the pane. ¶ [0016]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s reflective element to include Fischer’s conductive based reflective coating because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kaminski’s reflective element and Fischer’s conductive based reflective coating perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a reflective element for a head-up display system to present images from a projector to a user. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Kaminski’s reflective element by replacing it with Fischer’s conductive based reflective coating. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Fischer, teaches the electrically conductive reflective coating in the laminated glass.
As to claim 12, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing wherein the interlayer has a wedge shape.
Fischer teaches a head-up display system wherein the interlayer has a wedge shape (Fischer, The problem arises that the projector image is reflected on both external surfaces of the windshield. As a result, in addition to the desired primary image, a slightly offset secondary image also appears, the so-called ghost image (“ghost”). The problem is usually mitigated by arranging the surfaces at an angle relative to one another, in particular by using a wedge-like intermediate layer for the lamination of windshields implemented as a composite pane such that the primary image and the ghost image are superimposed on one another. ¶ [0003]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s plastic layer to include Fischer’s wedge-like intermediate layer because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Kaminski to include Fischer is expressly provided by Fischer, stating that (Fischer, The problem is usually mitigated by arranging the surfaces at an angle relative to one another, in particular by using a wedge-like intermediate layer for the lamination of windshields implemented as a composite pane such that the primary image and the ghost image are superimposed on one another. ¶ [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski’s plastic layer to include Fischer’s wedge-like intermediate layer with the motivation of improving viewing properties for the display. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of reducing the presentation of ghost images to the user.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Fischer, teaches the wedge shaped interlayer.
As to claim 17, Kaminski does not expressly teach the head-up display system wherein the interlayer has a wedge shape.
Fischer teaches a head-up display system wherein the interlayer has a wedge shape (Fischer, The problem arises that the projector image is reflected on both external surfaces of the windshield. As a result, in addition to the desired primary image, a slightly offset secondary image also appears, the so-called ghost image (“ghost”). The problem is usually mitigated by arranging the surfaces at an angle relative to one another, in particular by using a wedge-like intermediate layer for the lamination of windshields implemented as a composite pane such that the primary image and the ghost image are superimposed on one another. ¶ [0003]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s plastic layer to include Fischer’s wedge-like intermediate layer because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Kaminski to include Fischer is expressly provided by Fischer, stating that (Fischer, The problem is usually mitigated by arranging the surfaces at an angle relative to one another, in particular by using a wedge-like intermediate layer for the lamination of windshields implemented as a composite pane such that the primary image and the ghost image are superimposed on one another. ¶ [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski’s plastic layer to include Fischer’s wedge-like intermediate layer with the motivation of improving viewing properties for the display. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of reducing the presentation of ghost images to the user.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Fischer, teaches the wedge shaped interlayer.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0295681 by Kaminski et al. (“Kaminski”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0333593 by Bard et al. (“Bard”).
As to claim 4, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer has a highest visible light reflectivity at a light wavelength used in a projected light from a head-up display projector when installed in a vehicle.
Bard teaches a head-up display with a layered windshield wherein the first reflective layer has a highest visible light reflectivity at a light wavelength used in a projected light from a head-up display projector when installed in a vehicle (Bard, Referring to FIG. 9, another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may provide a construction of the windshield 2 with an improved nano-structured coating 10, 62 on S1 and S4, where the nano-structured coating may be used as a protective top coat 62 for infrared reflective (IRR) coating 12 on S4. IRR coatings reflect visible light as well as infrared light and may be used to enhance the visible light reflection 26 in a HUD system. Any suitable coating may be used on S4 to enhance visible light reflection 26, including IRR coatings 12 and reflective paints. Figure 9, ¶ [0069]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s reflective surface to include Bard’s reflective paint because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kaminski’s reflective surface and Bard’s reflective paint perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a reflective surface for a windshield display. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Kaminski’s reflective surface by replacing it with Bard’s reflective paint. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Bard, teaches the reflective paint on the lower surface of the inner glass which reflects visible light to the user.
As to claim 5, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer is a reflective paint.
Bard teaches a head-up display with a layered windshield wherein the first reflective layer is a reflective paint (Bard, Referring to FIG. 9, another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may provide a construction of the windshield 2 with an improved nano-structured coating 10, 62 on S1 and S4, where the nano-structured coating may be used as a protective top coat 62 for infrared reflective (IRR) coating 12 on S4. IRR coatings reflect visible light as well as infrared light and may be used to enhance the visible light reflection 26 in a HUD system. Any suitable coating may be used on S4 to enhance visible light reflection 26, including IRR coatings 12 and reflective paints. Figure 9, ¶ [0069]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s reflective surface to include Bard’s reflective paint because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kaminski’s reflective surface and Bard’s reflective paint perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a reflective surface for a windshield display. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Kaminski’s reflective surface by replacing it with Bard’s reflective paint. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Bard, teaches the reflective paint on the lower surface of the inner glass which reflects visible light to the user.
As to claim 6, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer includes a reflective coating applied to the second glass sheet.
Bard teaches a head-up display with a layered windshield wherein the first reflective layer includes a reflective coating applied to the second glass sheet (Bard, Referring to FIG. 9, another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may provide a construction of the windshield 2 with an improved nano-structured coating 10, 62 on S1 and S4, where the nano-structured coating may be used as a protective top coat 62 for infrared reflective (IRR) coating 12 on S4. IRR coatings reflect visible light as well as infrared light and may be used to enhance the visible light reflection 26 in a HUD system. Any suitable coating may be used on S4 to enhance visible light reflection 26, including IRR coatings 12 and reflective paints. Figure 9, ¶ [0069]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s reflective surface to include Bard’s reflective paint because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kaminski’s reflective surface and Bard’s reflective paint perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a reflective surface for a windshield display. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Kaminski’s reflective surface by replacing it with Bard’s reflective paint. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Bard, teaches the reflective paint on the lower surface of the inner glass which reflects visible light to the user.
As to claim 7, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing wherein the first reflective layer includes a reflective film adhered to the second glass sheet.
Bard teaches a head-up display with a layered windshield wherein the first reflective layer includes a reflective film adhered to the second glass sheet (Bard, Referring to FIG. 9, another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may provide a construction of the windshield 2 with an improved nano-structured coating 10, 62 on S1 and S4, where the nano-structured coating may be used as a protective top coat 62 for infrared reflective (IRR) coating 12 on S4. IRR coatings reflect visible light as well as infrared light and may be used to enhance the visible light reflection 26 in a HUD system. Any suitable coating may be used on S4 to enhance visible light reflection 26, including IRR coatings 12 and reflective paints. Figure 9, ¶ [0069]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s reflective surface to include Bard’s reflective paint because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kaminski’s reflective surface and Bard’s reflective paint perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a reflective surface for a windshield display. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Kaminski’s reflective surface by replacing it with Bard’s reflective paint. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Bard, teaches the reflective paint film on the lower surface of the inner glass which reflects visible light to the user.
Claims 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0295681 by Kaminski et al. (“Kaminski”) in view of Japanese Pub. No. JPH10096874A by Hirano et al. (“Hirano”).
As to claim 14, Kaminski does not expressly teach the laminated glazing further comprising a half wave plate between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet.
Hirano teaches a windshield glass for head-up display further comprising a half wave plate between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet (Hirano, The half-wave plate 4 is sealed between the interlayer film 6 and the vehicle interior side glass plate 1 via the isocyanate-based adhesive layers 3 and 5, and as a result, the half-wave plate is sea led inside the laminated glass. Figure 1, ¶ [0007]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s laminated glass stack to include Hirano’s half-wave plate because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Kaminski’s laminated glass stack as modified by Hirano’s half-wave plate is known to yield a predictable result of providing a half-wave plate in a head-up display system since the half-wave plate polarizes light in order to provide a clearer image to the user. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Kaminski’s laminated glass stack the ability to do Hirano’s half-wave plate since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Hirano, teaches the half-wave plate between the glass layers.
As to claim 18, Kaminski does not expressly teach the head-up display system wherein the laminated glazing has a second reflective layer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, and the second light is p-polarized light.
Hirano teaches a windshield glass for head-up display wherein the laminated glazing has a second reflective layer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, and the second light is p-polarized light (Hirano, The half-wave plate 4 is sealed between the interlayer film 6 and the vehicle interior side glass plate 1 via the isocyanate-based adhesive layers 3 and 5, and as a result, the half-wave plate is sea led inside the laminated glass. Figure 1, ¶ [0007]) (Hirano, since the half-wave plate can rotate the polarization direction of the incident light by 90 degrees, for example, when s-polarized light is used as the incident light The light transmitted through the 1/2 wavelength plate to be the rear surface reflected light becomes a p-polarized light component, ¶ [0022]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s laminated glass stack to include Hirano’s half-wave plate because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Kaminski’s laminated glass stack as modified by Hirano’s half-wave plate is known to yield a predictable result of providing a half-wave plate in a head-up display system since the half-wave plate polarizes light in order to provide a clearer image to the user. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Kaminski’s laminated glass stack the ability to do Hirano’s half-wave plate since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Hirano, teaches the half-wave plate between the glass layers.
As to claim 19, Kaminski does not expressly teach the head-up display system wherein the laminated glazing has a half wave plate between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, and the second light is s-polarized light or p-polarized light.
Hirano teaches a windshield glass for head-up display wherein the laminated glazing has a half wave plate between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, and the second light is s-polarized light or p-polarized light (Hirano, The half-wave plate 4 is sealed between the interlayer film 6 and the vehicle interior side glass plate 1 via the isocyanate-based adhesive layers 3 and 5, and as a result, the half-wave plate is sea led inside the laminated glass. Figure 1, ¶ [0007]) (Hirano, since the half-wave plate can rotate the polarization direction of the incident light by 90 degrees, for example, when s-polarized light is used as the incident light The light transmitted through the 1/2 wavelength plate to be the rear surface reflected light becomes a p-polarized light component, ¶ [0022]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaminski’s laminated glass stack to include Hirano’s half-wave plate because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Kaminski’s laminated glass stack as modified by Hirano’s half-wave plate is known to yield a predictable result of providing a half-wave plate in a head-up display system since the half-wave plate polarizes light in order to provide a clearer image to the user. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Kaminski’s laminated glass stack the ability to do Hirano’s half-wave plate since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Thus, Kaminski, as modified by Hirano, teaches the half-wave plate between the glass layers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,459,236. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a more broad recitation of the claims in the cited patent.
Instant application (Claim 1)
U.S. Patent No. 12,459,236 (Claim 1)
1. A laminated glazing, comprising:
1. A laminated glazing, comprising:
a first glass sheet having first and second opposing surfaces;
a first glass sheet having first and second opposing surfaces;
a second glass sheet having third and fourth opposing surfaces;
a second glass sheet having third and fourth opposing surfaces;
an interlayer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet;
an interlayer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet;
a first opaque layer; and
a first opaque layer; and
a first reflective layer on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet, wherein the first reflective layer on the second glass sheet is in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer.
a first reflective layer applied on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer.
As to dependent claims 2-14, these are similarly rejected by claims 2-14 of the cited patent.
Instant application (Claim 15)
U.S. Patent No. 12,459,236 (Claim 15)
15. A head-up display system, comprising:
15. A head-up display system, comprising:
a laminated glazing, comprising:
a laminated glazing, comprising:
a first glass sheet having first and second opposing surfaces,
a first glass sheet having first and second opposing surfaces,
a second glass sheet having third and fourth opposing surfaces,
a second glass sheet having third and fourth opposing surfaces,
an interlayer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet,
an interlayer between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, wherein the interlayer is positioned between the second surface of the first glass sheet and the third surface of the second glass sheet,
a first opaque layer, and
a first opaque layer, and
a first reflective layer on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet, wherein the first reflective layer on the second glass sheet is in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer; and
a first reflective layer applied on the fourth surface of the second glass sheet in an area overlapping with the first opaque layer; and
a first projector for projecting first light toward the first reflective layer of the laminated glazing, wherein a first image is produced as a virtual image from a reflection of the first light off the first reflective layer.
a first projector for projecting first light toward the first reflective layer of the laminated glazing, wherein a first image is produced as a virtual image from a reflection of the first light off the first reflective layer.
As to dependent claims 16-19, these are similarly rejected by claims 16-19 of the cited patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT D CASTIAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-5143. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7772. 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.
/BRENT D CASTIAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights