DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/25/2026. Claims 1 and 3-10, and 12-22 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 12 and 15 were amended. Claim 22 was added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The amendment to claim 1 appears to provide a piecemeal combination of various embodiments disclosed in the spec but the disclosure fails to provide any written description supporting the configuration as claimed. The disclosure fails to provide any detailed explanation of how the claimed features from various embodiments are combined, while simultaneously arguing against the combination of references.
Claim 1 recites, “a readhead comprising a reference mark photodetector array and a photodetector array for detecting an incremental signal, the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal being on the same side of the scale, wherein the at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track (ii) is configured to image the structured light source as by a pinhole effect and thereby form a spatially inverted representation of the structured light source as an image of the structured light source on the reference mark photodetector array;” (emphasis added by Examiner).
A new rejection is provided below under 112(a) as the amended claims fail to satisfy the written description requirement. In each embodiment disclosed, the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal is arranged on the same side of the track as the structured light source. See Figs. 1(a), 1(b), 2, and 7(a)-(c). However, embodiments illustrating a “pinhole effect” (see figs. 4 and 8) show the reference mark photodetector array arranged on an opposite side of the track from the structured light source. Therefore, the written description fails to provide any support for the limitations “the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal being on the same side of the scale,” and “configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect” or enable one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as as recited in claim 1. Therefore, amended claims 1 and 3-17 fail to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements under 112(a).
Furthermore, the Applicant argues on page 8 of arguments filed 2/25/2026:
D2's Fig. 2 embodiment thus teaches having the detectors for the incremental signal, i.e., scanning fields 5a-5d, and the reference mark scanning fields RA2 on opposite sides of the scale 22. This stands in contrast to the feature of claim 1 quote above, which again requires that "the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal [be] on the same side of the scale." Applicant also notes that Dl's fine slit 52 is transmissive whereas the incremental graduations 32 must be reflective in order to illuminate scanning fields 5a-5d. Further, the fine slit 52 is shown in Fig. 2 above as being the same size as the incremental graduations 32. If the scanning fields 5a-5d and the reference mark scanning fields RA2 were on the same side of the scale 22, it would require the incremental graduations 32 and the fine slit 52 to all be reflective or all be transmissive. This would mean that each of the incremental graduations 32 and the fine slit 52 would be substantially identical, and it would therefore not be possible for the fine slit 52 to function as a reference mark and to be "embedded within the incremental track," as required by claim 1, because the signal from such a reference mark would be substantially identical to the signal due to each incremental graduation 32.
The Examiner agrees primary reference EP 0195130 fails to teach the amended limitation “the at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track”, however, the pending application fails to disclose an embodiment reading on the limitations as claimed, or an embodiment which overcomes the issues identified in the Applicant’s arguments.
It is understood in the art that optical encoders may be transmissive or reflective and wherein the reference mark is embedded in an incremental scale. Numerous references teach wherein a single reference mark is embedded in an incremental scale. See Fig. 12 and col. 12, lines 43-50 of US 10,281,301 which is relied upon for the pending rejection. Also see Fig. 1a of US 6,198,534; Fig. 1 of US 2008/0013105; Fig. 1 of US 2006/0180748; Fig. 1 of US 2009/0135435 which are provided as additional support, but not relied on for the current rejection. Also, a readhead as shown in Fig. 1b is also known in the art; see Fig. 14 of US 2016/0231144; Fig. 2 of US 2018/0216972.
As best understood by the Examiner, the claims would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as outlined in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 22, the Applicant argues:
This claim corresponds to prior claim 1, which Applicant maintains is allowable over the applied combination of D1, Slack 972 and Slack 301. In particular, D1 does not describe how the incremental part of its encoder works. It merely states that there is an incremental graduation 3 or 32 and four scanning fields 5a-5d, but it then states that "further discission is unnecessary." D1,1[0011]. It is therefore not clear at all if it is possible to "embed[] within""at least one reference mark" into the incremental graduation, as required by claim 22, because it is not known if/how that would impact detection of the incremental signal. Indeed, it seems logical that the alleged "reference mark" would form an image of the reference mark R2 onto the scanning fields 5a-5d, which would significantly adversely affect the incremental signal. Applicant accordingly submits that the system described in D1 is incompatible with "at least one reference mark ... embedded within the incremental track."
The Applicant is reminded 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 in view of the combination as a whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant speculates a bodily incorporation of the incremental marks “because it is not known if/how that would impact detection of the detected signal.” D1 shows an incremental encoder in Fig. 1 and states in [0011] that the measuring device operates as a “reflected light length measuring device … which is scanned in a known manner by means of scanning device 4.” Slack-301 teaches wherein the encoder scale may operate as reflective or transmissive. See col. 4, lines 30-31. Therefore, it would stand to reason it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the reflective scale of D1 as a reflective or transmissive scale as outlined in Slack-301. As outlined above, numerous references teach wherein the reference mark is configured between incremental marks without suffering from the speculative adverse effects identified in the arguments. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination as a whole to use reflective/transmissive scales without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Therefore, claim 1, 3-17, and 22 are rejected as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a readhead comprising a reference mark photodetector array and a photodetector array for detecting an incremental signal, the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal being on the same side of the scale, wherein the at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track (ii) is configured to image the structured light source as by a pinhole effect and thereby form a spatially inverted representation of the structured light source as an image of the structured light source on the reference mark photodetector array;” (emphasis added by Examiner).
Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2 of the pending application (provided below) show embodiments wherein the reference marker 202 is arranged between periodic marks 200 (see Fig. 1(a)), and the structured light source 300, the reference mark photodetector array 310, and the incremental photodetector array 320 are all arranged on a readhead on the same side of the scale 2 (see Figs. 1(b) and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The embodiment(s) of Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2 show wherein “In this embodiment, the periodic marks form a phase grating on the scale which can cause, when illuminated a fringe field pattern to be formed by light reflected therefrom.” See page 17, lines 15-17 of the pending specification. In this embodiment, light reflects off the scale 2 and is detected by reference photodetector array 310 and incremental photodetector array 320. As best understood by the Examiner, this embodiment employs a reflective effect and, therefore, does not implement a “pinhole effect” as claimed.
The embodiment of Fig. 4 (see below) employs a “pinhole effect” without any explanation how to combine the embodiment of Fig. 4 with the embodiment of Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2. In Fig. 4, the structured light source 300 and reference mark photodetector array 310 are arranged on opposite sides of the pinhole 202 feature. This arrangement contrasts what is disclosed in the embodiment of Figs. (a), 1(b), and 2 wherein the structured light source 300, the reference mark photodetector array 310, and the incremental photodetector array 320 are all arranged on a readhead on the same side of the scale 2.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the Examiner, the reference mark 202 of Fig. 1a would not be reasonably interpreted as being “configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect” as recited in claim 1. Further, the “pinhole effect” would require the reference mark photodetector to be arranged on an opposite side of the track from the structured light source and the disclosure provides no teachings where the photodetector array for the incremental signal is arranged on the opposite side of the structured light source. The claims fail to provide any guidance for combining the embodiment of Fig. 4 with the embodiment of Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2, and, therefore, amended claims 1-17 fail to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements under 112(a).
Claims 15 and 16 specifies the reference mark is a pinhole and is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above.
Claims 3-14 and 17 are rejected through a dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As outlined above, the specification fails to provide any example embodiments or instructions for combining the limitation “the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting incremental signal being on the same side of the scale” as illustrated in Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2 with the limitation “the at least one reference mark … (ii) is configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect” as illustrated in the embodiment of Fig. 4.
In each embodiment disclosed, the photodetector array for detecting the incremental signal is arranged on the same side of the track as the structured light source. See Figs. 1(a), 1(b), 2, and 7(a)-(c). However, embodiments illustrating a “pinhole effect” (see figs. 4 and 8) show the reference mark photodetector array arranged on an opposite side of the track from the structured light source. Therefore, disclosure as originally filed fails to provide any guidance for combining the embodiment of Fig. 4 with the embodiment of Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 2 to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Thus, the disclosed examples do not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0195130 (cited herein as D1 with cited paragraphs corresponding to the cited machine translation) in view of US 2018/0216972 (Slack-972) and US 10,281,301 (Slack-301).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an incremental measurement encoder (position measuring device 12 of Fig. 1 or 2 shown below) comprising:
a scale comprising a periodic series of features forming an incremental track and at least one reference mark (measuring standard 2 comprises a periodic series of incremental graduations 3 and a reference mark in the form of fine gap 52; see Fig. 1 or 2; see [0013] of translation);
a structured light source (an optical transmitter is formed by a reference mark R2 (corresponding to reference mark R of Fig. 1) having irregularly distributed translucent and opaque lines and is irradiated by an illumination; see [0011] and [0013] of translation; see Fig. 1 or 2); and
a readhead comprising a reference mark photodetector array and a photodetector array for detecting an incremental signal, the reference mark photodetector array and the photodetector array for detecting incremental signal being on the same side of the scale (scanning device 4 includes scanning fields 5a-5d and reference mark scanning fields RA and photodetectors P2 form a reference mark photodetector array arranged on the same side of the material measure 2; see Fig. 1), wherein:
the at least one reference mark is configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect and thereby form a spatially inverted representation of the structured light source as an image of the structured light source on the reference mark photodetector array (fine slit 52 which operates as an imaging element according to the pinhole camera principle and after the radiation has passed through the slit 52, it falls, according to the laws of optics, mirror-inverted onto reference mark scanning fields RA2, which are followed by photodetectors P2 for evaluating the reference signal thus generated; see [0013] of translation); and
the structured light source comprises an array of unevenly spaced light sources that emits incoherent light (reference mark R2 (corresponding to reference mark R of Fig. 1) has irregularly distributed translucent and opaque lines and is irradiated by an illumination; see [0011] and [0013] of translation; see Figs. 1 or 2).
D1 fails to explicitly teach the at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track; and wherein the structured light source emits incoherent light. Although D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the light source is incoherent, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret the light source of D1 as being an incoherent light source as no coherent or specialized light source is recited. Further, DE 1814785 (which is provided as a supporting reference but not relied on in the current rejection) teaches wherein the light source is a lamp (see lamp 12 in Fig. 1 and pg. 2, line 43 of the translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a lamp as disclosed in D1 as an incoherent light source, Slack is provided for additional support.
Slack-301 teaches at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track (D1 teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the reference marker 54 is placed in a separate track next to the incremental graduation 34, and Slack-301 teaches wherein a reference marker (216, 316) may be placed in a separate track adjacent to incremental track (210, 310) or the reference mark 416 may be embedded in the same track as the incremental track 410. See Figs. 10-12; see col. 12, lines 43-50; Further: Slack-301 teaches wherein the incremental track and reference mark are arranged side by side (See Fig. 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 16) or wherein the reference mark is arranged between the incremental marks (see Fig. 12). Slack further teaches wherein the marks may be a transmissive scale (see Figs. 1-9) or a reflective scale (see Figs. 10-18, see col. 4, lines 30-31)).
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 features of Slack-301 into D1 as embedding the reference mark in the incremental track allows the reference position to be determined using only a single track, wherein the reference position is determined in an equivalent manner as when the reference mark is arranged in a second track adjacent to the incremental track, wherein the limitations as claimed would amount to a mere variation of transmissive/reflective scales and rearranging the reference mark from side-by-side with the incremental scale to in between incremental scales as an obvious alternative configuration to that disclosed in D1 without providing any new or unexpected results.
Slack-972 teaches wherein the structured light source emits incoherent light (wherein an incremental encoder comprising an incremental track 10 and a reference track comprising a reference mark 16 of Fig. 1 comprises a light source 18 wherein the light source may be an incoherent light source (see 6a and [0038]) or coherent light source (see 7a and [0040])).
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 features of Slack-972 into D1 as both coherent and incoherent light sources are known in the art. While one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the light source in D1 as an incoherent light source, for reasons provided above, Slack teaches wherein the light source may be coherent or incoherent without providing any new or unexpected results.
PNG
media_image4.png
296
413
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, D1 teaches an incremental measurement encoder (position measuring device 12 of Fig. 1 or 2 shown below) comprising:
a scale comprising a periodic series of features forming an incremental track and at least one reference mark (measuring standard 2 comprises a periodic series of incremental graduations 3 and a reference mark in the form of fine gap 52; see Fig. 1 or 2; see [0013] of translation);
a structured light source (an optical transmitter is formed by a reference mark R2 (corresponding to reference mark R of Fig. 1) having irregularly distributed translucent and opaque lines and is irradiated by an illumination; see [0011] and [0013] of translation; see Fig. 1 or 2); and
a reference mark photodetector array (reference mark scanning fields RA and photodetectors P2 form a reference mark photodetector array arranged on the same side of the material measure 2; see Fig. 1 or 2), wherein:
the at least one reference mark is configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect and thereby form a spatially inverted representation of the structured light source as an image of the structured light source on the reference mark photodetector array (fine slit 52 which operates as an imaging element according to the pinhole camera principle and after the radiation has passed through the slit 52, it falls, according to the laws of optics, mirror-inverted onto reference mark scanning fields RA2, which are followed by photodetectors P2 for evaluating the reference signal thus generated; see [0013] of translation); and
the structured light source comprises an array of unevenly spaced light sources that emits incoherent light (reference mark R2 (corresponding to reference mark R of Fig. 1) has irregularly distributed translucent and opaque lines and is irradiated by an illumination; see [0011] and [0013] of translation; see Figs. 1 or 2).
D1 fails to explicitly teach the at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track; and wherein the structured light source emits incoherent light. Although D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the light source is incoherent, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret the light source of D1 as being an incoherent light source as no coherent or specialized light source is recited. Further, DE 1814785 (which is provided as a supporting reference but not relied on in the current rejection) teaches wherein the light source is a lamp (see lamp 12 in Fig. 1 and pg. 2, line 43 of the translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a lamp as disclosed in D1 as an incoherent light source, Slack is provided for additional support.
Slack-301 teaches at least one reference mark (i) is embedded within the incremental track so as to be located between features of the periodic series of features forming the incremental track (D1 teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the reference marker 54 is placed in a separate track next to the incremental graduation 34, and Slack-301 teaches wherein a reference marker (216, 316) may be placed in a separate track adjacent to incremental track (210, 310) or the reference mark 416 may be embedded in the same track as the incremental track 410. See Figs. 10-12; see col. 12, lines 43-50; Further: Slack-301 teaches wherein the incremental track and reference mark are arranged side by side (See Fig. 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 16) or wherein the reference mark is arranged between the incremental marks (see Fig. 12). Slack further teaches wherein the marks may be a transmissive scale (see Figs. 1-9) or a reflective scale (see Figs. 10-18, see col. 4, lines 30-31)).
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 features of Slack-301 into D1 as embedding the reference mark in the incremental track allows the reference position to be determined using only a single track, wherein the reference position is determined in an equivalent manner as when the reference mark is arranged in a second track adjacent to the incremental track, wherein the limitations as claimed would amount to a mere variation of transmissive/reflective scales and rearranging the reference mark from side-by-side with the incremental scale to in between incremental scales as an obvious alternative configuration to that disclosed in D1 without providing any new or unexpected results.
Slack-972 teaches wherein the structured light source emits incoherent light (wherein an incremental encoder comprising an incremental track 10 and a reference track comprising a reference mark 16 of Fig. 1 comprises a light source 18 wherein the light source may be an incoherent light source (see 6a and [0038]) or coherent light source (see 7a and [0040])).
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 features of Slack-972 into D1 as both coherent and incoherent light sources are known in the art. While one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the light source in D1 as an incoherent light source, for reasons provided above, Slack teaches wherein the light source may be coherent or incoherent without providing any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, D1 teaches wherein the image formed comprises a one-dimensional image (the position measuring device 12 has an equivalent structure to the corresponding claimed embodiment of the pending application (shown below), and includes a one-dimensional array of reference marking scanning fields RA2, such that the sensor would also reasonably generate a one-dimensional image; see Fig. 2; also see DE 1814785 as an additional supporting reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
463
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, D1 teaches wherein at least one signal, which is used to determine the presence of the at least one reference mark, is derived from output of the reference mark photodetector array, wherein the at least one signal comprises a main lobe and side lobes which occur as the readhead passes over the at least one reference mark, and wherein the incremental measurement encoder is configured such that a magnitude of the side lobes is no greater than 75% of a magnitude of the main lobe (DI teaches a sensor with all the structural limitations as claimed and would reasonably be configured to determine the reference zero point perform with the signals generated from the photodetectors generated in an equivalent manner as claimed; see rejection of claim 1; see [0002], [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 14, D1 teaches configured to provide a reference position signal which is repeatable to within a unit of resolution of the incremental measurement encoder (the finest lines of the grating of a reference mark are as wide as the grating constant G of an incremental division; see [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, D1 teaches wherein the at least one reference mark comprises a pinhole that is elongate in a direction perpendicular to a measurement direction of the scale (fine gap 52 is elongate in a direction perpendicular to a measurement direction of the material measure 22; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, D1 teaches wherein the at least one reference mark comprises a pinhole is transmissive; and wherein the pinhole is reflective (the pinhole may be made to be transmissive or reflective; see Figs. 1 and 2; see [0013]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0195130 (cited herein as D1 with cited paragraphs corresponding to the cited machine translation) in view of US 2018/0216972 (Slack-972) and US 10,281,301 (Slack-301), and in further view of JP 2005-83808 (identified herein as “Reference 1”; see translation provided by the applicant with the IDS filed 5/23/2023).
Regarding claim 4, D1 fails to teach wherein the light from the structured light source is also used to produce a resultant field at a photodetector for detecting an incremental change in position of the readhead relative to the scale.
Reference 1 teaches wherein light from the structured light source is also used to produce a resultant field at a photodetector for detecting an incremental change in position of the readhead relative to the scale (substrate 50 is equivalent to a readhead and the light source 1 and openings 2 and 22 form a structured light source and wherein the relative movement photodetector 66 detects the relative movement of the optical encoder; see Fig. 6; see [0097], [0101]-[0112]).
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 features in which wherein light from the structured light source is also used to produce a resultant field at a photodetector for detecting an incremental change in position of a readhead relative to the scale as taught in Fig. 6 of Reference 1 into the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Reference 1 in order to gain the advantage of a detector which is configured as an optical origin detection sensor and an optical encoder in order to detect the origin with high accuracy even when using a light source whose light exit width in the scale moving direction is large and whose light intensity distribution changes over time. While Fig. 1 does not explicitly show relative movement optical pattern and corresponding photodetectors as shown in Fig. 6, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the scale to comprise an incremental track and corresponding photodetectors in order for the device to operate as both an origin detection sensor and an optical encoder.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0195130 (cited herein as D1 with cited paragraphs corresponding to the cited machine translation) in view of US 2018/0216972 (Slack-972) and US 10,281,301 (Slack-301), and in further view of Weston et al. US 2010/0072456 (Weston).
Regarding claim 5, D1 fails to teach an incremental measurement encoder wherein a grating is directly mounted on the structured light source.
Weston teaches an incremental measurement encoder wherein a grating is directly mounted on the structured light source (an index grating 5 is mounted directly to LED 15; see Fig. 2; see [0056]).
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 features of an incremental measurement encoder wherein a grating is directly mounted on the structured light source as taught in Weston into D1 in order to gain the advantage of a reduction in overall size, footprint, weight, and cost.
Regarding claim 10, D1 fails to teach an incremental measurement encoder wherein the elements of the reference mark photodetector array are sized and/or spaced so as to be insensitive to the phase of a fringe field generated by the incremental scale track and falling on the reference mark photodetector array.
Weston teaches an incremental measurement encoder wherein the elements of the reference mark photodetector array are sized and/or spaced so as to be insensitive to the phase of a fringe field generated by the incremental scale track and falling on the reference mark photodetector array (corresponding size of the mask pattern over the reference mark photo detectors 60 is such that each feature is an integer multiple of the fringe pattern formed by the interaction of the rays of light from the incremental light emitting diode, 2, 15, the index grating, 5, and the scale, 12, thereby making the reference mark photo detectors, 51, 56, insensitive to said fringe pattern; see [0114]).
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 features of an incremental measurement encoder wherein the elements of the reference mark photodetector array are sized and/or spaced so as to be insensitive to the phase of a fringe field generated by the incremental scale track and falling on the reference mark photodetector array as taught in Weston into D1 in order to gain the advantage of a reference mark detector which is not sensitive to a fringe pattern from the incremental encoder as fringe patterns from the encoder would interfere with measurements of the reference marker.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0195130 (cited herein as D1 with cited paragraphs corresponding to the cited machine translation) in view of US 2018/0216972 (Slack-972) and US 10,281,301 (Slack-301), and in further view of US 7,624,513 (Howley).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, D1 fails to teach in which the reference mark photodetector array comprises at least first and second sets of photodetector elements, each set comprising a plurality of spaced apart photodetector elements, and each set being configured to separately detect the image at laterally offset positions; and in which the signal which is used to determine the presence of the at least one reference mark is derived from at least two sets of photodetector elements.
Howley teaches in which the reference mark photodetector array comprises at least first and second sets of photodetector elements, each set comprising a plurality of spaced apart photodetector elements, and each set being configured to separately detect the image provided by the at least one imaging element at laterally offset positions; and in which the signal which is used to determine the presence of the at least one reference mark is derived from at least two sets of photodetector elements (a detector system comprises a split or bi-cell detector to determine the position of a reference mark signal zero crossing point 39 by configuring each detector of reference 1 with the bi-cell detector of Howley; see Figs. 3, 4; see col. 3, line 38 – col. 4, line 8).
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 features in which the reference mark photodetector array comprises at least first and second sets of photodetector elements, each set comprising a plurality of spaced apart photodetector elements, and each set being configured to separately detect the image provided by the at least one imaging element at laterally offset positions; and in which the signal which is used to determine the presence of the at least one reference mark is derived from at least two sets of photodetector elements as taught in Howley into D1 in order to gain the advantage of a detector comprising two cells which results in a detector configured to generate sum and difference signals wherein the summed signal is used to gate the zero-crossing position of the difference signal which are used to calibrate and determine the position of a reference mark signal.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0195130 (cited herein as D1 with cited paragraphs corresponding to the cited machine translation) in view of US 2018/0216972 (Slack-972), US 10,281,301 (Slack-301) and US 7,624,513 (Howley), and in further view of US 2010/0072456 (Weston).
Regarding claim 7, D1 fails to teach an incremental measurement encoder in which the at least first and second sets of photodetector elements are interleaved.
Weston teaches an incremental measurement encoder in which the at least first and second sets of photodetector elements are interleaved (the photodectors are interleaved; see Figs. 9a, b; see [0017]).
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 features of an incremental measurement encoder in which the at least first and second sets of photodetector elements are interleaved as taught in Weston into D1 in order to gain the advantage of collecting signals from numerous locations such that adverse effects of contaminant particles causing obstructions in the optical path such as dust have little effect on the resultant output signal.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of D1, Slack, and Howley further teaches wherein, in use, a reference mark zero-point crossing signal is determined based on output from at least the first and second sets of photodetector elements ([0002] and [0012] of D1 teaches determining a reference zero point and it would be obvious to determine the position based on first and second sets of detector elements as disclosed by Howley in the rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of D1, Slack, and Howley further teaches wherein, in use, based on the output of at least the first and second sets of photodetector elements, the measurement encoder monitors for the reference mark zero-point crossing ([0002] and [0012] of D1 teaches determining a reference zero point and it would be obvious to determine the reference zero point based on first and second sets of detector elements as disclosed by Howley in the rejection of claim 6 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-21 are allowed.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach an incremental measurement encoder, comprising wherein the at least one reference mark comprises a first pinhole and a second pinhole, the first pinhole and the second pinhole configured to image the structured light source by a pinhole effect and thereby form a spatially inverted representation of the structured light source as an image of the structured light source on the reference mark photodetector array, in combination with all other limitations of claim 18. The claim best corresponds to the embodiment of Fig. 8 of the pending application, wherein a second pinhole results in a structured/coded pattern in a manner which is not obvious over the prior art.
Claims 19-21, definite and enabled by the specification, are allowed through a dependence on allowed claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858