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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 1/14/2026. Claims 17-23 are pending. Claims 1-16 were canceled. Claims 17 and 19 were amended. Claim 23 was added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments reference “Yoshida”. The Applicant does not identify what Yoshida reference is discussed, as Yoshida was not relied on the for previous rejection. The Examiner is interpreting Yoshida as US 2015/0123585 cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/16/2024 and the Final Rejection filed 1/10/2025.
The pending rejection is made in view of US 2012/0205527 (Yoshida), however, the Applicant’s arguments are equally applicable between both Yoshida references, i.e. US 2012/0205527 used in the pending rejection and US 2015/0123585 recited in previous rejections.
The Applicant argues on page 5 of arguments filed 1/14/2026:
Yoshida, on the other hand, discloses two separate absolute tracks, but they are tracks of reflective sectors, read by an optical sensor comprising a light emitting diode and an array of photosensors, rather than by inductive sensors. Therefore, the subject matter is not relevant to the presently amended claims.
This argument is not persuasive as it is well-known in the art that absolute encoders may be implement optical, magnetic, inductive, or capacitive measurements systems. When implemented as inductive or eddy current sensors the track comprises conductive patterns detected by magnetic sensors and when implemented as an optical sensor the track comprises reflective/transmission patterns detected by photo-optical sensors. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement an absolute encoder having conductive patterns detected by a magnetic sensor or reflective patterns detected by photo-detectors without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
For example, Masreliez et al. US 5,886,519 teaches in col. 2, lines 34-40 that “conventional encoders attempt to provide a motion or position transducer insensitive to contaminants, yet more inexpensively manufactured than the optical, capacitive, magnetic or inductive transducers…”. Masreliez further teaches in col. 58, line 60 – col. 59, lines 3:
“While the preferred embodiments of this invention are generally described as using the inductive transducer of this invention, the binary code transducers can be implemented using any known transducer configuration, such as an optical encoder. With an optical encoder, the flux modulators 170 will instead be reflectors having a reflectance different than that of the spaces between the reflectors. The reflectors thus represent the logical "1" values, while the spaces represent the logical "0" values. The read head would include a photodetector that senses one bit at a time as either a logical "1" or "0" value, depending upon its reflectance.”
The inductive absolute position transducer 200, see Fig. 7, use conductive disruptors 170 for the absolute position track alternating between conductive and non-conductive forming binary code elements where are grouped into binary codewords that define an absolute position. See Fig. 7, col. 17 starting at line 38, and col. 5, lines 30-65.
Additional support may also be found in previously recited references. Hollenstein et al. US 2020/0018598 states in [0034], “Instead of magnetism, the coded identifier and the coded-identifier reader may rely on other principles such as optical, inductive, or capacitive coding/decoding.” Kapner US 2017/0167893 and Cook US 2017/0089738 both teach in [0004], “Various position transducers are available, such as optical, capacitive, and inductive transducers.”
Finally, the pending application teaches (see [0108] of corresponding Pg. Pub. US 2023/0366702), “the reader can be configured to capacitively and/or magnetically and/or optically sense at least a (or another) subset the marking arrangement and/or the periodic markings, said subset of marking arrangement and/or the periodic markings enabling a capacitively and/or resistively and/or magnetically and/or optically sensing.” See also [0021], [0108], and claim 9 as originally filed 3/31/2023. It is illogical to conclude the optical detectors are not relevant to the presently amended claims while simultaneously disclosing the reader may be configured for “a capacitively and/or resistively and/or magnetically and/or optically sensing”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the limitations of claim 1 as a capacitive sensor, resistive sensor, magnetic sensor, or optical sensor without requiring undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected result.
Therefore, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that principles related to an absolute inductive transducer having conductive patterns on an absolute track are interchangeable with absolute optical transducers having reflective patterns in lieu of conductive disruptors. Therefore, while Hsiao teaches an encoder comprising an inductive track, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the encoder using an optical sensor having reflectors instead of conductors.
The Applicant further argues on page 5 of arguments filed 1/14/2026:
In fact, Applicant submits that neither Hsiao nor Yoshida disclose inductive detectors and they both rely on optical detection. While optical detectors can generate position signals with two distinct signal levels and sharp transitions between them, inductive detectors cannot achieve that, and generally give rise to continuous signals. Despite that, the inventors have found that, by providing two distinct and shifted absolute tracks, and a third incremental track as claimed, the position can be read reliably and without ambiguity. Thus, the claimed subject matter is not obvious from the cited references. (Emphasis provided by the Examiner).
As best understood by the Examiner, the Applicant is arguing the claimed invention is not applicable to optical detectors (e.g. as disclosed in Yoshida) since the transitions present in optical detectors are sharp whereas transitions in inductive sensors are not sharp which “generally give rise to continuous signals”. The Applicant’s argument that the pending claims are not applicable to optical detectors is mere speculation which 1) contradicts what is disclosed in the pending application and claims as filed, and 2) is not supported in view of the prior art.
First, the Applicant’s argument is factually incorrect as Hsiao does not rely on optical detection. Sensing components 31-35 are all identified as “magnetic sensing components”. See [0019]. Hsiao makes no reference to “optical detection” as recited in the arguments. Further, inductive sensors are well-known in the art for detecting magnetic fields.
Second, Yoshida teaches in claim [0069]:
When the absolute position is represented by such an absolute pattern, in an area where the bit pattern by detection or nondetection of the light reception signal changes, the detection precision of the absolute position is reduced. Consequently, in the present embodiment, the two slit arrays SA1, SA2 are formed. The same absolute patterns as those described above of the these two slit arrays SA1, SA2, respectively are offset from each other by, for example, the length 1/2 of the one bit in the measurement axis C direction. The amount of offset is a value corresponding to, for example, half the pitch between the plurality of light receiving elements of the light receiving array, to be described later. As a result of this, in the encoder 100 of the present embodiment, the absolute position is calculated using the detection signal from the slit SA2 or the opposite operation is performed when, for example, the absolute position by the slit SA1 corresponds to the part where the bit pattern changes. As a result of this, it is possible to improve the detection precision of the absolute position. In the present embodiment, the respective absolute patterns of the slit arrays SA1, SA2 are offset against each other. However, it may also be possible to offset the light receiving arrays corresponding to the slit arrays SA1, SA2, respectively, against each other instead of offsetting the absolute patterns, for example.
While the Applicant’s arguments suggest “optical detectors can generate position signals with two distinct signal levels and sharp transitions between them”, Yoshida discloses detection precision is reduced at the transition. Yoshida addresses this in an equivalent manner as claimed by using two tracks, i.e. slit arrays SA1, SA2, having the same pattern but offset from each other and “the absolute position is calculated using the detection signal from the slit SA2 or the opposite operation is performed when, for example, the absolute position by the slit SA1 corresponds to the part where the bit pattern changes. As a result of this, it is possible to improve the detection precision of the absolute position.”
As best understood by the Examiner, Yoshida teaches subject matter equivalent to the limitations as claimed, except the encoder of Yoshida uses reflective patterns and optical detectors in place of conductive patterns and inductive sensors as claimed. As stated above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement capacitive, magnetic, inductive, or optical sensors without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. Therefore, the claims would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by merely substituting the reflective patterns and optical detectors of Yoshida with conductive patterns and inductive detectors.
Finally, Yoshida teaches in [0069], “In the present embodiment, the respective absolute patterns of the slit arrays SA1, SA2 are offset against each other. However, it may also be possible to offset the light receiving arrays corresponding to the slit arrays SA1, SA2, respectively, against each other instead of offsetting the absolute patterns, for example.” Fig. 4 corresponds to where “the respective absolute patterns of the slit arrays SA1, SA2 are offset against each other.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the latter configuration wherein the sensors are offset against each other instead of offsetting the absolute patterns corresponds to the configuration disclosed in Hsiao, except Hsiao discloses magnetic patterns detected by magnetic detectors.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as outlined below.
Therefore, claims 17-22 stand rejected as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, please amend the following limitation for clarity: “the reader comprising a first series of inductive detectors and a second series of inductive detectors configured to sense said first sequence, respectively second sequence to generate respectively a first absolute position code and a second absolute position code,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 17-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0364068 (Hsiao) in view of US 2012/0205527 (Yoshida) and US 5,886,519 (Masreliez).
Regarding claim 17, Hsiao teaches an absolute position encoder for a measuring instrument (encoder device 2 obtains absolute position for an object mounted to the encoder device; see Fig. 5), comprising
a digital scale and a reader movable relative to the digital scale, the digital scale being arranged along a travel direction of the reader (a digital scale 2 and readout device 3 movable with respect to the digital scale 2 along a direction X; see Fig. 3; see [0017]),
said digital scale comprising a first absolute position track having a first sequence of discrete regions sharply separated from each other by separating regions (absolute magnetic track 21 includes discrete magnetized regions 211 separated from each other by boundary regions 210; see Fig. 3; [0004]),
the reader comprising a first series of detectors and a second series of detectors configured to sense said first sequence, respectively second sequence to generate respectively a first absolute position code and a second absolute position code (a group of first magnetic sensing components 31 and a group of second magnetic sensing components 32 sense the absolute-magnetized track regions 211 and generate first and second absolute position codes; see Fig. 3; see [0021]),
wherein said first and second sequence and first and second series of detectors are disposed in such a way that none of the detectors of at least one of said first and second series of detectors is aligned with a transition between a discrete region and a separating region at each possible position of the reader relative to the digital scale (the sensing components 31 and 32 are configured such that at least one of the sensor groups is not aligned at a boundary, when in first-fourth conditions corresponding to Figs. 3-6, the signal from sensors 32 are used because the sensors 31 are configured at a boundary, and in when fifth-eighth conditions corresponding to Figs. 7-10, the signal from sensors 31 are used because the sensors 32 are configured at a boundary; see Figs. 3-10; see [0022]-[0031]),
the digital scale including a periodic track of periodic conductive markings, the reader having a third detector or a third series of detectors configured to sense said periodic track and generate an incremental position code (incremental track 22 is periodic and includes third and fourth sensing components 33, 34 to generate an incremental position code; see Fig. 3; see [0017]-[0031]),
the absolute position encoder comprising an electronic circuit configured to interpolate a phase value of the incremental position code, select the first absolute position code or the second absolute position code that is read by the series of detectors among which no detector is aligned with a transition based on the phase value, and generate an output absolute position code based on the selected absolute position code and the phase value (“The processing unit 4 is configured to select, based on a relative positional relationship (e.g., distance) between the third and fourth magnetic sensing components 33, 34, and a relative positional relationship between the third magnetic sensing component 33 and the first and second magnetic sensing components 31, 32 (e.g., displacement between the third magnetic sensing component 33 and the first magnetic sensing components 31, distance between adjacent first and second magnetic sensing components 31, 32, and/or posit ions of the first and second magnetic sensing components 31, 32 with respect to the absolute-track magnetized regions 211), magnetic fields sensed by one of the group of first magnetic sensing components 31 and the group of second magnetic sensing components 32, to perform decoding thereon so as to obtain absolute position information when one of a first condition, a second condition, a third condition and a fourth condition is satisfied, and to select magnetic fields sensed by the other one of the group of first magnetic sensing components 31 and the group of second magnetic sensing components 32 to perform decoding thereon so as to obtain absolute position information when one of a fifth condition, a sixth condition, a seventh condition and an eighth condition is satisfied. The processing unit 4 is electrically coupled to the group of first magnetic sensing components 31, the group of second magnetic sensing components 32, and the third to fifth magnetic sensing components 33-35.” See [0020]. “The processing unit 4 is set with a predetermined magnetic field range that corresponds to each incremental-track boundary 220, for example, ±30 Gs. In other words, the processing unit 4 determines that the third or fourth magnetic sensing component 33, 34 is at a position corresponding to one of the incremental-track boundaries 220 when the magnetic field sensed by the third or fourth magnetic sensing component 33, 34 falls within the predetermined magnetic field range, and determines that the third or fourth magnetic sensing component 33, 34 is at a position corresponding to the first or second incremental-track magnetized regions 221, 222 when otherwise.” See [0020]. In other words, the processor 4 determines the phase value of the sensors 33, 34 with respect to the incremental track 22 based on the measured magnetic field values from sensors 33, 34, wherein measured values that fall within a predetermined magnetic field range correspond to a phase position of one of the incremental track boundaries, and measured values that fall outside the predetermined magnetic field range correspond to a phase position of one of the incremental track magnetized regions 221, 222)..
Hsiao fails to teach said digital scale comprising a first absolute position track having a first sequence of discrete conductive regions sharply separated from each other by separating regions and a second absolute position track separate from the first absolute position track and having a second sequence of discrete conductive regions sharply separated from each other by separating regions that is a shifted replica of the first sequence, the reader comprising a first series of inductive detectors and a second series of inductive detectors, the reader having a third inductive detector or a third series of inductive detectors.
Yoshida teaches a digital scale comprising a first absolute position track having a first sequence of discrete regions sharply separated from each other by separating regions and a second absolute position track separate from the first absolute position track and having a second sequence of discrete regions sharply separated from each other by separating regions that is a shifted replica of the first sequence (an encoder comprises a first absolute position track SA1 and a second absolute position track SA2, each having the same absolute patterns corresponding to a first sequence of discrete regions sharply separated by separating regions, wherein SA1 and SA2 are offset from each other in the measurement axis C direction; see Fig. 4; see [0069]. Yoshida also notes in [0069], that “In the present embodiment, the respective absolute patterns of the slit arrays SA1, SA2 are offset against each other. However, it may also be possible to offset the light receiving arrays corresponding to the slit arrays SA1, SA2, respectively, against each other instead of offsetting the absolute patterns, for example.” The proposed alternative configuration corresponds to the configuration disclosed in Fig. 3 of Hsiao. Thus, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the configuration in Hsiao is an obvious variation of that disclosed in Yoshida to provide the same predictable result. See MPEP 2143 I. (A), (B)).
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 Yoshida into Hsiao in order to gain the advantage of improving the detection precision of the absolute position at a region where the bit pattern changes. Yoshida teaches the arrangement in Fig. 4 of Yoshida and the arrangement in Fig. 3 of Hsiao both provide the same benefit of improving the detection precision of the absolute position at a region where the bit pattern changes, and the arrangement of Yoshida may be substituted into Hsiao to obtain predictable results.
Masreliez teaches a track having a first sequence of discrete conductive regions a second sequence of discrete conductive regions, the reader comprising a first series of inductive detectors and a second series of inductive detectors, the reader having a third inductive detector or a third series of inductive detectors (Masreliez teaches and inductive absolute position transducer 200, see Fig. 7, having conductive disruptors 170 for the absolute position track alternating between conductive and non-conductive forming binary code elements where are grouped into binary codewords that define an absolute position detected using an inductive absolute position transducer. See Fig. 7, see col. 5, lines 30-65, and col. 17 starting at line 38. Masreliez further teaches in col. 58, line 60 – col. 59, lines 3: “While the preferred embodiments of this invention are generally described as using the inductive transducer of this invention, the binary code transducers can be implemented using any known transducer configuration, such as an optical encoder. With an optical encoder, the flux modulators 170 will instead be reflectors having a reflectance different than that of the spaces between the reflectors.”).
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 conductive patterns detected by inductive sensors as taught in Masreliez instead of magnetic patterns and magnetic sensors as disclosed Hsiao or reflective patterns and optical detectors as disclosed in Yoshida as these are known alternatives of absolute encoders and amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Regarding claim 18, Hsiao teaches the absolute position encoder configured as a linear position encoder or as an angle position encoder (the encoder of Fig. 3 is a linear encoder; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Hsiao teaches wherein the discrete regions of said at least one absolute position track differ from said separating regions by one of the following properties: optical opacity, optical reflectivity, electric conductivity, magnetization, and magnetic permeability (the tracks differ according to magnetization; see [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Hsiao teaches a measuring instrument or accessory for measuring instrument comprising the absolute position encoder of claim 1 (the encoder is configured with an object of a metrology systems, motion systems, CNC mills, semiconductor steppers; see [0021]).
Regarding claim 23, Hsiao fails to teach wherein the reader is configured to determine the incremental position code using four sinusoidal signals phase-shifted from each other by 0°, 90°, 180°, 270° generated by four couples of inductive detectors in the third series of inductive detectors.
Yoshida teaches wherein the reader is configured to determine the incremental position code using four sinusoidal signals phase-shifted from each other by 0°, 90°, 180°, 270° generated by four couples of inductive detectors in the third series of inductive detectors (the incremental signal is determined from four incremental signals the phases of which are shifted 90 degrees from one another, and the incremental signals detected are sinusoidal signals; see [0091]).
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 Yoshida into Hsiao in order to gain the advantage of measuring four sinusoidal signals which are 90 degrees apart such that the position data generator performs subtraction on the incremental signals the phase difference between which is 180 degrees of the incremental signals in four phases. By performing subtraction on the signals the phase difference between which is 180 degrees, it is possible to cancel out the manufacture errors and measurement errors of the reflection slit in one pitch. As described above, the signals resulting from the subtraction are referred to here as a first incremental signal and a second incremental signal. Then, the position data generator determines the electric angle by performing the arc tangent operation on the result of division of the two sinusoidal signals in the A phase and B phase
Regarding claim 21, Hsiao fails to teach the limitations as claimed.
Masreliez teaches the measurement instrument configured as a sliding calliper comprising a first jaw fixed relative to the digital scale and a second jaw slidable relative to the first jaw and fixed relative to the reader, whereby the absolute position encoder provides a value indicative of a distance between the first and second jaws (an encoder is configured with a caliper 100 in a manner equivalent to that as claimed; see Fig. 1).
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 as taught in Masreliez into Hsiao in order to gain the advantage of detecting an absolute pattern using a caliper tool to determine a position between jaws of a caliper in order to measure a length.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0364068 (Hsiao) in view of US 2012/0205527 (Yoshida) and US 5,886,519 (Masreliez), and in further view of US 2021/0088334 (Bembenek).
Regarding claim 22, Hsiao teaches the absolute position encoder of Fig. 1, but fails the encoder of claim 1 but fails to teach a survey pole comprising the absolute position, a first section fixed relative to the digital scale and a second section slidable relative to the first section and fixed relative to the reader, whereby the absolute position encoder provides a value indicative of a height of the survey pole.
Bembenek teaches a survey pole comprising the absolute position encoder, a first section fixed relative to the digital scale and a second section slidable relative to the first section and fixed relative to the reader, whereby the absolute position encoder provides a value indicative of a height of the survey pole (a support pole for land survey includes an electronic caliper 33 having a position sensor 34 for measuring a length adjustment of the extension portion 37 relative to a stationary base portion 36 of the support rod; see [0042]; see Figs. 1, 2b).
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 as taught in Bembenek into Hsiao in order to gain the advantage of determining the height of a survey pole using an absolute encoder as taught in Hsiao for the electronic caliper as taught in Bembenek.
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 on (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