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 § 103
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 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) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5038243 (herein Gordon) in view of JP2015129660A (herein Uzuka).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches Method for capturing an absolute rotational position of a shaft using at least two rotational material measures which are synchronously coupled to the shaft (encoder gear 130, 132, Col. 5, Lines 21-24; Fig. 3B and Col. 5, Lines 21-24 teach gears 130, 132 coupled to shaft 108 via drive gear 128) comprising
the at least two material measures with a different number of graduations which are each relatively prime in pairs (gears have different, and preferably relatively prime, numbers of teeth so that their index marks process relative to each other, Col. 3, Lines 33-35),
a determination of the state of the individual material measures by sensors, wherein a quantizable number of rotational states Ni is captured for each material measure (sensors 142, 148 and 150, Col. 5, Lines 14-33),
the total measurement range of the capture system is determined by the product N=π.sub.i=1 N.sub.i of the possible states of all material measures, and each combination of states occurs exactly once in the total measurement range N, with the result that (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20),
characterized by the at least two material measures which partially have a multiple of the required graduation for determining the states, and/or at least individual material measures are used in a cascaded and state-synchronous manner (Figs. 3a-3e teach gear 132 cascaded and state-synchronous to gear 130).
Additionally regarding claim 1, Gordon does not teach, “the absolute position of the shaft can be determined at any time from the combination of states of the material measures.” However, Uzuka teaches it is known in the art to detect rotation angle regardless of initial position, using angular difference of gear 2 and 3 from sensors s1-s4 (see p. 2 of translation, and corresponding equations).
Regarding claim 2, Gordon teaches characterized in that three or more rotational material measures are coupled to the shaft, and/or that a direct, synchronous or slip-free coupling of the material measures to the shaft is present (Col. 5, Lines 21-24 teaches encoder gears 130, 132, 134 is coupled to shaft 108 via driving gear 128; Col. 4, Line 66 teach gears have teeth which are slip-free).
Regarding claim 3, Gordon teaches characterized in that the absolute position of the shaft is determined by calculation via the combination of states, and or an absolute position determination is determined after a standstill or voltage failure via the combination of states (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20; Col. 7, Lines 25-26 teach motor stoppage).
Regarding claim 4, Gordon teaches characterized in that the material measures consist of permanent magnets or signal-influencing elements, and/or that the states of the material measures are evaluated by optical, capacitive, inductive, or resistive sensors (sensor 142 includes an emitter 144 and a detector 146 on opposite sides of gear 130. Gear 130 blocks light emitted from emitter 144, Col. 5, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon teaches the at least two material measures consist of sensor gear wheels with a different number of teeth as the graduations, or that the at least two material measures consist of a coding disk with a different number of signal-changed elements as the graduations (Col. 4, Line 66 teach gears have teeth; code wheel 122, Col. 4, Line 57).
Regarding claim 7, Gordon teaches a Device for capturing a rotational position of a shaft independent of it being switched on whose absolute rotational position, or the position of a sensory mechanism with respect to a toothed rack, is to be determined (Fig. 3),
wherein a coupling of the shaft or the toothed rack, respectively, to at least two sensor gear wheels of a sensory mechanism (sensors 142, 148 and 150, Col. 5, Lines 14-33) which have a different number of graduations which are each relatively prime in pairs is accomplished (Fig. 3B and Col. 5, Lines 21-24 teach gears 130, 132 coupled to shaft 108 via drive gear 128; gears have different, and preferably relatively prime, numbers of teeth so that their index marks process relative to each other, Col. 3, Lines 33-35),
characterized in that the shaft is equipped with at least one gear wheel as a material measure which has a multiple of the required graduation for determining the states and is designed independent of the diameter of the shaft, or a toothed rack with a plurality of teeth for determining the position of the sensory mechanism (Drive gear 128 has 23 teeth, Col. 4, Lines 65-66),
wherein the sensor gear wheels of the sensory mechanism are equipped with a clearly smaller diameter which mesh with the gear wheel of the shaft or the toothed rack, respectively, in a state-synchronous manner (Col. 4, Line 63-Col. 5, Line 4 teach setup, and shown in Fig. 2).
Additionally regarding claim 7, Gordon does not teach finding a position “independent of it being switched on.” However, Uzuka teaches it is known in the art to detect rotation angle regardless of initial position or initialization, using angular difference of gear 2 and 3 from sensors s1-s4 (see p. 2 of translation, and corresponding equations).
For the above claims 1-5 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate Uzuka’s detection methodology into the position determination of Gordon. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of determining absolute rotation in a simplified manner have reduced size (p. 2), and not requiring initialization.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon and US 5629682 (herein Hylton).
Regarding claim 6, Gordon teaches Device for capturing a rotational position of a shaft independent of it being switched on, comprising
at least one housing (see equivalent housing in Fig. 1) with a manually rotatable
wherein the rotational position of the shaft can be transmitted to a production plant to be controlled via controlling elements (robot arm 102, motor 110, Col. 4, Lines 30-32), and
wherein a direct coupling of the
characterized in that the material measures at least partially have a multiple of the required graduation for determining the states, and/or at least individual material measures are arranged in a cascaded and state-synchronous manner (Figs. 3a-3e teach gear 132 cascaded and state-synchronous to gear 130; see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20 for combination state examples).
Regarding claim 8, Gordon teaches characterized in that a determination of states of the individual material measures is accomplished by sensors (sensors 142, 148 and 150, Col. 5, Lines 14-33), wherein each material measure is defined by a quantizable number of rotational states N.sub.i (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20 for explanation of states).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon teaches characterized in that the total measurement range is determined by the product N=π.sub.i=1 N.sub.i of the possible states of all material measures (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20 for explanation of states).
Regarding claim 10, Gordon teaches characterized in that each combination of states occurs exactly once in the total measurement range N, with the result that the absolute position of the shaft can be determined at any time from the combination of states of the material measures (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20 for explanation of states).
Regarding claim 11, Gordon teaches three or four rotational material measures are coupled to the shaft, and/or a direct, synchronous or slip-free coupling of the material measures to the shaft is present (Col. 5, Lines 21-24 teaches encoder gears 130, 132, 134 is coupled to shaft 108 via driving gear 128; Col. 4, Line 66 teach gears have teeth which are slip-free).
Regarding claim 12, Gordon teaches characterized in that an absolute position determination is determined after a standstill or voltage failure via the combination of states, and/or the absolute position of the shaft can be determined by a comparison of tables via the combination of states (see Fig. 4 and Col. 6, Lines 3-20; Col. 7, Lines 25-26 teach motor stoppage; Fig. 4 teach comparison tables).
Regarding claim 13, Gordon teaches characterized in that the material measures consist of permanent magnets or signal-influencing elements, and/or the states of the material measures are evaluated by optical, capacitive, inductive, or resistive sensors (sensor 142 includes an emitter 144 and a detector 146 on opposite sides of gear 130. Gear 130 blocks light emitted from emitter 144, Col. 5, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 14, Gordon teaches each material measure is composed of individual angular segments in the form of a gear wheel and is connected with a shaft, and/or each material measure is present in the form of a gear wheel independent of the diameter of the shaft (Col. 4, Line 66 teach gears have teeth).
Regarding claim 15, Gordon teaches each material measure consists of sensor gear wheels with a different number of teeth as a graduation, or each material measure consists of a coding disk with a different number of signal-generating elements as a graduation (Col. 4, Line 66 teach gears have teeth; code wheel 122, Col. 4, Line 57).
Regarding claim 16, Gordon teaches at least two individual material measures are arranged in a cascaded manner (Additional gears may be cascaded, Col. 5, Lines 41-43).
Additionally regarding claims 6 and 8-16, Gordon does not teach the shaft being hollow. However, Hylton teaches it is known in the art for motor shafts 220 connected to encoder assemblies 200 (Fig. 11) to be hollow (shaft 220 is preferably constructed with a hollow center, Col. 8, Lines 51-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to simply substitute the shaft of Gordon with a hollow shaft of Hylton because both predictably connect motors to encoders. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/23/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1- 5 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Gordon remains relevant as presented above. The Office agreed with the Applicant in regard to Gordon requiring initialization. However, Uzuka is presented to indicate that it is known in the art to determine position similarly and independent of any startup or initialization.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the hollow shaft of Hylton would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art due to the different approaches of both inventions. The Office disagrees. The hollow shaft 200 of Hylton would function just as the shaft of Gordon, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it very predictable as both shafts function to transmit motion along an axis. A hollow axis would provide benefits such as less materials used, and lighter weight, and again both of these benefits offer predictable results without undue experimentation. The Office therefore maintains its rejection of claims 6 and 8-15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
