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 .
Applicant added claims 11-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With these principles in mind, Examiner holds the position that: focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly.
The applicant argues, starting in page 4 of the applicant’s Remarks, that in the disclosure of Rasmussen, the indication means 175 is attached to the yoke or yoke shaft, not around the encoder 173, actually far away from the encoder 173, 373. In addition, the indication means 175 in Rasmussen is configured to indicate or determine the revolution number of the yoke in relation the base according to the indication signal of the indication means 175, not to determine the initial position for positioning. The encoder 173 is configurated to determine the yoke position in relation to the base at intermediate positions according to the axel position signal of the encoder 173. With the combination of the indication signal provided by the indication means 175 and the yoke actuator position signal provided by the encoder 173, accurate position can be achieved, namely the revolution number of the yoke adds the angular position of the yoke calculated based on the yoke actuator position signal and the gear ratio. This can be further proved by paragraph [0035] of the description of Rasmussen. Rasmussen thus only mentions how to position the yoke relative to the base or the head relative to the yoke, but is silent about how to determine an initial position for positioning, namely calibrating prior to positioning, let alone conducting comparison between the measured and stored output value of the encoder.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim does not recite “determining an initial position for positioning”. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is considered non-responsive to the claim as written and does not rebut the § 102 mapping of S1-S3 to Rasmussen.
The applicant argues, starting in page 5 of the applicant’s Remarks, that the preset positioning reference points 3 in the present invention are provided around the encoder 1. A first output value of the absolute encoder 1 at each preset positioning reference point 3 is obtained during rotating of the light fixture, especially before the light fixture leaving the factory. Then a second output value of the absolute encoder 1 at each preset positioning reference point 3 is obtained during rotating of the light fixture before positioning the light fixture, especially after leaving the factory.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim does not require when the “first” and the “second” output are taken; whether acquired before shipment or after shipments an unclaimed implementation detail under BRI see MPEP §2111.
The applicant further argues, starting in page 6 of the applicant’s Remarks, that no comparison between the measured and stored output value of the encoder 173, 373 is conducted in order to find the initial position and calibrate the position of the yoke.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because Rasmussen teaches that controller reads the present encoder value at a reference and uses a stored table/function to determine angle (see ¶¶ [0035] and [0057]). Functionally, matching a current encoder value to the stored value associated with that reference is a comparison/matching step.
The applicant further argues, starting in page 6 of the applicant’s Remarks, that “The Examiner further notes that on switch activation, controller reads current encoder value and recalibrates to the mapped reference, and if the switch senses over range, it averages start/end readings to hit the nominal reference. In this situation, the angular position of the yoke in relation to the base is determined based on an average value of the yoke actuator axel positions (see paragraph [0058] of the description of Rasmussen). Rasmussen only mentions that the yoke position can be calibrated with the configuration of the indication means (see paragraph [0047] of the description), and angular position of the yoke in relation to the base is determined based on an average value in some situation”
The examiner clarifies that Rasmussen explains that if a switch is active over a range, the controller may average start/end encoder readings to obtain the nominal reference value (see ¶ [0058]). This merely refines how the nominal stored reference is derived.; The framework still reads a current value at the reference and matches (using a lookup table) against the stored mapping (see ¶ [0057]).
The applicant further argues, starting in page 6 of the applicant’s Remarks, that “a comparison between the measured and stored output value of the encoder 1 is only required to find the initial position before positioning with the configuration of the positioning reference points, which reduces time and avoids noise relative to the traditional positioning method.” (emphasis underlined).
The examiner notes that such advantages of “reduces time and avoids noise relative to the traditional positioning method” are not recited claim elements.
Under 35 USC § 101
Although claim 1 include abstract ideas, claim 1 also recites additional elements
such as “setting a plurality of preset positioning reference points around a circumference of the absolute encoder, driving the light fixture to rotate by the driving device and acquiring a corresponding first output value of the absolute encoder at each preset positioning reference point”. The inclusion of these additional elements integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application that effects a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claims 1-10 are considered to be eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0102850) (hereinafter Rasmussen).
As per claim 1, Rasmussen teaches positioning of a light fixture (see paragraph [0028], i.e., “The controller can hereby position the head, yoke and base in any position allowable by the mechanics”), wherein an absolute encoder for indicating a rotation angle of the light fixture, and a driving device for driving the light fixture to rotate are included (see paragraphs [0025], [0028]-[0031], [0045], [0047], [0048] and [0063], the examiner notes the magnetic rotary encoder outputs angular positions, yoke/head actuators and drive mechanism to rotate the fixture), the self-calibration method comprises steps of: S1. setting a plurality of preset positioning reference points around a circumference of the absolute encoder, driving the light fixture to rotate by the driving device and acquiring a corresponding first output value of the absolute encoder at each preset positioning reference point (see paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0046]-[0049], and [0057], the examiner notes that fixed magnets + magnetic switches create preset reference points chosen gear ratio (18:128) makes each switch activation correspond to a unique encoder angle; controller reads encoder at activation and uses/stores a table/function); S2. Before positioning the light fixture, driving the light fixture to rotate by the driving device, and acquiring a second output value of the absolute encoder, when the second output value is equal to the corresponding first output value at a certain preset positioning reference point, taking the preset positioning reference point as a calibrated positioning reference point (see paragraphs [0035], [0057]- [0058], [0049]-[0056] and [0060], the examiner notes that on switch activation, controller reads current encoder value and recalibrates to the mapped reference. If the switch senses over a range, it averages start/end readings to hit the nominal reference. Because the gear ratio is selected such that the angular position of the yoke actuator axel in relation to the magnetic encoder is different each time the magnetic switch (indication means) is activated, the controller can, upon activation, read the encoder and determine the corresponding angular position from the stored table/function); and S3. positioning the light fixture according to the calibrated positioning reference point (see paragraphs [0034]-[0035], [0059], and [0065], the examiner notes that after recalibration, controller determines absolute position and controls motion/effects accordingly; between activations of the indication means, the controller reads the yoke actuator axel position signal and determines the angular displacement in accordance with the known gear ratio).
As per claim 9, Rasmussen further teaches that the absolute encoder is in form of an absolute magnetic encoder or an absolute inductive encoder (see paragraphs [0010], [0029-[0031] and [0045]).
As per claim 10, Rasmussen further teaches a light head, a support arm for supporting the light head to rotate in a first dimension, and a case for supporting the support arm to rotate in a second dimension (see paragraphs [0020] and [0024], i.e., head 107, yoke 105, base 103 supporting rotation about two axes), wherein a light source is disposed in the light head (see paragraphs [0020]-[0021], i.e., light source 109 in head 107), the driving device is configured for driving the light head and/or the support arm to rotate (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027], [0044], and [0061], i.e., yoke actuator 155 + drive mechanism 157 and head actuator 163 + drive mechanism 167), and the absolute encoder is arranged on the driving device and configured to indicate a rotation angle of the light head and/or the support arm (see paragraphs [0010], “encoders to sense the position .. determine the absolute position of the head“ (the examiner notes that the encoder is expressly said to output the angular position (not just step count), which is the functional behavior of an absolute encoder), [0029]-[0031], and [0045], i.e., magnetic encoder 173 mounted at yoke actuator (i.e., on driving device) providing an axle position signal indicative of angular position; and paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0063], i.e., magnetic encoder 181 on the head shaft giving the head angle).
As per claim 15, Rasmussen further teaches that the absolute encoder is in form of an absolute magnetic encoder or an absolute inductive encoder (see paragraphs [0010], [0029-[0031] and [0045]).
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 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rasmussen.
As per claim 2, Rasmussen teaches the system as stated above, e.g. multiple calibration references, continuous recalibration, and controller lookup, except that the plurality of preset positioning reference points are uniformly set around the circumference of the absolute encoder.
However, this limitation is considered a routine optimization (faster calibration, simpler tables, consistent averaging) which is regarded as a matter of design choice when applying general technical knowledge common in the relevant field. Design choices of this nature are not considered to alter the core functionality or intended use of the invention. A person skilled in the art would be able to implement such modifications without exercising inventive skill, instead relying on practical considerations and the specifics of the application. It is well established that an obvious engineering design choice does not constitute a patentable advancement.
Claims 3, 4, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Rasmussen in view of Hirabayashi (Patent. No. US 5,608,394).
Rasmussen teaches a moving-head fixture with multiple preset references via magnets/switches and an absolute magnetic encoder used for fast calibration and continuous recalibration (e.g., multiple indication means and “calibrated at multiple positions” (see paragraph [0036]); encoder + switch read/lookup to determine absolute angle (see paragraphs [0035] and [0057]); continuous recalibration on each trigger [0060]).
Rasmussen fails to teach that wherein thirty to forty preset positioning reference points are uniformly set around the circumference of the absolute encoder.
However, Hirabayashi teaches using equally spaced division points and shows that increasing the number of uniformly spaced reference/division points reduces the amount of motion/time required for initialization while maintaining precision (see Abstract; and col. 4, line 64 through col. 5, line 15, “first aspect”; “first attribute”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hirabayashi’s teaching into Rasmussen’s invention because it would further minimize worst-case travel to a reference (i.e., largest required rotation before switch activation, “only needs to rotate maximum of 22.5 degrees” (see paragraph [0047])) and speed calibration of the light fixture’s rotational positioning system. Furthermore, selecting a particular count such as 30-40 is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (number of uniformly spaced points) to seek small known angle which is a geometric relationship, the resulting reduction in calibration time which would improve the functionality of the light fixture’s rotational positioning system.
Claims 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Rasmussen in view of Binder et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0201316) (hereinafter Binder).
As per claims 5 and 11, while Rasmussen teaches a moving-head light with actuators and drive mechanisms to rotate the yoke/head (see paragraphs (0025]-[0027], [0044], and [0061]) and a magnetic absolute encoder with indication switches for calibration/recalibration (see paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0035], [0057], and [0060]), Rasmussen fails to specify that the motor is a stepping motor.
However, Binder teaches steppers that divides a full rotation into a number of equal steps with the motor position commanded to move and hold at a selected step and explicitly allows pairing with an encoder for closed-loop positioning (see paragraph [0404]) alongside the use of rotary encoders (see paragraph [0323]) and light actuators/fixtures (see paragraph [0385]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Binder’s teaching into Rasmussen’s invention because steppers provide repeatable incremental motion and holding torque ideal for pan/lift belts and toothed wheels. Therefore, yielding predictable improvements in accuracy and robustness of the light fixture’s rotational positioning system.
As per claims 6 and 12, while Rasmussen teaches gear/belt train: a toothed yoke axel wheel (driving gear) 358 driven by the yoke actuator and a toothed yoke shaft wheel (driven gear) 360 (analogously 382[Wingdings font/0xE0]384 for the head) (see paragraphs [0044] and [0061]), fails to teach that the driving device further comprises a driving gear, which is driven to rotate by the stepping motor (emphasis underlined).
However, Binder teaches using a stepper motor to produce discrete, commanded rotation (see paragraph [0404]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Binder’s teaching into Rasmussen’s invention because the absolute encoder would be mounted on the driven gear/shaft to measure the angular position of the driven shaft directly and reduce calibration errors associated with the driving bet (see Rasmussen paragraphs [0036] and [0038]-[0039] and Binder paragraph [0323]). Therefore, accuracy and robustness of the light fixture’s rotational positioning system would be improved.
As per claims 7 and 13, Rasmussen further teaches that the driving device further comprises a belt, and the driving gear and the driven gear are in transmission connection through the belt (see paragraph [0027], “the yoke and the yoke drive mechanism comprises a belt which interacts with a toothed yoke axel wheel and a toothed yoke shaft wheel. Similarly, the head drive mechanism comprises a belt which interacts with a toothed head axel wheel and a toothed head shaft wheel”, paragraph [0044], The toothed yoke axel wheel 358 (driving gear) and toothed yoke shaft wheel 360 (driven gear) are “interconnected by a yoke drive belt 362”, and paragraph [0061], The toothed head axel wheel 382 (driving gear) and toothed head shaft wheel 384 (driven gear) are “interconnected by a head drive belt 367”).
Claims 8 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rasmussen in view of Binder and further in view of Bach et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0000965) (hereinafter Bach).
Rasmussen teaches a moving-head light with actuators and belt/gear drive to rotate the yoke/head and angle encoder with indication means for calibration (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027], [0034]-[0035], [0044], and [0057]), and which expressly notes the problem of “step loss in motor step” and continuous recalibration (see paragraph [0060])
Rasmussen fails to teach a photoelectric encoder connected to the stepping motor is further comprised, which is used for detecting whether the stepping motor is overloaded to be out-of-step.
However, Bach teaches a stepper motor with an optical (photoelectric) shaft encoder used to detect overload/step loss, “The stepper motors in high end units often have shaft encoders so as to provide for drive overload detection for motor step loss”, (see paragraph [0005] and describes an “optical encoder stepper motor” (see paragraph [0006]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bach’s teaching into Rasmussen’s invention because the photoelectric encoder, connected to the stepper, enables the controller to compare commanded steps to measured position and detect overload/out-of-step, thereby improving the robustness of the calibration the light fixture’s rotational positioning system.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857