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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 7-12 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 18 June 2026 overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, recitations of “with respected to” should read --with respect to--.
Regarding claim 3, “the proximity sensors” should read --the plurality of proximity sensors--.
Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7-12 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) contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites that the light source is an infrared light source, the detected target comprises a gray measurement surface, and “the gray measurement surface is for enlarging variation of a light intensity value of the reflected light with respected to distance change between the proximity sensor and the detected target.” The specification as originally filed fails to describe how a gray measurement surface achieves the function of enlarging light intensity variation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
First, the specification merely recites the intended result of enlarging a light intensity difference but fails to disclose how a gray surface achieves that function. The sole support for the claimed “gray measurement surface” function is in ¶ 31 of the specification, which states: “Compared with a white measurement surface 1242 with high reflectivity, the gray measurement surface 1242 used in this embodiment enlarges a difference of the light intensity value of the reflected light received by the optical receiver 1264 when the distance between the proximity sensor 126 and the detected target 124 is different.” This passage merely restates the claimed result. The specification is silent as to any structural or optical characteristic by which the “gray measurement surface” achieves the function of enlarging light intensity variation. In particular, the specification does not disclose any materials (e.g., coatings, pigments), surface properties (e.g., roughness), optical properties (e.g., reflectance, absorptance, scattering characteristics), or comparative data showing that a gray surface provides a larger reflected light intensity difference than a high reflectivity white surface for the same distance change.
Second, the asserted function is not technically inherent or reasonably predictable from the disclosure. Reflected light intensity on a detector is represented as: Ed = k ∙ ρ / d4, where ρ represents the object’s surface reflectance, d represents distance to the object, and k = Ie ∙ A / π represents fixed system factors. See p. 5 of Vishay (2022)1. For two fixed distances, the intensity difference may be represented as: k ∙ ρ / (d2 - d1)4. Thus, when comparing two surfaces, the surface having higher reflectance ρ would produce the larger reflected light intensity difference. This is consistent with ordinary reflectance examples: Kodak identifies a gray card as having 18% reflectance and white reference patches as having 90% reflectance. Under the above relationship, if the distance dependent term d2 - d1 is the same for both surfaces, the 90% reflectance white surface would produce five times the reflected light intensity difference of the 18% reflectance gray surface, not a smaller difference. See Kodak (2021)2. Therefore, the assertion of ¶ 31 that a gray surface enlarges the difference relative to a white surface “with high reflectivity” is neither predicable nor inherent, while the specification remains silent at this point of novelty.
Third, the written disclosure deficiency is heightened because the claimed light source is infrared. “Gray” is a visible spectrum color description. NASA describes visible light as the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum viewable by the human eye, typically about 380 to 700 nanometers, and describes infrared waves as having longer wavelengths than visible light. See NASA (2021)3. Because spectral reflectance is wavelength dependent, a surface that appears gray to the human eye does not necessarily have any particular infrared reflectance property. Therefore, the relevant characteristic for the claimed infrared sensing system would be infrared spectral reflectance, absorptance, or scattering behavior at the emitted infrared wavelength, none of which is disclosed.
In sum, the specification does not reasonably convey that the inventor possessed a gray measurement surface configured to enlarge variation of reflected light intensity with respect to distance change. The disclosure provides only the conclusory statement in ¶ 31 that a gray measurement surface enlarges the intensity difference relative to a “high reflectivity” white surface, but the specification identifies no material, surface structure, or optical property that would provide for the claimed result. The omission is material because ordinary reflectance principles show that the higher reflectance surface would produce the larger reflected light intensity difference, yet ¶ 31 asserts the opposite for a gray surface without disclosing any property or mechanism that would realize the claimed function. Accordingly, the written description is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed gray measurement surface.
Claim 1 is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krohn (US 4698616 A) in view of Murata (“Proximity/Ambient Light Sensor Delivery Specification,” dated 20174).
Regarding claim 1, Krohn discloses an angle sensing device (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a base (Fig. 1, surface 14);
a rotation shaft, rotatably arranged on the base (Fig. 1, shaft 12 on surface 14 with rotational displacement 18), wherein the rotation shaft comprises a side surface (Fig. 1, cylindrical surface of shaft 12) and a virtual axis (Fig. 1, rotational axis of shaft 12);
a detected target, arranged on the side surface (Fig. 2, element 80 arranged on surface of shaft 12), wherein an outer contour of a cross section of the detected target along a radial direction of the rotation shaft comprises a first detected position and a second detected position (Fig. 2, track component 82 and track component 84), and
a distance of the first detected position with respect to the virtual axis is different from that of the second detected position with respect to the virtual axis (Col. 4:35-40, larger distance to 82 as compared to a distance to 84 at a counterclockwise rotational position around the virtual axis); and
a proximity sensor, fixedly arranged on the base and facing the detected target (Fig. 2, optoelectronic sensor 20 facing element 80; Col. 3:3-4, mounted in a fixed position to surface 14), wherein when the detected target rotates together with the rotation shaft (Col. 3:55),
the proximity sensor emits light toward the detected target (Fig. 2, source 50, 55) and detects reflected light from the outer contour of the detected target (Fig. 2, photodetector 60, 65) to generate measurement data (Col. 3:33-36, producing signal proportional to intensity of received light),
the proximity sensor comprises a light source (Fig. 2, source 50, 55) and an optical receiver (Fig. 2, photodetector 60, 65),
the light source emits the light toward the detected target, and the optical receiver detects the reflected light from the outer contour of the detected target (Col. 4:15-20), and generates the measurement data according to a light intensity value of the received reflected light (Col. 3:33-36), and the light source is an infrared light source (Col. 3:41-44), the detected target comprises a [1: …] measurement surface (Col. 3:55-57, “light reflective track” of element 80), and the light source projects the light toward the [1: …] measurement surface (Col. 4:15-20), and [2: …].
Krohn does not disclose:
“gray” [measurement surface]; and,
“the gray measurement surface is for enlarging variation of a light intensity value of the reflected light with respected to distance change between the proximity sensor and the detected target.”
However, Murata teaches the limitation in Fig. 6, where in a close range proximity sensing regime, a gray measurement surface produces a greater light intensity difference as compared to a white measurement surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the angle sensing device of Krohn with the gray measurement surface of Murata with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate detector saturation and provide greater measurable output variation, thereby yielding a sensing device with improved distance measurement discrimination (Murata, p. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein a plurality of proximity sensors is provided (Krohn, Fig. 2, first proximity sensor 40, 50, 60 and second proximity sensor 45, 55, 65).
Regarding claim 3, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the proximity sensors are equidistantly arranged around the rotation shaft (Krohn, Col. 3:65-68 & 4:10-15, sensors arranged at a fixed, equal distance from the axis of shaft 12).
Regarding claim 4, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the angle sensing device is adapted to be coupled to a processing unit (Krohn, Fig. 2, circuitry 70), wherein the processing unit obtains an angle value through conversion according to the measurement data generated by the proximity sensor (Krohn, Col. 3:37-40, signal from photodetector processed to yield rotational position of shaft 12; Col. 4:49-52, amount of rotation from the reference position; Col. 1:46-56).
Regarding claim 9, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the detected target is an eccentric columnar structure, a regular polygonal columnar structure, an asymmetric polygonal columnar structure, or a spiral columnar structure (Krohn, Figs. 1-2, element 80 is an eccentric columnar structure, i.e., cylinder with eccentric surface contour).
Regarding claim 10, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1, and further teaches: further comprising a fixing frame, arranged on the base and around the rotation shaft (Krohn, Fig. 2, housing 30 around shaft 12; Col. 3:20-22, housing 30 fixed to surface 14), wherein the fixing frame comprises at least one fixing base (Krohn, Fig. 2, housing 30), configured to arrange the proximity sensor (Krohn, Col. 3:20-22).
Regarding claim 11, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the detected target protrudes from the side surface (Krohn, Fig. 2, element 80 protrudes from the surface of shaft 12).
Regarding claim 12, Krohn discloses an angle sensing system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
an angle sensing device (Figs. 1-2, elements 12, 14, 20, 80, 82, 84), comprising:
a base (Fig. 1, surface 14);
a rotation shaft, rotatably arranged on the base (Fig. 1, shaft 12 on surface 14 with rotational displacement 18), wherein the rotation shaft comprises a side surface (Fig. 1, cylindrical surface of shaft 12) and a virtual axis (Fig. 1, rotational axis of shaft 12);
a detected target, arranged on the side surface (Fig. 2, element 80 arranged on surface of shaft 12), wherein an outer contour of a cross section of the detected target along a radial direction of the rotation shaft comprises a first detected position and a second detected position (Fig. 2, track component 82 and track component 84), and
a distance of the first detected position with respect to the virtual axis is different from that of the second detected position with respect to the virtual axis (Col. 4:35-40, larger distance to 82 as compared to a distance to 84 at a counterclockwise rotational position around the virtual axis); and
a proximity sensor, fixedly arranged on the base and facing the detected target (Fig. 2, optoelectronic sensor 20 facing element 80; Col. 3:3-4, mounted in a fixed position to surface 14), wherein when the detected target rotates together with the rotation shaft (Col. 3:55), the proximity sensor emits light toward the detected target (Fig. 2, source 50, 55) and detects reflected light from the outer contour of the detected target (Fig. 2, photodetector 60, 65) to generate measurement data (Col. 3:33-36, producing signal proportional to intensity of received light);
a processing unit, electrically coupled to the angle sensing device (Fig. 2, circuitry 70 electrically coupled to optoelectronic sensor 20) for obtaining an angle value through conversion according to the measurement data generated by the proximity sensor (Col. 3:37-40, signal from photodetector processed to yield rotational position of shaft 12; Col. 4:49-52, amount of rotation from the reference position; Col. 1:46-56);
the proximity sensor comprises a light source (Fig. 2, source 50, 55) and an optical receiver (Fig. 2, photodetector 60, 65),
the light source emits the light toward the detected target, and the optical receiver detects the reflected light from the outer contour of the detected target (Col. 4:15-20), and generates the measurement data according to a light intensity value of the received reflected light (Col. 3:33-36), and the light source is an infrared light source (Col. 3:41-44), the detected target comprises a [1: …] measurement surface (Col. 3:55-57, “light reflective track” of element 80), and the light source projects the light toward the [1: …] measurement surface (Col. 4:15-20), and [2: …].
Krohn does not disclose:
“gray” [measurement surface]; and,
“the gray measurement surface is for enlarging variation of a light intensity value of the reflected light with respected to distance change between the proximity sensor and the detected target.”
However, Murata teaches the limitation in Fig. 6, where in a close range proximity sensing regime, a gray measurement surface produces a greater light intensity difference as compared to a white measurement surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the angle sensing device of Krohn with the gray measurement surface of Murata with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate detector saturation and provide greater measurable output variation, thereby yielding a sensing device with improved distance measurement discrimination (Murata, p. 10).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krohn in view of Murata further in view of Ruh (US 20180031395 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1. The current combination does not teach: wherein the light source and the optical receiver are arranged along a vertical direction, and the vertical direction is parallel to the virtual axis of the rotation shaft. However, Roh teaches the limitation in Fig. 4 and ¶ 68, where light source and optical receiver 430 are axially aligned with the axis of the rotation shaft 40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the angle sensing device of Krohn in view of Murata with the teachings of Ruh with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve the quality and accuracy of the rotational measurement (Roh, ¶ 69).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krohn in view of Murata further in view of Evans (US 20180321062 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Krohn in view of Murata teaches the angle sensing device of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein a distance between the proximity sensor and the detected target ranges from 0.5 mm to 1 mm. Evans teaches an angle sensing device (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 6 & 117-120) with sensor (306) to detected target (304) standoff distance having nominal ranges disclosed between 0.5 mm to 1 mm (¶¶ 41-42). 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 angle sensing device of Krohn in view of Murata teaches with the teachings of Evans, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). Here, the difference is merely a known variation of the optical working distance, and an artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would have recognized that adopting the standoff distance taught by Evans would provide for balancing both high signal contrast with vibrational/thermal tolerance, thereby yielding a system with improved signal integrity and measurement reliability across a range of operating environments. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Dantler (US 20240044674 A1) which discloses an optical rotary angle sensor using an eccentric rotating target and a light source with detector arrangement to measure reflect light to determine distance changes and derive angular position.
Winer (US 20220326051 A1) which discloses a rotating shaft employing a varying profile target sensed by a proximity sensor to determine shaft angular position, speed, and direction.
Vishay (2022)5, Kodak (2021)6, and NASA (2021)7 are made of record in support for the discussion under § 112(a), introduced above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 “Vishay Infrared Receivers for Presence Sensor Application” version dated February 10, 2022; accessed from “vishay.com/docs/82904/irreceiversprecencesensorapps.pdf” with Wayback Machine dated October 07, 2022.
2 Accessed from “kodak.com/en/motion/page/gray-card” with Wayback Machine dated August 25, 2021.
3 Accessed from “science.nasa.gov/ems/09_visiblelight/” and “science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves/” with Wayback Machine dated February 13, 2021.
4 Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., “Proximity/Ambient Light Sensor Delivery Specification, Model Name: LT-1PA01,” Reference Specification, Doc. No. JLUPSE-****, accessed from “murata.com/~/media/webrenewal/products/sensor/tool/starterkit/technical/opt/spec_lt-1pa01_reference.ashx” with Wayback Machine dated June 01, 2017.
5 “Vishay Infrared Receivers for Presence Sensor Application” version dated February 10, 2022; accessed from “vishay.com/docs/82904/irreceiversprecencesensorapps.pdf” with Wayback Machine dated October 07, 2022.
6 Accessed from “kodak.com/en/motion/page/gray-card” with Wayback Machine dated August 25, 2021.
7 Accessed from “science.nasa.gov/ems/09_visiblelight/” and “science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves/” with Wayback Machine dated February 13, 2021.
Prosecution Insights