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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed December 19, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Shim teaches away from the limitation describing the second region of the index pattern being wider than the first region and closer to a circle center of a code wheel (Applicant’s arguments, page 8-9), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shim teaches that the index pattern (IdxA/IdxB) can be any shape (paragraph 44), such as trapezoid, where one region is wider than another region in a trapezoidal shape. Shim does not limit which region of the trapezoidal shape is placed with respect to the center of the code wheel and the signal pattern on the code wheel. Shim only states how the index pattern is placed with respect to the index photodiodes (paragraph 44, fig. 3 and 6). Since, there is no teaching on which region of the trapezoid or triangle is placed closer to the signal pattern or center of code wheel, then as long as the index pattern with respect to the index photodiodes is not changed, then any shape and orientation of that shape will do. From this argument Shim does not teach away from the newly added limitation to claim 18. In order to clear up the orientation of the trapezoidal shape deficiency the Examiner uses Nakamura to show a index pattern with a narrow end and a wide end, where the wide end is closer to the center of a code wheel and the narrow end is closer to the signal pattern. Nakamura teaches wherein an index region (26) comprises a first region and comprises a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 35, wedge shape, so second region bottom is larger than first region top); wherein the first region is closer to a signal region (21) than the second region (see fig. 4, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider second region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any desired shape facing a desired direction as an index region different from the signal region for Shim similar to Nakamura in order to provide a clear zero/reset position read on the code wheel providing for more accurate position reading of the signal region (MPEP 2144.04, VI C rearrangement of parts, IV B changes in shape). The only reason Nakamura was brought in was to show the orientation of the shape as the index pattern, everything else is taught by Shim. Also, both the patterns in Shim and Nakamura are index patterns marking a reset/zero position (Nakamura, paragraphs 28 and 29, noted in Applicant’s arguments, Shim, paragraph 36, complete rotation/full circle reset, zero position). Nakamura does have two of these index patterns at full rotation and half rotation, but that does not matter since Nakamura is only used to show an obviousness of placing the narrow side of the shape closer to the signal pattern and the wider portion closer to the center of the code wheel. Shim already states in paragraph 44 any shape can be used, the only thing that matters is the location of the index pattern with respect to the index photodiodes. In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Nakamura teaches away from using the patterns (26/27) as index patterns (Applicant’s arguments, pages 3-4), Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as noted before Shim teaches the index pattern with trapezoidal shape as claimed, but is lacking in the orientation of the shape of the index pattern with respect to a signal pattern and center of the code wheel. Nakamura describes a similar to shape wedge (26) that shows the claim orientation of the wide part of the wedge is closer to the center (center of 2) and narrow part is closer to the signal pattern (21). This wedge shape is used to clearly define a zero position with another pattern (23) (see fig. 1-4, Applicant’s arguments, paragraphs 28 and 29). It does not matter that the pattern (26) is separate from the pattern (23), because the shape of a zero position pattern is all that matters. It is only used to show the obviousness of different shapes with different orientations. From these arguments the combination of Shim and Nakamura remains proper and reads on the current claim language as written. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 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. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 remain rejected in view of the combination of Shim and Nakamura.
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, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 20220163353) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2006329783).
Re claim 1: Shim teaches a code wheel (100) (fig. 1, 2 and 5), comprising: a signal region (12), configured to receive light and generate at least one code signal according to the light (paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2); and an index region (Idx), configured to generate an index signal according to the light, wherein the index signal represents a complete rotation of the code wheel (100) (paragraph 20-22 and 36, fig. 1, 2 and 5); wherein the index region comprises a first region with a first region and comprises a second region with a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, the other potential shape is a triangle which would have a base second region larger than the top/peak first region) and wherein the code wheel (100) comprises a circle center (see fig. 2, there is a center in the circle of code wheel 100), but does not specifically teach wherein the first is closer to the signal region than the second region and wherein the second region is closer to the circle center than the first region. Nakamura teaches wherein an index region (26) comprises a first region with a first region and comprises a second region with a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 35, wedge shape, so second region bottom is larger than first region top); wherein the first region is closer to a signal region (21) than the second region (see fig. 4, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider second region) and wherein a code wheel (2) comprises a circle center (see fig. 4, 2 is a circle therefore has a center), wherein the second region is closer to the circle center than the first region (see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region which is closer to the center of 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any desired shape facing a desired direction as an index region different from the signal region for Shim similar to Nakamura in order to provide a clear zero/reset position read on the code wheel providing for more accurate position reading of the signal region.
Re claim 2: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the first region has a first width smaller than a second width of the second region (Shim, paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, the other potential shape is a triangle which would have a base second region larger than the top/peak first region, Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider second region).
Re claim 3: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the index region is a trapezoid with a short side and a long side opposite to the short side, wherein the short side is closer to the signal region than the long side (Shim, paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller/shorter/narrower than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region).
Re claim 5: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein widths of the index region gradually increases following a direction from the signal region to the circle center (Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region which is closer to the center of 2).
Re claim 6: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the signal region (Shim, 12) comprises signal tracks configured to generate the code signals (Shim, paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2).
Re claim 8: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the code wheel (Shim, 100, Nakamura, 2) comprises a circle center (Shim, see fig. 1, 100 is a circle therefore has a center, Nakamura, see fig. 4, 2 is a circle therefore has a center), wherein the index region (Shim, Idx, Nakamura, 26) is closer to the circle center than the signal region (Shim, 12, fig. 1, Nakamura, 21, fig. 4).
Re claim 9: Shim teaches an encoding system (abstract), comprising: a code wheel (100) (fig. 1, 2 and 5), comprising: a signal region (12), configured to receive light and generate at least one code signal according to the light (paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2); and an index region (Idx), configured to generate an index signal according to the light, wherein the index signal represents a complete rotation of the code wheel (100) (paragraph 20-22 and 36, fig. 1, 2 and 5); wherein the index region comprises a first region with a first region and comprises a second region with a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, the other potential shape is a triangle which would have a base second region larger than the top/peak first region); and a processing circuit (paragraph 46, fig. 4 and 7), configured to determine a rotation of the code wheel (100) according to the code signals and the index signal (paragraph 46, fig. 4 and 7) and wherein the code wheel (100) comprises a circle center (see fig. 2, there is a center in the circle of code wheel 100), but does not specifically teach wherein the first region is closer to the signal region than the second region and wherein the second region is closer to the circle center than the first region. Nakamura teaches wherein an index region (26) comprises a first region with a first region and comprises a second region with a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 35, wedge shape, so second region bottom is larger than first region top); wherein the first region is closer to a signal region (21) than the second region (see fig. 4, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider second region) and wherein a code wheel (2) comprises a circle center (see fig. 4, 2 is a circle therefore has a center), wherein the second region is closer to the circle center than the first region (see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region which is closer to the center of 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any desired shape facing a desired direction as an index region different from the signal region for Shim similar to Nakamura in order to provide a clear zero/reset position read on the code wheel providing for more accurate position reading of the signal region.
Re claim 10: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the first region has a first width smaller than a second width of the second region (Shim, paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, the other potential shape is a triangle which would have a base second region larger than the top/peak first region, Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider second region).
Re claim 11: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the index region is a trapezoid with a short side and a long side opposite to the short side, wherein the short side is closer to the signal region than the long side (Shim, paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller/shorter/narrower than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region).
Re claim 13: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein widths of the index region gradually increases following a direction from the signal region to the circle center (Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region which is closer to the center of 2).
Re claim 14: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the signal region (Shim, 12) comprises signal tracks configured to generate the code signals (Shim, paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2).
Re claim 16: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the index region (Shim, Idx, Nakamura, 26) is closer to the circle center than the signal region (Shim, 12, fig. 1, Nakamura, 21, fig. 4).
Re claim 18: Shim teaches a code wheel (100) (fig. 1, 2 and 5), comprising: a signal region (12), configured to receive light and generate at least one code signal according to the light (paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2); and an index region (Idx), configured to generate a light pattern according to the light (see fig. 3, light pattern), wherein the index signal represents a complete rotation of the code wheel (100) (paragraph 20-22 and 36, fig. 1, 2 and 5); wherein the index region comprises a first region with a first region and comprises a second region with a second region larger than the first region (paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, the other potential shape is a triangle which would have a base second region larger than the top/peak first region) and wherein the code wheel (100) comprises a circle center (see fig. 2, there is a center in the circle of code wheel 100), but does not specifically teach wherein widths of the index region gradually increase following a direction from the signal region to the circle center. Nakamura teaches a code wheel, wherein a code wheel (2) comprises a circle center (see fig. 4, 2 is a circle therefore has a center), wherein widths of an index region gradually increases following a direction from the signal region to the circle center (see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region which is closer to the center of 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any desired shape facing a desired direction as an added index region different from the signal region for Shim similar to Nakamura in order to provide a clear zero/reset position read on the code wheel providing for more accurate position reading of the signal region.
Re claim 19: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the index region is a trapezoid with a short side and a long side opposite to the short side, wherein the short side is closer to the signal region than the long side (Shim, paragraph 44, since the index region has a trapezoid shape then there would be a first region of the trapezoid that is smaller/shorter/narrower than the a second region of the trapezoid, since a trapezoid is a shape with one set of parallel sides, Nakamura, see fig. 4, paragraph 35, the index region 26 is positioned in such a way that the first region the top is closer to the signal region 21 than the larger/wider/longer second region).
Claim(s) 7, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 20220163353) as modified by Nakamura et al. (JP 2006329783) as applied to claim 6, 9 and 14 above, and further in view of York (US 20100057392).
Re claims 7 and 15: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the signal region (Shim, 12) comprises signal tracks configured to generate the code signals (Shim, paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2), but does not specifically teach wherein the signal tracks are configured to generate a first quadrature signal and a second quadrature signal as the code signals. York teaches wherein signal tracks are configured to generate a first quadrature signal and a second quadrature signal as code signals (paragraphs 71-75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have wherein the signal tracks are configured to generate a first quadrature signal and a second quadrature signal as the code signals similar to York with the tracks of Shim as modified by Nakamura in order to increase the resolution and have bidirectional motion detection allowing for precise counting of movement providing for higher quality position measurements of the wheel.
Re claim 17: Shim as modified by Nakamura teaches the code wheel, wherein the signal region (Shim, 12) comprises signal tracks configured to generate the code signals (Shim, paragraph 20-22, fig. 1 and 2) and the processing circuit (Shim, paragraph 46, fig. 4 and 7), configured to determine a rotation of the code wheel (Shim, 100) according to the code signals and the index signal (Shim, paragraph 46, fig. 4 and 7), but does not specifically teach wherein the index signal is gated by at least one of the code signal in the gated mode is not gated in the un-gated mode, by the processing circuit. York teaches wherein an index signal is gated by at least one of a code signal in a gated mode is not gated in an un-gated mode, by a processing circuit (paragraphs 72 75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have wherein the index signal is gated by at least one of the code signal in the gated mode is not gated in the un-gated mode, by the processing circuit. York teaches wherein an index signal is gated by at least one of a code signal in a gated mode is not gated in an un-gated mode, by a processing circuit similar to York with the tracks and processing circuit of Shim as modified by Nakamura in order to increase the resolution and have bidirectional motion detection allowing for precise counting of movement providing for higher quality position measurements of the wheel.
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 JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878