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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections to claims 2 and 6. The objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim interpretation, the examiner notes that “hinge angle encoding structure” is no longer interpreted under 112f because claim 1 recites the structure of “first polarizing filter layer”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-10, 13, 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US20190101418A1 by Wada (previously cited in the office action mailed 08/13/2025) is relied upon to teach new limitations in claims 1 and 25. Wada was not relied upon to teach the challenged limitations in the most recent rejection and was not argued in the remarks (see remarks pages 8-12). Further, US20170083071A1 by DiFonzo (newly cited) is relied upon to teach new limitations in claim 21.
The examiner also notes for the record that the “Claim Amendments” section (see claims filed 02/04/2026) recites that “Claim 28 has been added.” However, there does not appear to be a new claim 28 and the remarks also do not refer to this claim, so it appears to have been a typographical error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by US20170083071A1 by DiFonzo (newly cited).
Regarding claim 21, DiFonzo teaches an electronic device comprising (at least Fig. 1A, 4, and 7):
housing having first and second housing portions (upper and base components 102 and 104; [0025]);
a hinge that joins the first and second housing portions ([0025] hinge region 108 of upper component 102 and base component 104) , wherein the first and second housing portions are configured to rotate relative to each other about an axis of the hinge ([0025] rotational axis 110);
an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge ([0043] Fig. 7 polarized light source 730; Fig. 7 is an alternate embodiment of the optical arrangement inside the hinge from Fig. 4; [0034]) and
a sensor die disposed on the hinge ([0043] sensor 720) and configured to receive the light emitted by the emitter ([0043]), wherein the axis intersects the emitter and the sensor die (Fig. 7 does not show the hinge axis, however, it is alternate optical arrangement of Fig. 4 which shows light source 430 and sensors 450 on the hinge thus it is clear that light source 730 and sensor 720 intersect the rotation axis.; [0029] Closed state electronic device 201 can also include one or more optical components disposed within and/or proximate the hinge region 108).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US20190101418A1; previously cited) in view of US20170083071A1 by DiFonzo (newly cited), US20060016970A1 by Nagasaka et al. (hereinafter “Nagasaka”; newly cited) and Oguchi (JP 2018128276 A; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches an electronic device (at least Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a hinge angle encoding structure (optical scale 2; [0058]) disposed on a hinge ([0057] optical scale 2 pivoting around the pivot axis a), wherein the hinge angle encoding structure includes a first polarizing filter layer ([0065] A polarizer constitutes the scale portion 22); and
a sensor assembly including an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge angle encoding structure ([0058] light emitting element 32), a sensor die configured to receive the light reflecting back from the hinge angle encoding structure ([0058; light receiving elements 34 and 35).
Wada is silent as to housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge.
However, DiFonzo does address this limitation. Wada and DiFonzo are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
DiFonzo teaches housing comprising first and second housing portions (upper and base components 102 and 104; [0025]) that rotate relative to each other about a hinge ([0025] hinge region 108 of upper component 102 and base component 104, rotational axis 110). Further, DiFonzo teaches an optical encoder disposed on the hinge ([0034] Fig. 4 shows hinge section with encoder optical arrangement; [0043] Fig. 7 shows a polarization type encoder).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an optical encoder to determine the angle of housing portions about a hinge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge and the hinge angle encoding structure disposed on the hinge as suggested by DiFonzo in order to monitor the angle of the housing about the hinge to "wake" or "sleep" the device, thus improving power efficiency and user experience ([0025]; [0005]).
Further, although Wada is silent as to a sensor assembly including first and second recesses separated by a wall, the emitter disposed in the first recess and the sensor die disposed in the second recess, Wada does teach a sensor assembly ([0070] sensor unit 3; Fig. 4) which includes holder 31 where light emitting element 32 and the light receiving elements 34 and 35 are held) in a way that reduces the positioning errors of the emitter and sensor ([0070]). The holder includes a light receiving element installation portion 311 where the light receiving elements 34 and 35 are installed, an optical element installation portion 312 where the optical element portion 33 is installed, and a light emitting element installation portion 313 where the light emitting element 32 is installed ([0071]). The optical element installation portion 312 is a recessed portion recessed to the −Z axis direction side beyond the light receiving element installation portion 311 ([0072]).
Further, Nagasaka does address this limitation. Wada and Nagasaka are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Nagasaka teaches a sensor assembly (Fig. 1; reflective encoder 100; [0045]) including first and second recesses (light emitting side transparent resin body 101 and light receiving side transparent resin body 102 are recesses for the encoder elements; [0046]) separated by a wall (light shielding body 107 a; [0047] is a wall between the two recesses), the emitter disposed in the first recess (light emitting element 106; [0046]) and the sensor die disposed in the second recess (light receiving element 103; [0046]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the emitters and sensors inside a shielding structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include a sensor assembly including first and second recesses separated by a wall, the emitter disposed in the first recess and the sensor die disposed in the second recess as suggested by Nagasaka in order to cover and protect the encoder elements ([0046]) and prevent light from the emitter from directly entering the sensor, thus decreasing measurement error ([0049]).
Further, although, Wada is silent as to a second polarizing filter disposed on the sensor die in this embodiment, Wada does teach a polarizing plate 40 disposed on the light receiving elements ([0193; Fig. 18]) in a separate embodiment.
Further, Oguchi does address this limitation. Wada and Oguchi are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Oguchi teaches (at least Fig. 32): a hinge angle encoding structure disposed on a hinge ([0141] optical scale 11; R arrows shows rotation, thus acting as a hinge; [0027]), wherein the hinge angle encoding structure includes a first polarizing layer ([0037] Fig. 4 shows optical scale used in Fig. 32 which has a wire grid pattern acting a polarizer); an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge angle encoding structure ([0141] light source 41); a sensor die configured to receive the light reflecting back from the hinge angle encoding structure ([0141] light receiving elements PD1-4 or detection units 35); and a second polarizing filter layer disposed on the sensor die ([0141] polarizing layer 30).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an additional polarizer on the sensing element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include a second polarizing filter disposed on the sensor die as suggested by the second embodiment and Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Wada further teaches wherein the first polarizing filter layer comprises a reflective polarizer ([0065] scale portion 22 has a polarization pattern (wire grid) configured by a plurality of wires reflecting the light from the light emitting element 32).
Regarding claim 6, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Wada further teaches wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises: a specular reflector layer interposed between the first polarizing filter layer and the hinge ([0066] the substrate 21 is light-reflective or a reflecting portion such as a light-reflective metal film is disposed between the substrate 21 and the scale portion 22; Fig. 1 shows reflective plate 21 is after scale portion 22 which acts as the first polarizing layer; although the hinge is not pictured, Fig. 1 shows that the substrate 21 is the last element of the encoding structure which is on the hinge rotating relative to axis a).
Regarding claim 7, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and although Wada teaches that the scale portion may be configured as a wire grid ([0065]) and that the polarizing plate 40 in the second embodiment may be similar to the scale portion ([0195]), Wada is silent as to wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer.
However, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer (polarizing layer 30 is shown in detail in Fig. 5; [0053]; layer 30 is a pixelized polarizer because the different polarization orientations align with different light receiving elements; [0056]; compare to applicant's Fig. 6B).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pixelized polarizer with a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer as suggested by Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Wada is silent as to wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer with two or more different polarization orientations..
However, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer (polarizing layer 30; Fig. 5; [0053];[[0056]) with two or more different polarization orientations (Fig. 5 shows 4 polarization orientations; [0053]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pixelized polarizer with two or more different polarization orientations with a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer with two or more different polarization orientations as suggested by Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Wada is silent as to wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer with three or more different polarization orientations.
However, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer (polarizing layer 30; Fig. 5; [0053];[[0056]) with three or more different polarization orientations (Fig. 5 shows 4 polarization orientations; [0053]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pixelized polarizer with three or more different polarization orientations with a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer with three or more different polarization orientations as suggested by Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and although Wada teaches that the scale portion may be configured as a wire grid ([0065]) and that the polarizing plate 40 in the second embodiment may be similar to the scale portion ([0195]), Wada is silent as to wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer implemented using multiple layers of metal wires formed in interconnect routing layers on a substrate of the sensor die.
However, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer (polarizing layer 30; Fig. 5; [0053];[[0056]) implemented using multiple layers of metal wires formed in interconnect routing layers on a substrate of the sensor die (Fig. 5; [0053]). Even if Oguchi does not explicitly teach that the second polarizing filter layer uses multiple layers of metal wires formed in interconnect routing layers, polarizing layer 30 appears to be similar in construction to optical scale 11 which linearly arranges adjacent metal thin lines ([0037]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pixelated polarizer implemented using metal wires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the second polarizing filter layer comprises a pixelated polarizer implemented using multiple layers of metal wires formed in interconnect routing layers on a substrate of the sensor die in order to create an efficient and cheap polarizer that to improves detection accuracy ([0053]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ruh (US20160069713A1; previously cited)..
Regarding claim 2, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Wada is silent as to wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises: a reflective diffuser layer interposed between the first polarizing filter layer and the hinge.
However, Ruh does address this limitation. Wada and Ruh are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Ruh teaches an optical encoder with a reflective diffuser ([0019] diffuser members within the optical encoder).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reflective diffuser with an optical encoder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the hinge angle encoding structure comprises a reflective diffuser layer interposed between the first polarizing filter layer and the hinge as suggested by Ruh because diffusers aid in the detection of the reflected light by the optical sensors even in the case of misalignment ([0019]), thus improving detection results.
Regarding claim 3, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka, Oguchi, and Ruh teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Wada further teaches wherein the first polarizing filter layer comprises a linear polarizer ([0065] scale portion 22 has a plurality of linearly extending metal wires which act as a linear polarizer).
Regarding claim 4, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka, Oguchi, and Ruh teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and although Wada does not teach wherein the first polarizing filter layer comprises an absorptive polarizer in this embodiment, Wada does teach a plurality of wires having light absorbing properties also may constitute the polarization pattern ([0066]). Thus, would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wada to include wherein the first polarizing filter layer comprises an absorptive polarizer in order to reduce error from stray light.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sato (WO2014097489A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Wada modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Wada is silent as to wherein the emitter is configured to emit light with first and second wavelengths; and the hinge angle encoding structure comprises a layer having a first portion configured to pass light of the first wavelength while absorbing light of the second wavelength and having a second portion configured to pass light of the first and second wavelengths.
However, Sato does address this limitation. Wada and Sato are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Sato teaches the emitter is configured to emit light with first and second wavelengths ([0034] light 102 including light of wavelength α, light of wavelength β and light of wavelength γ enters; where wavelength α is the first wavelength and either wavelength β or γ are the second wavelength)
the hinge angle encoding structure comprises a layer having a first portion configured to pass light of the first wavelength while absorbing light of the second wavelength ([0034]when only light of wavelength α is to be measured… Controls the rotational position of the composite filter 24 shown in FIG. 3 so as to pass through the filter region 24 a for cutting light of wavelength β and light of wavelength γ).
Further, Sato teaches the rotary position of the rotary shaft 24 f of the composite filter 24 is detected using the rotary encoder 51 connected to the rotary shaft 24 f (Fig. 10; [0059]).
Although Sato does not teach a second portion configured to pass light of the first and second wavelengths, Sato does further teach portions of filter 24 that pass different wavelengths ([0038] By selecting one of the filter regions 24a to 24c according to the type of incident light and the purpose of measurement, it is possible to accurately measure a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths at the same sensor position). Further, the second portion configured to pass light of the first and second wavelengths would essentially be an unfiltered region, and it has been held that deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. II A. One would remove the filter in order to perform a more robust measurement.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an emitter with two wavelengths and encoder with two respective filter portions to determine the angle of a rotary shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the emitter is configured to emit light with first and second wavelengths; and the hinge angle encoding structure comprises a layer having a first portion configured to pass light of the first wavelength while absorbing light of the second wavelength and having a second portion configured to pass light of the first and second wavelengths as suggested by Sato in order to quickly and accurately determine the position of the rotary shaft ([0038]; [0070]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFonzo as applied to claim 21 above in view of Oguchi.
Regarding claim 22, DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 21, and although DiFonzo teaches polarizer 720 between the polarized light source 730 and sensor 750 ([0043]), and that drawbacks such as low angle sensitivity or multiple instances at the same light intensity for different angular orientations can be easily overcome by using multiple polarizers and sensors ([0044]), DiFonzo is silent as to a first polarizing filter layer of a first type disposed on the sensor die.
However, Oguchi does address this limitation. DiFonzo and Oguchi are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Oguchi teaches a first polarizing filter layer of a first type disposed on the sensor die (([0141] polarizing layer 30 on detectors 35, Fig. 5 shows first type or pattern).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a polarizing filter layer on a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify DiFonzo to include a first polarizing filter layer of a first type disposed on the sensor die as suggested by Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 23, DiFonzo modified by Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 22, and although DiFonzo does not explicitly teach a second polarizing filter layer disposed on the emitter in this embodiment, DiFonzo does teach a polarized light source 730 which can be a typical vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) or other polarized light laser and polarizer 720 between the polarized light source 730 and sensor 750 ([0043]) and in other embodiments, an LED and polarizer pair can be used ([0047]). Thus, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a polarizing filter layer on an emitter to use as a polarized light source.
Regarding claim 24, DiFonzo modified by Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 23, but DiFonzo is silent as to the first polarizing filter layer of the first type has a first pattern; and the second polarizing filter layer of the second type has a second pattern different than the first pattern.
However, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein: the first polarizing filter layer of the first type has a first pattern (Fig. 5 shows first pattern of 4 different orientations in separate quadrants; compare to applicant's Fig. 6b; [0051]); and the second polarizing filter layer of the second type has a second pattern different than the first pattern(Fig. 4 shows second pattern of diagonal lines; compare to applicant's Fig. 9B; [0037]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different polarizing filter types with different patterns for an optical encoder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify DiFonzo to include the first polarizing filter layer of the first type has a first pattern; and the second polarizing filter layer of the second type has a second pattern different than the first pattern as suggested by Oguchi in order to prevent the relative deviation of the polarization direction of each polarization layer which can improve the detection accuracy of the rotation angle ([0053]).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of DiFonzo and Oguchi.
Regarding claim 25, Wada teaches an electronic device comprising (at least Fig. 18):
a hinge ([0186] optical scale 2H pivoting around the pivot axis a);
a first polarizing layer disposed on the hinge (scale portion 22h; [0190] a phase difference plate constitutes the scale portion 22H; a phase difference plate polarizes the light);
an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge through the first polarizing layer ([0188] light emitting elements 32 and 36 and a light emitting element 38);
a sensor die configured to receive the light reflecting back from the hinge ([0193] light receiving elements 34 and 35); and
a second polarizing filter layer of a second pattern disposed only on the sensor die ([0193] a polarizing plate 40 disposed only on the light receiving elements; [0196] pattern is similar to optical scale 22 which is a wire grid).
Wada is silent as to housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge.
However, DiFonzo does address this limitation. Wada and DiFonzo are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
DiFonzo teaches housing comprising first and second housing portions (upper and base components 102 and 104; [0025]) that rotate relative to each other about a hinge ([0025] hinge region 108 of upper component 102 and base component 104, rotational axis 110). Further, DiFonzo teaches an optical encoder disposed on the hinge ([0034] Fig. 4 shows hinge section with encoder optical arrangement; [0043] Fig. 7 shows a polarization type encoder).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an optical encoder to determine the angle of housing portions about a hinge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge and the hinge angle encoding structure disposed on the hinge as suggested by DiFonzo in order to monitor the angle of the housing about the hinge to "wake" or "sleep" the device, thus improving power efficiency and user experience ([0025]; [0005]).
Wada is silent as to a first polarizing filter layer of a first pattern disposed on the hinge and the second pattern being different than the first pattern.
Although Wada teaches a phase difference plate constitutes the scale portion 22H instead of a polarizing filter layer of a first pattern in this embodiment, Wada does address this limitation in a separate embodiment. Wada teaches in a second embodiment (Fig. 1) a first polarizing filter layer of a first pattern disposed on the hinge (scale portion 22; [0065] a polarizer constitutes the scale portion 22, wire grid pattern). Further, both embodiments realize a polarization-type encoder ([0104]; [0190]).
Further, Oguchi does address this limitation. Wada and Oguchi are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of encoders.
Oguchi teaches wherein the hinge angle encoding structure includes a first polarizing layer of a first pattern ([0037] Fig. 4 shows optical scale used in Fig. 32 which has a wire grid pattern acting a polarizer, Fig. 4 shows pattern) and a second polarizing filter layer disposed on the sensor die of a second pattern ([0141] polarizing layer 30; Fig. 5 shows pattern), the second pattern ([0141] polarizing layer 30; Fig. 5) being different than the first pattern ([0037] Fig. 4 shows optical scale used in Fig. 32 which has a wire grid pattern acting a polarizer; Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show different polarization patterns, layer 30 is a grid with 4 line orientations and the optical scale only has one line orientation; [0051]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a two polarizing filter layers with different patterns. Further, although Wada teaches that the polarizing plate 40 may be similar to the optical scale ([0193]), Wada does not teach against the patterns being different. Additionally, one may consider the first and second pattern in Oguchi to be similar as they both use linear wire segments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include a first polarizing filter layer of a first pattern disposed on the hinge and the second pattern being different than the first pattern as suggested by the second embodiment of Wada and Oguchi to prevent the relative deviation of the polarization direction of each polarization layer which can improve the detection accuracy of the rotation angle (Oguchi [0053]).
Regarding claim 26, Wada modified by DiFonzo and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 25, and although the first embodiment of Wada is silent as to wherein the first polarizing filter layer of the first pattern comprises a non-pixelated polarizer the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer, Wada does teach that the first polarizing filter layer of the first pattern comprises a non-pixelated polarizer ([0065] wire grid polarization patten in the second embodiment and the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a linear polarizer ([0198]) in the first embodiment.
Further, Oguchi does address this limitation.
Oguchi teaches wherein the first polarizing filter layer of the first pattern comprises a non-pixelated polarizer ([0037] Fig. 4 shows optical scale used in Fig. 32 which has a wire grid pattern acting a polarizer; compare to applicant's Fig. 9A), and wherein the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer (polarizing layer 30 is shown in detail in Fig. 5; [0053]; layer 30 is a pixelized polarizer because the different polarization orientations align with different light receiving elements; [0056]; compare to applicant's Fig. 6B).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-pixelated polarizer on the hinge and a pixelized polarizer on the sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wada to include wherein the first polarizing filter layer of the first pattern comprises a non-pixelated polarizer and the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer as suggested by Oguchi in order to improve detection accuracy ([0053]).
Regarding claim 27, Wada modified by DiFonzo and Oguchi teaches the electronic device of claim 26, and although, Wada is silent as to wherein the non-pixelated polarizer comprises a polarizer selected from the group consisting of: a linear polarizer, an absorptive polarizer, a reflective polarizer, and a wire grid polarizer in this embodiment, Wada does address this limitation in the second embodiment.
Wada teaches in the second embodiment wherein the non-pixelated polarizer comprises a polarizer selected from the group consisting of: a linear polarizer, an absorptive polarizer, a reflective polarizer, and a wire grid polarizer ([0065] wire grid).
It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second embodiment of Wada to include wherein the non-pixelated polarizer comprises a wire grid polarizer as suggested by the second embodiment in order to create an efficient and cheap polarizer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US3584959A by Carlo et al. teaches determining with precision the angular position of a shaft by projecting a reference beam of modulated polarized light through an analyzer rotating in unison with the shaft (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877