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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2025 have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 and 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13, and 25-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20130342840A1 by Mutschler et al.
Specifically, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments that previously cited prior art Wada (US20190101418A1) and Oguchi (JP 2018128276 A) cannot be relied upon to teach the newly amended limitations of claim 1 and 25 (see remarks page 8-10). This is at least because Wada does not teach wherein the axis intersects the hinge angle encoding structure or the linear polarizer, because Wada explicitly teaches a hole in the encoding structure at the axis ([0063] hole 211) and Oguchi (Fig. 32) does not teach z linear polarizer with uniform transmittance or the sensor assembly or wherein the second polarizing filter layer is only disposed on the sensor die (Fig. 32). However, these limitations are taught by newly cited Mutschler in the rejection below.
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, 6, 8-10, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130342840A1 by Mutschler et al. (hereinafter “Mutschler”; newly cited) in view of US20170083071A1 by DiFonzo (previously cited), US20060016970A1 by Nagasaka et al. (hereinafter “Nagasaka”; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mutschler teaches an electronic device comprising (at least Fig. 2 and 3):
an axis of a hinge ([0035] rotating shaft 14; Fig. 3 shows axis; [0034] measurement of the rotary angle of two optics rotating relative to one another about an axis of rotation);
a hinge angle encoding structure disposed on the hinge ([0035] polarizer 12 and mirror 16), wherein the axis intersects the hinge angle encoding structure (see Fig. 3) and wherein the hinge angle encoding structure includes a linear polarizer ([0035] linearly polarized with the aid of a polarizer 12) with uniform transmittance ([0035] polarizer 12 can be configured as a wire grid polarizer which would have uniform transmittance similar to applicant's wire grid polarizer in [0038], see also Fig. 5 depiction of polarizer 12);
an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge angle encoding structure ([0035] light source 10);
a sensor die configured to receive the light reflecting back from the hinge angle encoding structure ([0035] optoelectronic sensor element 20), and a pixelated polarizer disposed on the sensor die (Fig. 2; [0033] polarizing structure 24 a, 24 b, 24 c, 24 d); , wherein the axis further intersects the emitter, the sensor die, or a region between the emitter and the sensor die (Fig. 3 shows axis intersects the sensor die).
Mutschler is silent as to as to housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge.
However, DiFonzo does address this limitation. DiFonzo and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical 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).
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 Mutschler 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]).
Mutschler 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.
Further, Nagasaka does address this limitation. Nagasaka and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical 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 for 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 Mutschler 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]).
Regarding claim 5, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises a specular reflector layer interposed between the linear polarizer and the hinge ([0035] mirror 16).
Regarding claim 6, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises a specular reflector layer interposed between the linear polarizer and the hinge ([0035] mirror 16).
Regarding claim 8, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the pixelated polarizer has two or more different polarization orientations (Fig. 2; [0035] Each of the reception elements 22 a, 22 b, 22 c, 22 d has a polarizing structure 24 a, 24 b, 24 c, 24 d, rotated with regard to one another).
Regarding claim 9, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the pixelated polarizer has three or more different polarization orientations (Fig. 2; [0035] Each of the reception elements 22 a, 22 b, 22 c, 22 d has a polarizing structure 24 a, 24 b, 24 c, 24 d, rotated with regard to one another).
Regarding claim 10, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the pixelated polarizer is implemented using multiple layers of metal wires formed in interconnect routing layers on a substrate of the sensor die (Fig. 1; [0030]-[0031] The polarizing structure 24, for example, has a plurality of electrically conductive strips 27 spaced apart from one another and arranged in a grid and can, for example, be configured as a wire grid polarizer; reception element 22 is in this connection in particular arranged on a support 23 configured as a P substrate).
Regarding claim 28, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the axis further intersects the emitter ([0026] The positions of the light source 10 and the receiver 20 can naturally be exchanged).
Regarding claim 29, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the axis further intersects the sensor die (Fig. 3 shows axis intersects the sensor die).
Regarding claim 30, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and although Mutschler does not teach wherein the axis further intersects the region between the emitter and the sensor die in the embodiment of Fig. 3, Mutschler teaches another embodiment in which the emitter and sensor die are arranged at an angle with respect to the rotary axis, whereby the beam splitter 4 of the apparatus in accordance with FIG. 3 can be omitted. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutschler in view of DiFonzo, and Nagasaka as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ruh (US20160069713A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises a reflective layer interposed between the linear polarizer and the hinge ([0035] mirror 16).
Mutschler is silent as to wherein the hinge angle encoding structure further comprises: a reflective diffuser layer.
However, Ruh does address this limitation. Ruh and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical 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 Mutschler 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutschler in view of DiFonzo, Nagasaka, and Ruh as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Wada (US20190101418A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo, Nagasaka, and Ruh teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and although Mutschler teaches wherein the linear polarizer is a wire grid polarizer ([0035]), Mutschler does not explicitly teach wherein the linear polarizer is an absorptive polarizer.
However, Wada does address this limitation. Wada and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical encoders.
Wada teaches a plurality of wires having light absorbing properties also may constitute the polarization pattern ([0066]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a wire gride polarizer may be an absorptive polarizer. 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 Mutschler to include wherein the first polarizing filter layer comprises an absorptive polarizer as suggested by Wada in order to reduce error from stray light.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutschler in view of DiFonzo, and Nagasaka as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sato (WO2014097489A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo and Nagasaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Mutschler is silent as to 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. Sato and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical 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 Mutschler 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 25-27 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutschler in view of DiFonzo.
Regarding claim 25, Mutschler teaches an electronic device comprising (at least Fig. 2 and 3):
an axis of a hinge ([0035] rotating shaft 14; Fig. 3 shows axis; [0034] measurement of the rotary angle of two optics rotating relative to one another about an axis of rotation);
a first polarizing filter layer of a first pattern disposed on the hinge ([0035] polarizer 12 is a wire grid polarizer), wherein the axis intersects the first polarizing filter layer (see Fig. 3);
an emitter configured to emit light towards the hinge through the first polarizing filter layer ([0035] light source 10);
a sensor die configured to receive the light reflecting back from the hinge ([0035] optoelectronic sensor element 20), wherein the axis further intersects the emitter, the sensor die, or a region between the emitter and the sensor die (Fig. 3 shows axis intersects the sensor die); and
a second polarizing filter layer of a second pattern, different than the first pattern, disposed only on the sensor die (Fig. 2; [0033] polarizing structure 24 a, 24 b, 24 c, 24 d; Fig. 2 shows pattern of second polarizer which is different than the first).
Mutschler is silent as to as to housing comprising first and second housing portions that rotate relative to each other about a hinge.
However, DiFonzo does address this limitation. DiFonzo and Mutschler are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical 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).
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 Mutschler 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]).
Regarding claim 26, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 25, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the first polarizing filter layer of the first pattern comprises a non-pixelated polarizer with uniform transmittance ([0035] polarizer 12 can be configured as a wire grid polarizer which would have uniform transmittance similar to applicant's wire grid polarizer in [0038], see also Fig. 5 depiction of polarizer 12), and wherein the second polarizing filter layer of the second pattern comprises a pixelated polarizer (Fig. 2; [0033] polarizing structure 24 a, 24 b, 24 c, 24 d).
Regarding claim 27, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 26, and Mutschler further teaches 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 ([0035] wire grid polarizer).
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 rearranged Mutschler such that the axis further intersects the region between the emitter and the sensor die in order to arrange the device in a given space, thus making it more compact.
Regarding claim 31, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 25, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the axis further intersects the emitter ([0026] The positions of the light source 10 and the receiver 20 can naturally be exchanged).
Regarding claim 32, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 25, and Mutschler further teaches wherein the axis further intersects the sensor die (Fig. 3 shows axis intersects the sensor die).
Regarding claim 33, Mutschler modified by DiFonzo teaches the electronic device of claim 25, and although Mutschler does not teach wherein the axis further intersects the region between the emitter and the sensor die in the embodiment of Fig. 3, Mutschler teaches another embodiment in which the emitter and sensor die are arranged at an angle with respect to the rotary axis, whereby the beam splitter 4 of the apparatus in accordance with FIG. 3 can be omitted. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C.
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 rearranged Mutschler such that the axis further intersects the region between the emitter and the sensor die in order to arrange the device in a given space, thus making it more compact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20030095257A1 by Wijntjes teaches an optically coupled rotary encoder that is capable of measuring and encoding the angle of rotation of a rotating or stationary object. The examiner draws attention to Figure 5 which shows a reflective encoding structure with similar elements to claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights