DETAILED ACTIONS
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
This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 06/03/2026.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues in the remarks see pages 7-9. filed 02/25/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 that
“Second, and concerning the literal subject matter from dependent claim 5 that is
now also brought forward into independent claim 1, here the Examiner relies on Goldman [0035] through [0046]. See, Office action in the paragraph bridging pages 8-9.
Respectfully, the Graham findings regarding Goldman are incorrect. As a predicate,
Applicant notes that Goldman paragraph [0033] (relied upon by the Examiner concerning original claim 1) does not disclose the "averaging the expected positions of the fixed reference points, [etc.]" subject matter. In Goldman, there two physical sensors, and
which have sections identified by reference numerals 20 and 22. The Goldman averaging operation on which the Examiner relies here is just a low-level signal processing step:
"One way to sample the position is by averaging the outputs of the sections 20 and 22 and then detecting when the [sine] and [cosine] of the averaged output has a zero crossing. "Goldman's technique involves rotary (not linear) motion, and these measurements on not with respect to "fixed reference points." Rather, the Goldman operation is averaging electrical waveforms from two physical sensors (sections 20 and 22) to determine a single sampling point. That said, and even with respect to the original wording in claim 1, it is not the averaging of multiple, separate measurement readings at different measuring tape marks (let alone to generate a "calibration value") as was positively recited.
Without waiver of the above argument, and with due respect, the Examiner
additional findings regarding the following portion of original claim 5 (and that is now
present in amended claim 1) is entirely unsupported: "for each fixed reference point and
its associated positional information, calculating an expected position by subtracting from the associated positional information a value equal to a number of unit lengths of such fixed reference point times a constant." (See, Office action, at page 9). In particular, here the plain language requires an explicit computation relative to a linear construct, the measuring tape. Yes, Goldman paragraph [0036] includes a table with definitions and formulas that include calculations, and the paragraph does refer to "specific correction algorithms ... implemented using only a real-time correction during encoder operation, or using a calibration step before encoder operation, ... " but the particular details set out in the follow-on paragraphs [0037]-[0046] do not disclose the subject matter now positively recited (and as set in original dependent claims 4-5). Rather, [0037] describes a table of "local error slops at each correction point" and [0038] describes the use of a table of "total accumulated error over the grating at each correction point." Paragraph [0040] concerns an unspecified "smoothing factor," paragraph [0041] concerns an unspecified "scale factor," and paragraph [0042] an unspecified "polynomial curve fit function." Paragraphs [0041]-[0046] and the paragraphs that follow (not cited by the Examiner) go on to describe
Goodman's algorithms ("Methods 1 and 2"). These algorithms and methods are of course specific to the particular angular detection summarized in Goodman claim 1, and that detection does not disclose the following particular requirement:
"for each fixed reference point and its associated positional information, calculating
an expected position by subtracting from the associated positional information a value
equal to a number of unit lengths of such fixed reference point times a constant;"
In the rejection, and with respect to this subject matter, the Examiner never
mentions the "subtracting" operation (let alone what is being subtracted and how the result is the "expected position"). This is a failure of proof under Rule 1.104( c )(2), which instructs the Examiner as follows: "When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be
designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified." Here, and with due respect, the Examiner just points to calculations in Goodman that includes constants or that may involve subtraction, but there is nothing in the Office action that even attempts to correlate the particular computations in Goodman with those set out in the claim. (And this is no surprise, as Goodman's algorithms are carry out computations that are angular in nature, whereas those in the subject disclosure are linear). Applicant here is not just claiming the notion of a computation, but rather a specific computation tied to other claim terms and phrases. Respectfully, the following underscored subject matter is not found in Goodman, or in the Reed-Goodman proposed combined teachings”.
Examiners Response:
Applicant's arguments, see remarks page 7-9, filed 02/25/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been considered, and not persuasive.
Goldman teaches predicting expected distance and optimized with averaging the expected position values and obtaining an accurate average expected distance between two know fixed point on the tape and apply as a calibration value. See Goldman figure 4-12 and table the steps of calibration and measure positional error values . Goldman teaches in claim 3, in step (ii), calculate a position error value by calculating the difference between the first and second measured phase values; in step (iii), to calculate a compensation value by multiplying the position error value by 2π/S, where S is a step size equal to the phase interval between adjacent correction points of the scale; and in Claim 4 in step (ii), to calculate the position error value by subtracting ∆. from the calculated difference between the first and second measured phase values, wherein ∆. represents a nominal phase separation modulo 2π between the first and second sections of the detector. and in claim 6 in step (ii), to calculate the position error value by calculating the difference between the first and second measured phase values; in step (iii), to calculate the compensation value by multiplying the position error value by 2π/S, where S is a step size equal to the phase interval between adjacent correction points of the scale.
Therefore, applicant argument is not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 11,460,284 B1, hereinafter Reed”284) and in view of Goldman et al. (US 2005/0274878 Al, hereinafter Goldman).
Regarding Claim 1, Reed teaches,
A digital linear measuring device having a measuring tape (Reed, Figure 1, Col. 1, Lines 65-67, Col. 2 lines 1-2, a digital linear measuring device (e.g., a tape measure) that digitizes the length of the extended tape”), with unit length markings (Reed, Col 5, lines 25-26, and lines 31-32, Typically, the printed pattern is marked on the measuring tape and human-visible As another variant, the printed pattern may comprise both human-visible and non-visible ink/markings.”)comprising:
a positional encoder (Reed, Figure 9, encoder 900);
a display (Reed, Figure 1, Display 106); and
a processor configured by software to process positional information received from the positional encoder, compute a linear location of the measuring tape, and generate a control signal to drive the display (Reed, Figure 10, steps 1000 (marking tape)- (1002 encoder- 1006 processor-1008 display, Col 6. Lines 16-20, The control software executed by the processor on the microcontroller provides for conversion of the electrical signals read from the various measuring elements into a measurement that is then displayed on the primary display);
the processor being further configured to adjust an accuracy of positional data displayed by the device by receiving a set of positional information from the positional encoder (Reed, Col 6. Lines 30-33, “The processor is configured to process the received positional information (see fig. 10 steps 1000 (marking tape)- 1002 encoder- 1006 processor), and generate an accurate linear location, which is then output (as a control signal) to drive the display 1008”):
the set of positional information having been generated (Reed, Col. 7, lines 14-19, The device may be calibrated by measuring a block of known distance. The device may be calibrated by measuring a block of known distance (…) The onboard computer may then calculate and correlate this user input distance to the data from both encoders to scale and record this measurement and ensure it is always reading accurately”. according to a calibration protocol (Reed, Col 5, Lines, 52-68, Computer software executing on the processor in the microcontroller converts these signals to the linear measurement, which is then stored/displayed. (…) reader and the processor software include error checking routines to compensate for different sized patterns, damaged sections of the measuring tape, and other environmental, physical or other factors” NOTE: compensating for errors using software reads on the “calibration protocol”.)”
the calibration protocol comprising a set of readings taken with the measuring tape at two or more fixed reference points, wherein the two or more fixed reference points include the measuring tape at a first position, and at a second position along the measuring tape distinct from the first position; (Reed, Figure 6-7, Col. 5, lines 5-10, “In order to obtain additional (more fine-grained resolution) from the pattern, preferably interpolation between rows is accomplished by including an additional marker correlating to a specific distance between two absolute elements”. NOTE: reading from “two absolute elements” reads on the “two fixed point” representing absolute position and measured value are interpolated to calculate expected positions of the known two marking points. Two absolute position is two different positions along the measuring tape. see (Reed, Figures 7- 8, and Col. 5, lines 11-15, “as shown in FIG. 8, preferably the printed pattern includes (along a row) absolute bits 800, a check bit 802, and one or more interpolation bits 804. Absolute 800, check 802 and interpolation bits 805 may be present in each row of elements (with a row such as depicted in FIG. 7) and
thereafter applying the calibration value to positional information received from the positional encoder to generate a new control signal that drives the display. (Reed, Figure 10, Col 6, lines 30-33, “The processor is configured to process the received positional information and generate an accurate linear location, which is then output (as a control signal) to drive the display 1008”).
Reed is silent on for each fixed reference point and its associated positional information, calculating an expected position by subtracting from the associated positional information a value equal to a number of unit lengths of such fixed reference point times a constant; and averaging the expected positions of the fixed reference points to generate an average expected distance between a pair of the fixed reference points; and saving the average expected distance between the pair of the fixed reference points as a calibration value; and
However, Goldman teaches for each fixed reference point and its associated positional information, calculating an expected position by subtracting from the associated positional information a value equal to a number of unit lengths of such fixed reference point times a constant; (Goldman, Figures 4-5. See claim 3, in step (ii), calculate a position error value by calculating the difference between the first and second measured phase values; in step (iii), to calculate a compensation value by multiplying the position error value by 2π/S, where S is a step size equal to the phase interval between adjacent correction points of the scale; and claim 4, [0096] “in step (ii), to calculate the position error value by subtracting ∆. from the calculated difference between the first and second measured phase values, wherein ∆. represents a nominal phase separation modulo 2π between the first and second sections of the detector”. And Claim 6 “in step (ii), to calculate the position error value by calculating the difference between the first and second measured phase values; in step (iii), to calculate the compensation value by multiplying the position error value by 2π/S, where S is a step size equal to the phase interval between adjacent correction points of the scale”; and)
and averaging the expected positions of the fixed reference points to generate an average expected distance between a pair of the fixed reference points; and saving the average expected distance between the pair of the fixed reference points as a calibration value (Goldman, figure 4-11, [0033] “In a typical interpolating encoder, position is sampled at time-based intervals, and then the change in position from the last reading is reported or stored accordingly. In the presently disclosed encoder, it is necessary to sample at specific positions, referred to as "correction points", either in addition to or in place of the time-based samples. One way to sample the position is by averaging the outputs of the sections 20 and 22.(…) The basic requirement is that the average position be sampled accurately at equal position intervals along the scale.”also see [0035]-[0036])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reed’s calibration method for predicting expected distance and optimized with averaging the expected position values as taught by Goldman with the benefit of obtaining an accurate average expected distance between two know fixed point on the tape and apply as a calibration value (Goldman, [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include the well-known calibration method along with the other statistical algorithm and analysis, in order to yield the predicted results of generating accurate average expected distance, yet with higher accuracy (KSR).
Regarding Claim 2, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches further including using the new control signal to display a new measurement associated with a new reading, wherein the new measurement matches unit length markings on the measuring tape. (Reed, Col 6, Lines 10-16,” This output signal is converted into a measurement that is then displayed in the live view, preferably continuously as the tape measure moves. That measurement may then be captured by the user entering a control command ( e.g., by pushing a control 15 button”. Col. 3 lines, 40-44, “When the user decides to record/ save a given measurement, he or she selects a control button 110, at which point the then-current indicated measurement is transferred from the live view (on the first display 106) to the stored measurement view”).
Regarding Claim 3, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches wherein the set of fixed reference points include the measuring tape in a non-extended position, and in a fully- extended position. (Reed, Figure 3- 4, 6-8, Col 5, lines 57-62, FIGS. 7-8,” the preconfigured pattern comprises an array composed of contiguous discrete rows, wherein a row is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the measuring tape, each row along the pattern including first elements (e.g., absolute bits 800 in FIG. 8) which together representing an absolute position along the pattern, and one or more second elements”).
Regarding Claim 4, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches, wherein the first position is the measuring tape at a "0" unit length corresponding to the measuring tape being unextended, and the second position is the measuring tape extended a "1 to n" unit length, wherein n is a maximum unit length along the measuring tape. Reed, Figure 3-4, and Figure 6-8 Col 1, lines 54-59, “A processing unit is responsive to both the incremental measurement data and to the absolute measurement data for generating an output reflecting linear extension of the measuring tape from the housing, and a display is responsive to the processing unit for displaying information reflecting the linear extension of the measuring tape from the housing” NOTE: measuring data represent for both extended and un-extended linear extension of tap unit length. for example, Figure 7, 700 represent an extended tap with unit marking. It is known in the art that unextended position is marked at “0” unit length and extended position marks increase by “unit length” such as “ 1”, “2” inch. It is not an inventive concept.).
Regarding Claim 5, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 4,
Reed further teaches wherein the fixed reference points are unit lengths of "0," the maximum unit length along the measuring tape, and at least one of: "1," "2," "3" and "4;" (Reed, Col 7, lines 16-19, The onboard computer may then calculate and correlate this user input distance to the data from both encoders to scale and record this measurement and ensure it is always reading accurately” Scaling the measurement tape with accurate unit lengths is known in the art ).
Regarding Claim 6, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 5,
Reed further teaches wherein the constant is a fixed unit length value (Reed, Col. 7, lines 14-19, The device may be calibrated by measuring a block of known distance. The device may be calibrated by measuring a block of known distance (…) The onboard computer may then calculate and correlate this user input distance to the data from both encoders to scale and record this measurement and ensure it is always reading accurately”).
Regarding Claim 7, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches wherein the calibration protocol generates the calibration value to compensate for an offset error associated with the measuring tape. (Reed, Col. 4, lines 52-59, “Computer software executing on the processor in the microcontroller converts these signals to the linear measurement, which is then stored/displayed. Preferably, the optical reader and the processor software include error checking routines to compensate for different sized patterns, damaged sections of the measuring tape, and other environmental, physical or other factors”).
Regarding Claim 9, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches wherein the calibration protocol generates the calibration value to compensate for a scaling error associated with the measuring tape. (Reed, Col. 4, lines 54-56, the optical reader and the processor software include error checking routines to compensate for different sized patterns “).
Regarding Claim 10, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 9,
Reed further teaches wherein the scaling error is caused by a defect in one or more printed markings on the measuring tape. (Reed, Col, 4, lines 54-57, the optical reader and the processor software include error checking routines to compensate for damaged sections of the measuring tape”).
Regarding Claim 11, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches wherein one or more of the set of readings identified in the calibration protocol are initiated by a display prompt. (Reed, Figure 10, Col 6, lines 30-33, “The processor is configured to process the received positional information and generate an accurate linear location, which is then output (as a control signal) to drive the display 1008”).
Regarding Claim 12, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches wherein each of the fixed reference points are distinct from one another. (Reed, Figure 6-8, Col. 4, Lines 65-67, The tape 602 includes a reading
pattern 604, which typically comprises many discrete elements. FIG. 7 depicts the reading of a single row 700 across the tape. Based on the pattern elements, a single row provides sufficient information to enable identification of an extent to which the measurement tape is extended from the housing” NOTE: each single element is unique absolute position identifier)
Regarding Claim 13, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 1,
Reed further teaches further including verifying that the average expected distance between the pair of the fixed reference points is consistent over an entire length of the tape measure. Reed, Figure 10, Col 6, Lines 23-33, “The devices are coupled to the processor 1006 that is under program control. The optical encoder 1002 provides a first data stream A to the processor representing positional information. The incremental encoder 1004, and based on direct or indirect interaction with the markings, provides additional positional information as a second data stream B to the processor. The processor is configured to process the received positional information and generate an accurate linear location, which is then output (as a control signal) to drive the display 1008.” NOTE: software program does the interpolation (fig. 3, The interpolation element 308) and average calculations); and thereafter applying the calibration value to positional information received from the positional encoder to generate a new control signal that drives the display. (Reed, Figure 10, Col 6, lines 30-33, “The processor is configured to process the received positional information and generate an accurate linear location, which is then output (as a control signal) to drive the display 1008”. NOTE: the calibration factor input generate new measurement value continuously, therefore, average expected distances for each unit length of the measurement tape is consistent.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed and Goldman as applied to claim 1, and in view of Hi Song Eun (US 2020/0080827 A1, hereinafter Eun).
Regarding Claim 8, combination of Reed and Goldman teaches the digital linear measuring device as described in claim 7,
Reed further teaches wherein the offset error is caused by a defect to the measuring tape (Reed, Col. 4, lines 55-59, “include error checking routines to compensate for different sized patterns, damaged sections of the measuring tape, and other environmental, physical or other factors” NOTE: “the physical or other factors” of error reads on “hook attachment or hook issue” of the measuring tape of the measurement tape)
Reed is silent on wherein the measuring tape include a hook,
However, Eun teaches wherein the measuring tape include a hook, (Eun, Figure 2, [0056] Further, the tape 120 may further include a hook 122 to maintain the tape 120 to be hung on the pull-out slot 111 of the case 110”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Reed’s measuring tape and attach a hook at the end as taught by Eun with the benefit of hung on and user convenience for accurate position measurement. (Eun, [0056]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masreliez et al. (US5894678A) recites “An electronic linear tape measure using a low power induced current position transducer. The tape measure includes an enclosure case with a lateral slot through which the tape blade can be pulled. The tape blade is wound inside the enclosure case on a tape reel which is mounted on an axis support that has a spring loaded rewind mechanism. Also included are a tape lock, a keypad for various functions, and a conventional LCD display for displaying measured lengths. The signal processing and display electronics of the electronic tape measure are connected to the active portion of the transducer. The display provides an indication of the relative position between the elements of the transducer that coincides with the length of tape that has been pulled from the enclosure case. The relatively insensitive nature of the low power induced current position transducer to contaminants, tape damage and mechanical shock allows construction of an electronic tape measure with the preferred, historically proven, form that functions with greatly improved reliability when operating in a traditional environment. Additionally, the low power consumption of the induced current position transducer significantly increases the practicality of an electronic tape measure”.(Abstract)
Fratti et al. (US 2010/0325909 A1) recites “In one embodiment, a tape measure having a tape, housing, and an input, has an OLED strip overlaid on top of the tape. The housing contains a programmable controller and a rolled-up portion of the tape. A specified fraction of the length of the linear target is provided to the controller using the input. The tape may be extracted from the housing to generate an exposed portion of the tape corresponding to the total length of a linear target. The controller receives information indicative of the total length of the linear target. The controller controls the OLED strip to show, i.e., light up along the tape, a fractional portion corresponding to the specified fraction of the linear target.(abstract)
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 extension fee 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 DILARA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)272-3861. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9 AM-5:30 PM.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached on (571) 272-4448. 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.
/DILARA SULTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
08/26/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights