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 .
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 A1, 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; or each fixed reference point, calculating an expected 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. 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
; 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 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.
However, Goldman teaches 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 set of fixed reference points of the calibration protocol include the measuring tape at one of: a "0" unit length corresponding to the measuring tape being unextended, and 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," and wherein, for each such fixed reference point and its associated positional information (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 )
Reed teaches interpolating (Reed, Figure 6-7, Col. 5, lines 5-10) 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”.)
Reed is silent on the expected position for such fixed reference point is computed by subtracting from the associated positional information a value equal to a number of unit lengths of such fixed reference point times a constant.
However, Goldman teaches the expected position for such fixed reference point is computed 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, [0036] The specific correction algorithms may be implemented using only a real-time correction during encoder operation, or using a calibration step before encoder operation, in which case the corrections during operation are applied from a stored formula or look up table. When a calibration step is used, one of two types of calibration tables may be created” See [0035] for algorithm and also [0037]-[0046]and Figure 4-figure 11)).
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 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])
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seiichi et al. (DE 102018213764 A1) discloses a system “To provide a system for generating a calibration value that can be used to calibrate the detected data with high precision even with a low-cost, low precision encoder. [Solution] There are provided a calibration encoder 10 and a master encoder 20, the scales 11, 21 having a detection pattern, detection sensors 13, 23 outputting a detection signal corresponding to the detection pattern, and position calculators 14, 24 calculating the positional relationship between the scales 11, 21 of the calibration encoder 10 and the detection sensors 13, 23 based on the detected position data of the master encoder 20, a calibration value for the detected position data of the calibration encoder 10 is generated. The master encoder 20 has a higher precision and a higher resolution than the calibration encoder 10. The position calculator 14 outputs a trigger signal at respective position intervals, and the calibration value generation unit 25 compares the position data corresponding to the trigger signal from the position calculator 14 with the position data Time at which the trigger signal was output, obtained from the position calculation device 24 position data and generates a calibration value (Abstract).
Johnson et al. (US 2019/0376819 A1) The invention recites “Optical Position Encoders and methods using the same are described. In embodiments, the optical position encoders include a multitrack Hybrid Cyclic Binary Code-2 (HCBC-2) encoded scale and an Optical Readout Assembly (ORA), where the ORA provides absolute position optical readout and automatic physical alignment to the scale. Linear optical position encoders, rotary optical position encoders, and methods of measuring the position of ORA relative to a scale using such encoders are also described” (Abstract).
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
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
4/6/2026