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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 18, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
The amendment overcame all the rejections under 35 USAC 112(b). However, the amendment fails to overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103.
Currently, claims 1-8 and 10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
Yasuda discloses a mechanical control wire to transmit mechanical pulling or pushing force to bend the manipulator’s distal end. These mechanical wires 5 as discloses in Yasuda are stiff and are not made of flexible material. Additionally Yasuda, paragraph [0052], discloses the encoder slit portion 32 to be made of a flexible material, but fails to disclose that the wire 5 is also made of flexible material.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant’s argument, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that Yasuda expressly describes wire 5 as movable and bendable and repeatedly shows and states that the encoder slit part moves integrally with the wire and that the split part bends with the wire. (See, e.g., ¶¶ [0046]–[0053] (describing that wire 5 and encoder slit part 32 are “integrally moving in the longitudinal direction.” That slit part 32 is “preferably made of a flexible member such as an SUS pipe” and that “this makes it possible for the encoder slit part 32 to bend integrally with the wire 5”), and the figures (e.g., Figs. 3-5 AND Fig. 12A-12B) showing bending operation and the wire’s accommodation to bending. Yasuda’s disclosure that the encoder slit part 32 “bends integrally with wire 5” necessarily teaches that the wire 5 is capable of bending (i.e., is flexible in use), because structural cooperation and integrated bending require that the wire be capable of bending along with the slit member. See ¶ [0052]. The fact that Yasuda prefers the encoder slit part to be made of a “flexible member” to permit integrated bending further supports the teaching that the system is intended to operate with wires that permit bending and displacement. That operation teaching establishes a reasonable expectation that the wires are made of material permitting the required bending (i.e., flexible material), even when Yasuda emphasizes the slit part’s flexibility. The figures (e.g., Fig. 12A-12B) schematically depict the moving part and wires in both unbent and bent states and thus corroborate the textual disclosure that the wires participate in bending motion. Further, the term “flexible material” was not narrowly defined by Applicant. Under its ordinary meaning in this mechanical context, many tensile transmission elements used as control wires (e.g., steel cables, braided wires, certain metal rods/filaments, polymer-coated wires) are “flexible: in the sense that they can be bent to follow curvature while still transmitting tensile forces. Yasuda’s disclosure of wires that are reeled, pulled, and permit bending when the moving part is actuated (¶¶ [0044]–[0046], [0052]) falls within that ordinary meaning. Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, applicant’s assertion that Yasuda’s wire are “stiff” is not supported by the disclosure of Yasuda and is inconsistent with Yasuda’s explicit statements and depictions that wires and the attached slit part bend during operation.
Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the limitation in concern, a wire rod “made of a flexible material” is disclosed both expressly (in the sense that Yasuda describes bending and integrated motion of wire and slit) and inherently (in the sense that the wire must be flexible to perform the disclosed bending function),. Inherency law supports that where a prior art reference necessarily requires a characteristic for the disclosed operation, that characteristic is inherent. See, e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F. D 743, 745-46 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here the ability to bend with the slit part is an essential feature of Yasuda’s system as described and thus, the wire’s flexibility is inherent in the disclosure.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses an elongated member (wire 5, figure 4) used for a detection system that detects an amount of displacement that is an amount the elongated member (the device uses an optical encoder to measure the longitudinal displacement of a reflector attached to the linear power transmission member (the wire), abstract) is reeled out or reeled in in a motion mechanism in which a moving part moves as the elongated member is reeled out or reeled in (a motor drives the wires in or out, paragraph [0045], the driving mechanism that moves the wire can be a combination of a
rotary motor and a pulley, the wires are wound around the pulleys, paragraph [0044], additionally this is an intended use of the elongated member the motion mechanism and reel are not part of the elongated member they are part of the detection system that the elongated member is used with, and the motion mechanism and reel are part of the preamble of the claim and are not positively recited elements of the elongated member, see MPEP 2111.02 (II), therefore the member only needs to be capable of being
used in this way, see MPEP 2115), the elongated member comprising:
a main body part (wire 5, figure 4); and
a patterned part in which a plurality of reflective portions appears in a surface of the main body part (a reflector provided on the outer peripheral surface of the linear power transmission member, abstract, encoder slit part 32 is fixed on the outer surface of wire 5, paragraph [0047], figures 3-4, slit part 32 is a reflector, paragraph [0047], slit part 32 includes a plurality of reflective portions 41A and 41B, figure 8A paragraph [0049]), wherein the plurality of reflective potions each has different reflection characteristics relative to an electromagnetic wave applied to the elongated member (41A and 41B are two kinds of reflecting portions which differ in reflectance, paragraph [0049], light is directed to the reflectors and then the reflected light is collected, displacement is found based on the change in the intensity of the reflected
light, abstract, the different reflectance must be relative to the light being applied to produce the graphs in figures 10A-10C), and
the elongated member is a wire rod made of a flexible material (wire 5 can bend, paragraph [0052], this would require it to be made of a flexible material, figure 3 shows wire 5 being roughly rod shaped). (please refer to the response to the arguments above for more detailed explanation).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Yasuda also discloses a detection system (optical encoder and method of detecting displacement, title) comprising:
the elongated member according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
an irradiation unit configured to apply an electromagnetic wave to the patterned part (light source radiates light to the reflector, paragraph [0008], this would be applying some form of electromagnetic wave);
a sensor unit configured to detect a reflected wave of the electromagnetic wave applied to the patterned part (a light receiving element receives the reflection light, paragraph [0009]); and
a calculation unit configured to calculate, based on a difference in reflection characteristics among reflective potions of the patterned part that has been detected by the sensor unit, an amount of displacement that is an amount of the elongated member (a signal processing mechanism configured to convert the electric signal from the receiving element into a pulse signal, and a calculation mechanism configured to calculate the longitudinal displacement from a number of pulses of the pulse signal,
paragraph [0009], the pulses are related to the difference in reflection from the reflective elements and an example signal is shown in figure 10A) is reeled out or reeled in in a motion mechanism in which a moving part moves as the elongated member is reeled out or reeled in (a motor drives the wires in or out, paragraph [0045], the driving mechanism that moves the wire can be a combination of a rotary motor and a pulley, the wires are wound around the pulleys, paragraph [0044], the rotary motor moving
the wire that is wound around a pulley would be some form or reeling in and out, this is done to cause the motion (bending) of moving part 3, paragraph [0005], additionally the motion mechanism and reel are not part of the detection system, the use of the detection system with the elongated member being moved by a motion mechanism that reels the elongated member in and out is therefore an intended use of the system, therefore the system of Yasuda only needs to be capable of being used with these
elements, see MPEP 2115).
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.
20. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1) in view of Dantler (CN 112074708 A).
21. Regarding claim 3, Yasuda discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Yasuda does not specifically disclose wherein the irradiation unit is configured to apply visible light to the elongated member.
Dantler, in the same field of optical encoders, teaches an optical encoder wherein the irradiation unit is configured to apply visible light (a white light source may be used, paragraph [0089], white light would include at least some amount of visible light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda with the light source providing white light. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have been capable of swapping the unspecified light of Yasuda with the white light of Dantler, that light sources that use white light and their functions were known, and that this would have resulted in nothing more than the predictable result of providing white light to the reflectors (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
22. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1) in view of Ruh (US 20180031395 A1).
23. Regarding claim 4, Yasuda discloses all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
Yasuda does not specifically disclose , wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect each of reflected waves in different wavelength ranges.
Ruh, in the same field of optical encoders, teaches an encoder that can use a stripe encoding pattern of different colors and a sensor unit is configured to detect each of reflected waves in different wavelength ranges (the sensors may be color sensitive, paragraph [0062], to be color sensitive the sensors would have to be capable of measuring different wavelength ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda with the stripes of different colors and the sensor to detect the color of the stripes of Ruh. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that this would provide an alternate means for determining the displacement of the stripes using the encoder (Ruh, paragraph [0062]), that the use of these elements and their functions related to optical encoders were known in the art, and that their use would have resulted in nothing more than the
predictable result of measuring movement using the encoder (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
24. Regarding claim 7, Yasuda discloses all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
Yasuda also discloses wherein the patterned part includes a plurality of sets of reflective portions in a repetitive arrangement, with each set composed of a plurality of reflective potions (encoder slit part 32, includes two kinds of reflective portions 41A and 41B, paragraph [0049] figure 4, each of these could be considered a set, figure 4 shows that part 32 includes multiple sets of reflective portions 41A and 41B).
Yasuda does not specifically disclose the reflective portions having different colors.
Ruh, in the same field of optical encoders, teaches an encoder with a plurality of stripes of different colors (a first stripe in the pattern may be a first color, a second stripe a second color, the third stripe a third color, paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda with the colored stripes of Ruh for the benefit of measuring movement and speed with the encoder (Ruh, paragraph [0062]).
25. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1) in view of Ruh (US 20180031395 A1) in further view of Kim (US 20190250013 A1).
26. Regarding claim 5, Yasuda and Ruh teach all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
Yasuda and Ruh do not specifically disclose the system wherein the sensor unit includes: a first sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a red wavelength range; a second sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a blue wavelength range; a third sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a green wavelength range.
Kim (US 2019), in the same field of optical encoders, teaches a first sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a red wavelength range; a second sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a blue wavelength range; a third sensor configured to detect a reflected wave in a green wavelength range (the sensor may include data of a red, a green, and a blue pixel, paragraph [0066], these would act as three separate sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda in view of Ruh with the separate sensors for red, green, and blue of Kim (US 2019) for the benefit of using the data from each pixel to determine the specific color (Kim (US 2019), paragraph [0066]).
27. Regarding claim 6, Yasuda and Ruh teach all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
Yasuda also discloses the system wherein the calculation unit is configured to acquire a detection result of the sensor unit for each of the reflective portions (a signal processing mechanism configured to convert the electric signal from the receiving element into a pulse signal, and a calculation mechanism configured to calculate the longitudinal displacement from a number of pulses of the pulse signal, paragraph [0009], this would require determining a detection result for each reflective portion).
While Yasuda and Ruh do not specifically teach the system wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the amount of displacement of the elongated member according to a combination of wavelength ranges of detected reflected waves, Ruh does disclose the change in the color of the pattern being used to determine the displacement (Ruh, paragraph [0062]).
Kim (US 2019), in the same field of optical encoders, teaches using the combination of the wavelength ranges to determine a color (data from red, green, and blue pixels may be used to show the specific color, paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda in view of Ruh with the combination of the wavelength ranges of Kim (US 2019) for the benefit of determining the color (Kim (US 2019), paragraph [0066]).
While Kim (US 2019) does not specifically disclose using this combination to determine a displacement, the use of the method of Hama for determining the color, as applied to Yasuda in view of Ruh would result in the measurement of displacement based on the change in the measured color of the encoder stripe (Ruh, paragraph [0062]).
28. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1) in view of Ruh (US 20180031395 A1) in further view of Dantler (CN 112074708 A).
29. Regarding claim 8, Yasuda and Ruh teach all the elements of claim7 as outlined above.
While Yasuda and Ruh do not specifically teach wherein the different color is one color among red, blue, and green, a color combining two or more colors among red, blue, and green, or black, Ruh does not place any limit on what the different colors may be.
Dantler, in the same field of optical encoders, teaches the use of red, green and blue marks on an encoder (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yasuda in view of Ruh with the color pattern including red, green, and blue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of the primary colors of red, green, and blue for the three different colors in the pattern of Ruh would have resulted in nothing more than the predictable result of providing different colors to the pattern (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
30. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20100245846 A1) in view of Kim (US 20200107898 A1).
31. Regarding claim 10, Yasuda teaches all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
Yasuda also discloses a motion mechanism comprising (bending operation system, paragraph [0010]): the detection system according to claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above);
a moving part configured to move based on displacement of the elongated member (a moving part connected to the distal end of the linear power transmission member configured to perform a bending operation in accordance with longitudinal movement of the linear power transmission member, paragraph [0010]);
a driving part that is provided in the fixed part and configured to reel out or reel in the elongated member (a motor drives the wires in or out, paragraph [0045], the driving mechanism that moves the wire can be a combination of a rotary motor and a pulley, the wires are wound around the pulleys, paragraph [0044], this would involve some amount of reeling in and out of the wire on the pulley), wherein
the light transmitter of the detection system is disposed closer to a junction between the
elongated member and the moving part that to the driving part (optical fiber 22 guides illumination light toward the encoder slit 32, and reflected light back to the light receiving element, figure 4, this takes place in encoder link part 20 which is closer to the moving part 3 than driving mechanism 11 as shown in figure 1).
While Yasuda does not teach the irradiation unit and sensor unit being located in the encoder link part, the element that performs the function of providing light to the encoder pattern is located there (light entrance/reflectance holes 37, figure 4). The location of the light source and light receiving element would not change the function of those elements and therefore would be an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C)).
While Yasuda does not specifically disclose a fixed part on which the moving part is fixed, Yasuda does disclose the encoder link provided in the vicinity of the moving part 3 on tubular part 2 (see figure 1, paragraph [0046]), and that moving part 3 is provided on the distal end side of tubular part 2 (paragraph [0044]).
Kim (US 2020), in the same field of wire bendable devices, teaches a steerable member 100 attached to a tubular flexible member 200 (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mechanism of Yasuda with the moving part fixed on the tubular part as shown by Kim (US 2020) for the benefit of connecting the moving part with the tubular portion (Kim (US 2020), paragraph [0071]).
Conclusion
32. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877