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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation in line 11, “a rotation angle” should be “the rotation angle” since the rotation angle was previously mentioned in line 2 of claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an outputter” in claims 2, 3, 4 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “an outputter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear as to what the structure of the outputter is supposed to be. The claims 2, 3, 4 and 16, describe calculations occurring in the outputter, but it is unclear as to what specifically is performing these calculations. For examining purposes, anything that is capable of performing a mathematical function, such as adders, subtracters, computers and calculators will be considered. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 2, 3 and 4, the limitations with the equations are unclear. It is unclear what these signal values represent in the claim language. The claim just states the signals corresponding to light receiving region are put into an equation in two combinations to determine two values. What are these values? Are they an intensity, an angular measurement or a positional measurement? It is unclear the reason for this equation in claim 2, as well as the sum equation in claim 3 and the quotient values in claim 4. These equations don’t mean anything in the claims other than just mathematical manipulation of information. Please clarify.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because of their dependency on claims 2 and 3, respectively.
In regards to claim 5, the limitation “the light receiver includes one or more light receiving regions” is unclear with the context of claim 1 in which the claim is dependent. The light receiver already has a first, second, third and fourth light receiving region. Is the one or more light receiving regions in claim 5 a part of the first four or separate? It appears the light receiving regions (51, 52, 53, 54) are different than the first four light receiving regions (55-58), as seen in figure 3 of Applicant’s specification. For examining purposes, the claim will be understood as “the light receiver further includes one or more light receiving regions” to provide more clarity around the different light receiving regions. Also, it is unclear what P1 represents in the claim. It appears to be an angle based on the calculation, but it is unclear what angle it is representing. The claim states P is a rotation angle, and the equation seems to be calculating a new rotation angle from a starting rotation angle, with the adjustment of eccentricity of the rotary plate. This is how the claim will be interpreted. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regards to claim 2, the claim is drawn to an outputter that outputs a signal indicating a value X and a value Y, which are calculated using the signal values corresponding to light received by the first, second, third and fourth light receiving regions.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claimed invention is to use signal values (A1, A2, B1, B2) from the light receiving regions and calculate two signals (X and Y) to be output with specific mathematical equations. As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, the limitations drawn to using signal values corresponding to light receiving regions to calculate two signals which are then output as X and Y signals, amount to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ 2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claimed invention is an encoder with emitter, rotary plate that rotates and a light receiver that receives light from the emitter via the rotary plate, where the light receiver has a specific design with a first, second third and fourth light regions, the judicial exception is not applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the signal values used to calculate two signals X and Y correspond to the first, second, third and fourth light receiving regions, there are no limitations what the signal values and calculated two signals are supposed to represent. The claim does not describe how these signals affect, change or further describe the encoder structure with light receiving regions. While the claim concludes with the calculating two signals (X and Y), nothing is done with this information, which fails to integrate the judicial exception set forth in the claim into a practical application.
While the claimed encoder involves the use of an outputter, which is interpreted as being any circuit/processor that can perform mathematical calculations, since this is not clearly described in the specification, a claim can still recite a mental process even if it is claimed as being performed on the outputter as interpreted, particularly when the mental process is performed on a generic computer or the like. The courts have held that a mental process that is performed on a generic computer is considered to be an abstract idea as per Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea is performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ 2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As a result, claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following dependent claims are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 3, the claim only sets forth a further limitation of the abstract idea, as the claims further perform different mathematical calculations to output another signal Q. As noted previously, there is nothing in the claim providing practical application or further describing the structure of the encoder or outputter.
In regards to claim 4, the claim only sets forth a further limitation of the abstract idea, as the claims further perform different mathematical calculations to output two new signals X1 and Y1, using X, Y and Q previously calculated. As noted previously, there is nothing in the claim providing practical application or further describing the structure of the encoder or outputter.
In regards to claim 5, the claim only sets forth a further limitation of the abstract idea, as the claims further perform different mathematical calculations from signals corresponding to different light receiving regions (see 112 rejection above), to calculate new signal value P1. As noted previously, there is nothing in the claim providing practical application or further describing the structure of the encoder, calculator or outputter. A calculator uses added variables such as an eccentric amount and eccentric phase (unsure where eccentric amount and eccentric phase values come from) with radius of the annular region and rotation angle (determined from the different light receiving regions) to calculate P1. P1 is undefined in how it provides practical application with the described encoder. Again the ouputter outputs a new calculated signal (P1) separate from the previously mentioned signals (X, Y, X1, Y1, Q), there is nothing in the claim providing practical application or further describing the structure of the encoder, calculator or outputter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026).
Re claim 1: Yoshida teaches an encoder (fig. 1-5) comprising: an emitter (130) that emits light (see fig. 2); a rotary plate (110) that rotates and includes an annular region (CP) that reflects or transmits the light emitted from the emitter (130) (see fig. 2), the annular region (CP) being provided surrounding a rotation axis (O) of the rotary plate (110) (see fig. 2 and 3); and a light receiver (150) that receives light emitted from the emitter (130) and arriving via the annular region (CP) (see fig. 2), wherein the light receiver (150) includes: a first set (150L) that includes a first light-receiving region (150L top) and a second light-receiving region (150L bottom) that are arranged side by side in a first direction intersecting a rotation direction of the rotary plate (110) (see fig. 4, there are four light receiving regions side by side in 150L in a direction that intersects with rotation direction along CP); and a second set (150R) that includes a third light-receiving region (150R top) and a fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom) that are arranged side by side in a second direction intersecting the rotation direction (see fig. 4, there are four light receiving regions side by side in 150R in a direction that intersects with rotation direction along CP) and that is provided side by side with the first set (150L) in the rotation direction (see fig. 4, 150L and 150R are side by side in the rotation direction along CP).
Re claim 6: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the emitter (130) is interposed between the first set (150L) and the second set (150R) in the rotation direction (see fig. 4).
Re claim 7: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein each of the first set (150L) and the second set (150R) is located inwardly of the emitter (130) in a radial direction around the rotation axis (O) (see fig. 4).
Re claim 9: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein an end portion of the first light-receiving region (150L top, edge in contact with 150L bottom edge) closer to the second light-receiving region (150R bottom), an end portion of the second light-receiving region (150L bottom, edge in contact with 150L top edge) closer to the first light-receiving region (150L top) (fig. 4), an end portion of the third light-receiving region (150R top, edge in contact with 150R bottom edge) closer to the fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom), and an end portion of the fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom, edge in contact with 150R top edge) closer to the third light-receiving region (150R top) are each in a shape of a straight line extending in a tangential direction with respect to the rotation direction (radial direction along Cp, see fig. 4, the edges of the light receiving regions in 150L and 150R are straight tangent to curve of Cp).
Re claim 11: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the first direction is a direction that coincides with a radial direction around the rotation axis, and the second direction is a direction that coincides with the radial direction around the rotation axis and intersects the first direction (see fig. 4, the light receiving regions in 150L are stacked to coincide with the radial direction, the light receiving regions in 150R are stacked to coincide with the radial direction, the stack direction of 150L and 150R are at an angle with each other so a light drawn through the stack direction for each light receiver set would eventually intersect with each other).
Re claim 12: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein a dimension between an end portion of the first light-receiving region farther from the second light-receiving region and an end portion of the second light-receiving region farther from the first light-receiving region in the first direction (the dimension is Wt for 150L, fig. 4) is greater than a dimension, in the first direction, of light that is emitted from the emitter and, after being incident on the annular region (Cp), irradiates the first light-receiving region and the second light-receiving region (dimension of light reflected from Cp is Wp, see fig. 2, 3 and 4, paragraph 40 and 41, where Wt = k*Wp, where k = (d1+d2)/d1, therefore Wt is greater than Wp), and a dimension between an end portion of the third light-receiving region farther from the fourth light-receiving region and an end portion of the fourth light-receiving region farther from the third light-receiving region in the second direction is greater than a dimension (Wt of 150R, fig. 4), in the second direction, of light that is emitted from the emitter and, after being incident on the annular region, irradiates the third light-receiving region and the fourth light-receiving region (dimension of light reflected from Cp is Wp, see fig. 2, 3 and 4, paragraph 40 and 41, where Wt = k*Wp, where k = (d1+d2)/d1, therefore Wt is greater than Wp).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) in view of Ueda et al. (US 4990909).
Re claim 2: Yoshida teaches the light receiver (150) that receives light emitted from the emitter (130) and arriving via the annular region (CP) (see fig. 2), wherein the light receiver (150/140) includes: the first set (150L) that includes the first light-receiving region (150L top) and the second light-receiving region (150L bottom) and the second set (150R) that includes the third light-receiving region (150R top) and the fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom) and an outputter (162) for outputting signals from the light receiving region (150) (fig. 6, paragraph 37, 38 and 45-51), but does not specifically teach the signal indicating a value of X expressed as below and the signal indicating a value of Y expressed as below: X=(A1 + B2) - (B1 + A2); Y = (A1 +B1) - (A2 + B2) where A1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the first light-receiving region, A2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the second light-receiving region, B1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the third light-receiving region, B2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the fourth light-receiving region. Ueda teaches an outputter (AS1/AS2) (fig. 11) that outputs a signal indicating a value of X expressed as below and a signal indicating a value of Y expressed as below: X=(A1 + B2) - (B1 + A2); Y = (A1 +B1) - (A2 + B2) where A1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the first light-receiving region, A2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the second light-receiving region, B1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the third light-receiving region, B2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the fourth light-receiving region (elements 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 212, provide two summed signals that are subtracted from the light receiving region 202, for form X signal, G1, and Y signal, G2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate values in encoder Yoshida similar to Ueda in order to accurately measure positional errors in the encoder providing for more accurate position measurements.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) as modified by Ueda et al. (US 4990909) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (US 5073710).
Re claim 3: Yoshida as modified by Ueda teaches the outputter (Ueda, AS1/AS2, fig. 11) that outputs a signal indicating a value of X (Ueda, fig. 11), but does not specifically teach wherein the outputter outputs a signal indicating a value of Q expressed as below: Q=A1 + B1 + A2 + B2. Takagi teaches an outputter (C4, C3. A8) outputs a signal indicating a value of Q expressed as below: Q=A1 + B1 + A2 + B2 (element 8, adds all the signals from the light receiving unit 78c, 78d, and 78e together and outputs a signal Q, see fig. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate values in encoder Yoshida as modified by Ueda similar to Takagi in order to accurately measure positional errors in the encoder providing for more accurate position measurements.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) as modified by Ueda et al. (US 4990909) and Takagi et al. (US 5073710) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kawamata (US 20080211694).
Re claim 4: Takagi teaches an outputter (C4, C3. A8) outputs a signal indicating a value of Q expressed as below: Q=A1 + B1 + A2 + B2 (element 8, adds all the signals from the light receiving unit 78c, 78d, and 78e together and outputs a signal Q, see fig. 26) and Yoshida as modified by Ueda teaches the outputter (Ueda, AS1/AS2, fig. 11) that outputs a signal indicating a value of X (Ueda, fig. 11), but does not specifically teach wherein the outputter outputs a signal indicating a value of X1 expressed as below and a signal indicating a value of Y1 expressed as below: X1=X/Q; Y1=Y/Q. Kawamata teaches outputting a division signal of a total between signals (Ca, Cb, Sa, Sb) (fig. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to divide calculated signals from each other in Yoshida as modified by Ueda and Takagi similar to Kawamata in order to accurately measure positional errors in the encoder providing for more accurate position measurements.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) as modified by Ueda et al. (US 4990909) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20180245952).
Re claim 5: Yoshida as modified by Ueda teaches the encoder, wherein the rotary plate (Yoshida, 110) includes one or more patterns (Yoshida, IP) for detecting a rotation angle of the rotary plate (Yoshida, 110) (paragraph 94), the light receiver (Yoshida, 140/150) includes one or more light-receiving regions (Yoshida, 140) that receive light emitted from the emitter (Yoshida, 130) and arriving via the one or more patterns (Yoshida, IP, see fig. 2), and a calculator (162) that calculates an eccentric amount (paragraph 44-51), an eccentric phase (paragraph 63-66), the rotation angle of the rotary plate (Yoshida, 110) detected based on the light emitted from the emitter (Yoshida, 130) and, after being incident on the one or more patterns (Yoshida, IP), received by the one or more light-receiving regions (Yoshida, 140, paragraph 94) and known radius (RI, RI) of the rotary plate (paragraph 39) to adjust the rotary disk (abstract), but does not specifically teach calculates a value of P1 expressed as below: P1 = P + tan-1(Δr x sinΦ/r) or P1 = P – tan-1(Δr x sinΦ/r) where P denotes the rotation angle, Δr denotes an eccentric amount of the axis of the annular region relative to the rotation axis, Φ denotes the eccentric phase of the axis relative to the rotation axis, and r denotes the radius of the annular region, and outputs a signal indicating the value of P1 calculated by the calculator. Takahashi teaches determining a value of P1 using a rotation angle of a rotary plate (3) (paragraph 43, theta), eccentric amount of an axis (ε is the eccentric amount) of an annular region relative to a rotation axis of the rotary plate (3) (paragraph 49), an eccentric phase of the axis (Φ is the eccentric phase) relative to the rotation axis and radius of an annular region on the rotary plate (3) (paragraph 43-46) and outputting the value P1 (see math 2 page 8 of publication column 2, the value P1 would be theta in the equation, which is the change in rotation angle due to the eccentricity shift of the rotary plate 3, in the Applicant’s equation the change would be P1-P, so in the publication of Takahashi, the assumption is P is zero and P1 is theta, for the change in rotation angle due to change in eccentricity of the rotary plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the P1 calculation in Yoshida as modified by Ueda similar to Takahashi in order to accurately measure positional errors due to eccentricity in the encoder providing for more accurate position measurements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) in view of Takada et al. (US 20210072721).
Re claim 8: Yoshida teaches wherein an end portion of the first light-receiving region (150L top, edge in contact with 150L bottom edge) closer to the second light-receiving region (150R bottom), an end portion of the second light-receiving region (150L bottom, edge in contact with 150L top edge) closer to the first light-receiving region (150L top) (fig. 4), an end portion of the third light-receiving region (150R top, edge in contact with 150R bottom edge) closer to the fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom), and an end portion of the fourth light-receiving region (150R bottom, edge in contact with 150R top edge) closer to the third light-receiving region (150R top) are each in a shape of a straight line extending in a tangential direction with respect to the rotation direction (radial direction along Cp, see fig. 4, the edges of the light receiving regions in 150L and 150R are straight tangent to curve of Cp), but does not specifically teach the edges are each in a shape of a curved line extending in the rotation direction. Takada teaches an end portion of a top light-receiving region (PE top, edge in contact with edge of PE bottom) (fig. 16) closer to a bottom fourth light-receiving region (PE bottom), and an end portion of the fourth light-receiving region (PE bottom, edge in contact with edge of PE top) (fig. 16) closer to the top light-receiving region (PE top) are each in a shape of a curved line extending in a rotation direction (along C, see section WPI1, the curved line in direction of C cuts through PE and PIL3, PE has a stacked array of light receivers, with curved edges following C, see fig. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to curve the edges of Yoshida similar to Takada in order to ensure desired light collection along the curved rotation direction providing for more efficient light capture (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20100224768, herein after Yoshida ‘768).
Re claim 10: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the first direction is a direction that coincides with a radial direction around the rotation axis, and the second direction is a direction that coincides with the radial direction around the rotation axis and intersects the first direction (see fig. 4, the light receiving regions in 150L are stacked to coincide with the radial direction, the light receiving regions in 150R are stacked to coincide with the radial direction, the stack direction of 150L and 150R are at an angle with each other so a light drawn through the stack direction for each light receiver set would eventually intersect with each other), but does not specifically teach wherein each of the first direction and the second direction is a direction parallel to a straight line orthogonal to the rotation axis, and the first set and the second set are provided line-symmetrically with respect to the straight line. Yoshida ‘768 teaches wherein each of a first direction and a second direction is a direction parallel to a straight line orthogonal to a rotation axis, and a first set and a second set are provided line-symmetrically with respect to the straight line (see fig. 17, the first set 22BB/22BA is stacked in a line parallel with a straight line through the axis of 13, the second set 22AB/22AA is stacked in a line parallel with a straight line through the axis of 13, the two sets lines are symmetric about the straight line through the axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the sets of Yoshida parallel to each other and a straight line through the axis of the plate similar to Yoshida ‘768 in order to ensure desired light collection along the curved rotation direction providing for more efficient light capture (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20150122982 hereinafter Yoshida ‘982).
Re claim 13: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the emitter (130) includes a point light source (paragraph 42), and expressions below are satisfied: W2=((h2+h1)/h1) x W1; W2/L<1 where h1 denotes a dimension (d1) between the annular region (Cp) and the emitter (130) in an axis direction in which the rotation axis extends (fig. 2), h2 denotes a dimension (d2) between the annular region (Cp) and the first and the second light-receiving regions (150L top and bottom) in the axis direction in which rotation axis A extends (see fig. 2), L denotes the dimension (Wt) between the end portion of the first light-receiving region (edge of 150L top) farther from the second light-receiving region (150L bottom) and the end portion of the second light-receiving region (edge of 150R bottom) farther from the first light-receiving region (150L top) in the first direction (see fig. 4), W1 denotes a dimension (Wp) of the annular region in the first direction (see fig. 3), and W2 denotes a dimension (kWp, paragraph 41), in the first direction, of light that is emitted from the point light source (130) and, after being incident on the annular region (Cp), irradiates the first light-receiving region (150L top) and the second light-receiving region (150L bottom) (paragraphs 40-42, fig. 2-4), but does not specifically teach the equation W2 = (h2/h1)*W1 and the emitter includes a point light source. Yoshida ‘982 teaches a light emitter including a point light source (paragraph 7 and 50, fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a point light source as the emitter in Yoshida similar to Yoshida ‘982 in order to have a source of light from a point that increases ability to direct light emitted providing for improved precision and versatility for the emitter. Yoshida as modified by Yoshida ‘982 do not specifically teach the equation W2 = (h2/h1)*W1. Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill through routine optimization would have selected different ratios/equations relating various dimensions in order to ensure light from the emitter is collected and read by the light receiving regions via the annular region improving overall light detection providing for higher quality optical measurements and therefore more accurate position/rotation measurements (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C and MPEP 2144.05, II, A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a desired ratio/equation relating various dimensions discovered through routine optimization in an encoder device of Yoshida as modified by Yoshida ‘982 in order to ensure light from the emitter is collected and read by the light receiving regions via the annular region improving overall light detection providing for higher quality optical measurements and therefore more accurate position/rotation measurements (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C and MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Re claim 14: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the emitter (130) includes a point light source (paragraph 42), and expressions below are satisfied: W2=((h2+h1)/h1) x W1; W2/L<1 where h1 denotes a dimension (d1) between the annular region (Cp) and the emitter (130) in an axis direction in which the rotation axis extends (fig. 2), h2 denotes a dimension (d2) between the annular region (Cp) and the first and the second light-receiving regions (150L top and bottom) in the axis direction in which rotation axis A extends (see fig. 2), L denotes the dimension (Wt) between the end portion of the first light-receiving region (edge of 150L top) farther from the second light-receiving region (150L bottom) and the end portion of the second light-receiving region (edge of 150R bottom) farther from the first light-receiving region (150L top) in the first direction (see fig. 4), W1 denotes a dimension (Wp) of the annular region in the first direction (see fig. 3), and W2 denotes a dimension (kWp, paragraph 41), in the first direction, of light that is emitted from the point light source (130) and, after being incident on the annular region (Cp), irradiates the first light-receiving region (150L top) and the second light-receiving region (150L bottom) (paragraphs 40-42, fig. 2-4, it is noted that (h2/h1) +1 = (h2+h1)/h1), but does not specifically teach W2=((h2/h1) + 1) x W1 + h2/h1 x D, wherein D denotes a dimension of a light emission port of the surface light source in the first direction. Yoshida ‘982 teaches a dimension of a light emission port of a surface light source (Φ) that effects a dimension of projected light from an annular region (paragraph 72), an equation is expressed as gh = y*((v+u)/u) – Φ*(v/u) (paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include a dimension of the surface light source similar of Yoshida similar to Yoshida ‘982 in order to ensure light from the emitter is collected and read by the light receiving regions via the annular region improving overall light detection providing for higher quality optical measurements and therefore more accurate position/rotation measurements. Yoshida as modified by Yoshida ‘982 does not specifically teach W2=((h2/h1) + 1) x W1 + h2/h1 x D, more specifically the adding of two parts. Yoshida ‘982 teaches subtracting (paragraph 72). Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill through routine optimization would have selected different ratios/equations relating various dimensions in order to ensure light from the emitter is collected and read by the light receiving regions via the annular region improving overall light detection providing for higher quality optical measurements and therefore more accurate position/rotation measurements (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C and MPEP 2144.05, II, A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a desired ratio/equation relating various dimensions discovered through routine optimization in an encoder device of Yoshida as modified by Yoshida ‘982 in order to ensure light from the emitter is collected and read by the light receiving regions via the annular region improving overall light detection providing for higher quality optical measurements and therefore more accurate position/rotation measurements (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C and MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20120203026) in view of Watanabe (US 20140009043).
Re claim 15: Yoshida teaches the encoder, wherein the annular region (Cp) is in an axis direction in which the rotation axis extends (see fig. 2 and 3), but does not specifically teach recessed. Watanabe teaches wherein an annular region (SL) is recessed in an axis direction in which a rotation axis extends (see fig. 2 and 3, paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the annual region of Yoshida be recessed in the plate similar to Watanabe in order to ensure light is reflected in a manner that the light receiving region are able to collect the light providing for more efficient collection of light to determine position of the plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 16, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach An attachment method of attaching an encoder to a detection target, wherein the encoder includes: an a emitter that emits light; rotary plate that rotates and includes an annular region that reflects or transmits the light emitted from the emitter, the annular region being provided surrounding a rotation axis of the rotary plate; and a light receiver that receives light emitted from the emitter and arriving via the annular region, the light receiver includes: a first set that includes a first light-receiving region and a second light-receiving region that are arranged side by side in a first direction intersecting a rotation direction of the rotary plate; and a second set that includes a third light-receiving region and a fourth light-receiving region that are arranged side by side in a second direction intersecting the rotation direction and that is provided side by side with the first set in the rotation direction, and the encoder further includes: more specifically in combination with an outputter that outputs a signal indicating a value of X expressed as below and a signal indicating a value of Y expressed as below: X=(A1 + B2) - (B1 + A2); Y = (A1 + B1) - (A2 + B2) where A1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the first light-receiving region, region, and region, A2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the second light-receiving B1 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the third light-receiving region, B2 denotes a signal value corresponding to light received by the fourth light-receiving, the attachment method comprising: attaching the rotary plate to the detection target; and after the attaching, causing the outputter to output the signal indicating the value of X and the signal indicating the value of Y, wherein in the attaching, the rotary plate is attached to the detection target at a position where the value of X indicated by the signal output by the outputter becomes 0 and the value of Y indicated by the signal output by the outputter becomes 0.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878