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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed August 11, 2026. Claim 1-13 are currently pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 11, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12072216 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. The non-statutory double patent rejection of claims 1-13 has been overcome with the terminal disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 in view of Ishikawa.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Ishikawa does not teach “the light emitting element is located in a volume between the sensor and the lens” because the volume is defined by the dimensions of the components for the sensor and the lens, this would be the filter (31), the imaging lens (32), the imaging element (33) and the objective lens (20) in Ishikawa (Applicant’s arguments, page 4), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not define the volume to be anything other than a region between the sensor and the lens. The volume is not defined by any of the dimensions of the sensor or the lens. In the claim is any three-dimensional space, as long as it is between the sensor and the lens. The volume is defined in claim 12 of the Applicant’s specification, it does state that the volume is delineated by outer edges of the sensor and the lens. This is not in claim 1, so the broadest interpretation is any three-dimensional space between the sensor and the lens, which Ishikawa does show. Based on this argument the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 stand in view of Ishikawa.
Applicant’s arguments, see amendments and arguments, filed August 11, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 12 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims in view of Holzapfel has been withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa (US 6943888).
Re claim 1: Ishikawa teaches an encoder apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: a reflective scale (1a) (fig. 1); and a readhead comprising a light emitting element Page 6 (12/13/11), a sensor (31/32/33) and an optical device comprising a lens (20), which together with the reflective scale (1a) form an optical system in which the lens (20) forms an image of an illuminated region of the reflective scale (1a) onto the sensor (31/32/33), wherein: the light emitting element (12/13/11) is located in a volume between the sensor (31/32/33) and the lens (20) (fig. 1); an optical path of the optical system, from the light emitting element (12/13/11) to the sensor (31/32/33), i) passes through the lens (20) both toward and after reflection from the reflective scale (1a) and ii) comprises an unreflected optical path between the light emitting element (12/13/11) and the lens (20) and an unreflected optical path between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33) (fig. 1, the optical path of the light from 12/11/13, through the lens 20 is unreflected and the optical path from the lens 20 to the sensor 31/32/33 is unreflected); and the sensor (31/32/33) is tilted such that a sensing plane of the sensor (32/31/33) is not perpendicular to the optical axis (Ax) of the lens (20) (see fig. 1 the sensor 32/31/33 is tilted with respect to the optical axis Ax).
Re claim 2: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the light emitting element (12/13/11) is located substantially at the focal plane of the lens (20) such that light emitted thereby is collimated by the lens (20) (col. 8, lines 22-35, fig. 1).
Re claim 3: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein light reflected by the scale (1a) and imaged onto the sensor (31/32/33) by the lens (20) converges toward a point at a particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33), and the light emitting element (11/12/13) is located approximately at the particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33) (col. 8, lines 22-48, see fig. 1).
Re claim 5: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the light emitting element (12/13/11) is positioned so as to be offset from an optical axis (Ax) of the lens (20) (see fig. 1).
Re claim 6: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein a direction of the optical path as the optical path impinges on and/or reflects from the scale is not perpendicular to the scale (1a) (see fig. 1, the optical path to and from the scale is not perpendicular to the scale 1a).
Re claim 8: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the light emitting element (12/11/13) and the sensor (31/32/33) both face the lens (20) and the scale (1a) (see fig. 1).
Re claim 9: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the sensor (31/32/33) and an image of the scale formed by the lens (20) lies behind the light emitting element (12/13/11) (see fig. 1).
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) 4, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 6943888) in view of Altendorf et al. (US 20110233391).
Re claim 4: Ishikawa teaches wherein light reflected by the scale (1a) and imaged onto the sensor (31/32/33) by the lens (20) converges toward a point at a particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33), and the light emitting element (11/12/13) is located approximately at the particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33) (col. 8, lines 22-48, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of i) a distance between a center of an emission surface of the light emitting element to the sensing plane of the sensor, in a direction perpendicular to the sensing plane of the sensor, and ii) a distance between the center of the emission surface of the light emitting element to the lens, in the direction perpendicular to the sensing plane of the sensor, is not less than 35:65. Altendorf teaches a ratio of i) a distance between a center of an emission surface of a light emitting element (31) to the sensing plane of the sensor (33/35), in a direction perpendicular to the sensing plane of the sensor (33/35), and ii) a distance between the center of the emission surface of the light emitting element (31) to a lens (32), in the direction perpendicular to the sensing plane of the sensor (33/35), is not less than 35:65 (see fig. 11, table 1, fs is equal to fp therefore is 1, which is larger than 35:65, which is about 153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the light emitting element, sensor and lens at specific positions to provide desired distances with respect to one another similar to Altendorf with the system of Ishikawa in order to ensure proper illumination of the scale and guidance of the reflected light to the sensor form the scale providing for more accurate image capture of the scale (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C).
Re claim 10: Ishikawa teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the scale comprises a pattern scale (1a) which comprises features defining a series of unique positions along the scale (1a) (see fig. 1, col. 7, lines 64-66), and the apparatus is configured to pattern from the image obtained by the sensor (31/32/33) (col. 9, lines 5 7), but does not specifically teach the scale comprises an absolute scale which comprises features defining a series of unique positions along a length of the scale, and the apparatus is configured to extract absolute position information from the image obtained by the sensor. Altendorf teaches an encoder apparatus, wherein a scale (2) comprises an absolute scale (paragraph 120) which comprises features defining a series of unique positions along a length of the scale, and the apparatus is configured to extract absolute position information from the image obtained by the sensor (33/35) (paragraph 120, 26 and 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the angled sensor, lens and light emitting element with corresponding optical path structure of Ishikawa with the absolute scale of Altendorf in order to reduce the ghosting light which causes a reduction in contrast at the sensor providing for increase contrast in the imaging of the absolute scale and higher quality absolute position measurements.
Re claim 13: Ishikawa teaches a readhead (fig. 1), the readhead comprising: a light emitting element (12/11/13); a sensor (31/32/33); and an optical device (20) comprising a lens (20) for illuminating and for forming onto the sensor (31/32/33) an image of a region of a reflective scale (1a) located adjacent the readhead (fig. 1), and wherein: the light emitting element (12/13/11) is located in a volume between the sensor (31/32/33) and the lens (20); light from the light emitting element (12/13/11) passes through the lens (20) both toward and after reflection from the scale (1a) (see fig. 1); a path of the light between the light emitting element (12/13/11) and the lens (20) is unreflected (see fig. 1, the optical path of the light from 12/11/13, through the lens 20 is unreflected and the optical path from the lens 20 to the sensor 31/32/33 is unreflected); and the a path of the light between the optical device (20) and the sensor (31/32/33) is unreflected (see fig. 1, the optical path of the light from 12/11/13, through the lens 20 is unreflected and the optical path from the lens 20 to the sensor 31/32/33 is unreflected); and the sensor (31/32/33) is tilted such that a sensing plane of the sensor (31/32/33) is not perpendicular to the optical axis (Ax) of the lens (20) (see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach the readhead for reading the reflective scale to determine a relative position of the readhead relative to the scale. Altendorf teaches a readhead for reading a reflective scale to determine a relative position of the readhead relative to the scale (paragraph 120, 26 and 124, fig. 1 and 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the angled sensor, lens and light emitting element with corresponding optical path structure of Ishikawa with the determination of relative position between the readhead and reflective scale of Altendorf in order to reduce the ghosting light which causes a reduction in contrast at the sensor providing for increase contrast in the imaging of the absolute scale and higher quality absolute position measurements.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 6943888) in view of Brake (US 3344700).
Re claim 7: Ishikawa teaches wherein light reflected by the scale (1a) and imaged onto the sensor (31/32/33) by the lens (20) converges toward a point at a particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33), and the light emitting element (11/12/13) is located approximately at the particular distance between the lens (20) and the sensor (31/32/33) (col. 8, lines 22-48, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein the optical path, from the light emitting element to the sensor, is substantially diamond-shaped. Brake teaches wherein an optical path, from a light emitting element (23) to a sensor (17), is substantially diamond-shaped (see fig. 4, the light from emitter 23 spreads out to the lens 24, where the lens 24 narrows the beam to the scale 10, then the reflected light enters the lens 24, which then focuses the light to the sensor 17, this forms a substantial diamond shaped path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the sensor and light emitting element of Ishikawa in such a way that the optical path to the lens, through the lens and from the lens forms a diamond shape similar to Brake in order to have the sensor and light emitting element closer to one another reducing the size of the overall device providing for a more compact design while still imaging the scale on the sensor surface that is not perpendicular to the optical axis (MPEP, 2144.04, VI, C).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 6943888) in view of Fischer at al. (DE 3816675) and Omi (US 5995229).
Re claim 11: Ishikawa teaches a readhead comprising a light emitting element (12/13/11), a sensor (31/32/33) and an optical device (20) comprising a lens (20), which together with the scale (1a) form an optical system in which the lens (20) forms an image of an illuminated region of the reflective scale (1a) onto the sensor (31/32/33), wherein: the light emitting element (12/13/11) is located in a space between the sensor (31/32/33) and the lens (20) and is positioned so as to be offset from an optical axis (Ax) of the lens (20) (see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach the sensor is mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB), and the light emitting element is electrically connected to the same PCB as the sensor, but the light emitting element is physically mounted to the readhead by a support member which holds the light emitting element away from the PCB so as to provide a gap between the light emitting element and the sensor. Fischer teaches a sensor (3) is mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) (13), and a light emitting element (2) is connected to the same PCB (13) as the sensor (3) (see fig. 2 and 3), but the light emitting element (2) is physically mounted to the readhead (8/11/12/13/7) by a support member (11/12) which holds the light emitting element (2) away from the PCB (13) so as to provide a gap between the light emitting element (2) and the sensor (3) (see fig. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the light emitting element, sensor and circuit board similar to Fischer with the apparatus of Ishikawa in order to secure the elements in place with respect to each other and the readhead reducing movement of the element in the readhead providing for more accurate measurement and longer lasting design. Ishikawa as modified by Fischer does not specifically teach the light emitting element is electrically connected to same printed circuit board as the sensor. Omi teaches a sensor (32, photodiode array, col. 3, lines 42-47) is mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) (40) (col.3, lines 65-66), and in which a light emitting element (20) is electrically connected to the same PCB (40) as the sensor (32) (see fig. 1 and 2, the conductive lines 12, connect the light emitting element 20 and the sensor 32 to the PCB 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a single printed circuit board where both the light emitting element and sensor are electrically connected to similar to Omi with the structure of Ishikawa as modified by Fischer in order to reduce the number of circuit boards reducing the number of separate electronic components providing for a more compact design and ease of manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 12, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the encoder apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the volume between the sensor and the lens is delineated by outer edges of the sensor and the lens.
Conclusion
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 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
