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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12072216. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventive concept of including a reflective scale with a tilted sensor from an optical axis of a lens, a light emitting element between the sensor and the lens with unreflected optical paths between the light emitting element and lens, and between the sensor and the lens as described in the claims is taught both by the present application and US patent 12072216.
In regards to claim 1, 12072216 teaches an encoder apparatus(claim 1) comprising: a reflective scale (claim 1, line 2); and a readhead comprising a light emitting element, a sensor and an optical device comprising a lens, which together with the reflective scale form an optical system in which the lens forms an image of an illuminated region of the reflective scale onto the sensor (claim 1, lines 3-7), wherein: the light emitting element is located in a volume between the sensor and the lens (claim 1, lines 8-10); an optical path of the optical system, from the light emitting element to the sensor, i) passes through the lens both toward and after reflection from the reflective scale and ii) comprises an unreflected optical path between the light emitting element and the lens and an unreflected optical path between the lens and the sensor (claim 1, lines 11-16); and the sensor is tilted such that a sensing plane of the sensor is not perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens (claim 1, limes 17-18).
In regards to claims 2-12, 12072216 teaches these limitations in respective claims 2-11.
In regards to claim 13, 12072216 teaches a readhead for reading a reflective scale to determine a position of the readhead relative to the reflective scale (claim 12), the readhead comprising: a light emitting element a sensor (claim 12, line 4); a sensor (claim 12, line 5); and an optical device comprising a lens for illuminating and for forming onto the sensor an image of an illuminated region of the reflective scale located adjacent the readhead (claim 12, lines 6-9), wherein: the light emitting element is located in a volume between the sensor and the lens; light from the light emitting element passes through the lens both toward and after reflection from the reflective scale (claim 12, lines 10-13); a path of the light between the light emitting element and the lens is unreflected; and a path of the light between the lens and the sensor is unreflected; the sensor is tilted such that a sensing plane of the sensor is not perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens (claim 12, lines 14-19).
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 (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(s) 1, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holzapfel et al. (US 5519492).
Re claims 1 and 13: Holzapfel teaches a readhead (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 301) and encoder apparatus (fig. 1) for reading a reflective scale (401) to determine a position of the readhead (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 301) relative to the reflective scale (401) (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 15-24), the readhead comprising: a light emitting element (1); a sensor (5, 6, 7); and an optical device (2) comprising a lens (2) for illuminating and for forming onto the sensor (5, 6, 7) an image of an illuminated region of the reflective scale (401) located adjacent the readhead (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 301) (fig. 1, abstract), wherein: the light emitting element (1) is located in a volume between the sensor (5, 6, 7) and the lens (2) (see fig. 1); light from the light emitting element (1) passes through the lens (2) both toward and after reflection from the reflective scale (401) (see fig. 1); a path of the light between the light emitting element (1) and the lens (2) is unreflected (fig. 1); and a path of the light between the lens (2) and the sensor (5, 6, 7) is unreflected (see fig. 1); the sensor (5, 6, 7) is tilted such that a sensing plane (21) of the sensor (5, 6, 7) is not perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens (see fig. 1, since sensors 6 and 7 are on a higher plane than sensor 5, there is a slope/tilt in the sensor (5, 6, 7) this slope/tilt in the sensor structure between the edges of the sensor and the center of the senor this provides a sensing plane 21 that is curved, so the sensing plane 21 at the edges is not perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens 2).
Re claim 12: Holzapfel teaches the encoder apparatus, wherein the volume between the sensor and the lens is delineated by outer edges of the sensor (5, 6, 7) and the lens (2) (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 .53). 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.
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