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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the specification to make corrections to the title was received on 05/15/2026. The amendment is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-11, Applicant argues that as illustrated in Fig. 7, the magnet “groups” 112B and 112D of Lu have magnets of at least three different magnetization directions, and therefore, it is believed that Lu does not disclose or suggest the amended features of claims 1 and 5. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though Lu does shows in Fig. 7B magnet groups 112B and 112D having at least three different magnetization directions, the new rejection presented below specifies that only the three 114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up are being considered as the first group magnet and only the three 114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing up are being considered as the second group magnet. Hence, Lu does teach the amended features of claims 1 and 5.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (page 3), filed on 05/15/2026, with respect to claims 3-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3-4 has been withdrawn.
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, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (US Pat. 10,222,237).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a magnetic encoder (100) comprising a magnetic scaler (110) and a position detector (120) configured to move relative to each other (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 36-42), wherein the magnetic scaler (110) includes: a first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up) including at least three magnets (three 114B’s magnets with arrows pointing up), all magnets of the first group having an identical first magnetization direction (arrow pointing up, as shown in fig. 7B) and being arranged in a first direction (X); and a second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down) including at least three magnets (three 114D’s magnets with arrows pointing down), all magnets of the second magnet group having a second magnetization direction (arrow pointing down, as shown in fig. 7B) opposite to the first magnetization direction, and are arranged in the first direction (X), where the second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down) is adjacent to the first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up) in the first direction (X) (as shown in fig. 7B and 8), wherein the position detector (120) includes a magnetic sensor (500) configured to detect a magnetic field generated from the magnetic scaler (110) (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 36-62), wherein in the first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up), magnet widths are configured to increase from ends to a middle of the first magnet group (corner magnets are less wide than magnet in the middle, as shown in fog. 7B) and each of the magnet width is smaller than a magnet pitch (all magnets have a width that it is smaller than the pitch from the middle of one magnet to the middle on the magnet next to it, as shown in fig. 7B); and in the second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down), magnet widths are configured to increase from ends to a middle of the second magnet group (corner magnets are less wide than magnet in the middle, as shown in fog. 7B) and each of the magnet width is smaller than the magnet pitch (all magnets have a width that it is smaller than the pitch from the middle of one magnet to the middle on the magnet next to it, as shown in fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 5, Lu teaches a magnetic encoder (100) comprising a magnetic scaler (110) and a position detector (120) configured to move relative to each other (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 36-42), wherein the magnetic scaler (110) includes: a first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up) including at least three magnets (three 114B’s magnets with arrows pointing up), all magnets of the first group having an identical first magnetization direction (arrow pointing up, as shown in fig. 7B) are arranged in a first direction (X); and a second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down) including at least three magnets (three 114D’s magnets with arrows pointing down), all magnets of the second magnet group having a second magnetization direction opposite (arrow pointing down, as shown in fig. 7B) to the first magnetization direction, and are arranged in the first direction (X), where the second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down) is adjacent to the first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up) in the first direction (X) (as shown in fig. 7B and 8), the position detector (120) includes a magnetic sensor (500) configured to detect a magnetic field generated from the magnetic scaler (110) (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 36-62), wherein in the first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up), magnet widths are configured to increase from ends to a middle of the first magnet group (corner magnets are less wide than magnet in the middle, as shown in fog. 7B), and magnet pitches are configured to increase from the ends to the middle (The width of the corner magnets is smaller in comparison to the magnet next to it. The pitch from the corner magnet to the magnet next to it being from middle to middle, will be smaller compared to the following pitch from the two magnets next to it, which are wider and the pitch is larger.), where each of the magnet widths is smaller than a corresponding one of the magnet pitches (all magnets have a width that it is smaller than the pitch from the middle of one magnet to the middle on the magnet next to it, as shown in fig. 7B); and in the second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down), magnet widths are configured to increase from ends to a middle of the second magnet group (corner magnets are less wide than magnet in the middle, as shown in fog. 7B), and magnet pitches are configured to increase from the ends to the middle (The width of the corner magnets is smaller in comparison to the magnet next to it. The pitch from the corner magnet to the magnet next to it being from middle to middle, will be smaller compared to the following pitch from the two magnets next to it, which are wider and the pitch is larger.), where each of the magnet widths is smaller than a corresponding one of the magnet pitches (all magnets have a width that it is smaller than the pitch from the middle of one magnet to the middle on the magnet next to it, as shown in fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 9, Lu teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lu teaches wherein the position detector (120) is disposed as a stator (as shown in fig. 1B), and the magnetic scaler (110) is disposed as a mover (as shown in fig. 1B), and a plurality of the magnetic sensors (500) are arranged in the first direction (X) (as shown in fig. 2A).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US Pat. 10,222,237) in view of PRUESMEIER et al. (DE 10161905 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Lu teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5, in addition, Lu teaches wherein the first magnet group (114B’s magnets in 112B with arrows pointing up) and the second magnet group (114D’s magnets in 112D with arrows pointing down) of the magnetic scaler (110) have the same magnet pitch (as shown in fig. 7B).
Lu fails to specifically teach the magnet widths of each of the first magnet group and the second magnet group are configured to vary according to a sinusoidal function. However, PRUESMEIER et al. teaches the magnet widths of each of the first magnet group and the second magnet group are configured to vary according to a sinusoidal function (for example, as disclosed in claim 4 of PRUESMEIER et al.).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the magnet widths of each of the first magnet group and the second magnet group configured to vary according to a sinusoidal function as taught by PRUESMEIER et al. with the invention of Lu in order to accurately align the magnets and achieve optimal position determination (PRUESMEIER et al. description).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US Pat. 10,222,237) in view of SENO (US PGPUB 2018/0233261).
Regarding claim 7, Lu teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lu fails to specifically teach wherein a length of the first magnet group in the first direction, and a length of the second magnet group in the first direction, correspond to a half wavelength of a sinusoidal waveform. However, SENO teaches wherein a length of the first magnet group in the first direction, and a length of the second magnet group in the first direction, correspond to a half wavelength of a sinusoidal waveform (as disclosed in para. 0001, 0005, 0035 and 0062).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a length of the first magnet group in the first direction, and a length of the second magnet group in the first direction, correspond to a half wavelength of a sinusoidal waveform as taught by SENO with the invention of Lu in order to prevent malfunction (SENO para. 0005).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US Pat. 10,222,237) in view of KADOGUCHI (WO 2019193964 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lu teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lu fails to specifically teach wherein the magnetic scaler is disposed as a stator, and the position detector is disposed as a mover, and a plurality of the first magnet groups and a plurality of the second magnet groups are arranged in the first direction. However, KADOGUCHI teaches wherein the magnetic scaler is disposed as a stator, and the position detector is disposed as a mover, and a plurality of the first magnet groups and a plurality of the second magnet groups are arranged in the first direction (KADOGUCHI description).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the magnetic scaler disposed as a stator, and the position detector disposed as a mover, and a plurality of the first magnet groups and a plurality of the second magnet groups arranged in the first direction as taught by KADOGUCHI with the invention of Lu in order to dynamically and accurately make measurements.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US Pat. 10,222,237) in view of Masreliez et al. (US Pat. 6,011,389).
Regarding claims 10-11, Lu teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lu fails to specifically teach wherein the magnetic encoder is a linear or rotary encoder. However, Masreliez et al. teaches wherein the magnetic encoder is a linear or rotary encoder (as disclosed in col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 12).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the magnetic encoder as a linear or rotary encoder as taught by Masreliez et al. with the invention of Lu in order to use the encoder in high accuracy applications (Masreliez et al. col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3-4, the prior art fails to specifically teach a magnetic encoder comprising a magnetic scaler and a position detector configured to move relative to each other, wherein the magnetic scaler includes: wherein in the first magnet group, magnet pitches are configured to decrease from both ends to a middle of the first magnet group and each of the magnet pitch is greater than a magnet width; and in the second magnet group, magnet pitches are configured to decrease from both ends to a middle of the second magnet group and each of the magnet pitch is greater than a magnet width, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lykkegaard (US PGPUB 2010/0176663) teaches a sorting system with linear synchronous motor drive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights