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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in lines 8-10 recites the limitation "a first receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a first periodic pattern". At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “according to” means that the verb of “extends” is modified by a “pattern”, however, if the “receiving line” is not continuous (i.e. ‘does not extend’) then it would not be effective at carrying a signal. For the purposes of examination (and based on Fig. 6-1.1: “receiving track”), ‘extends along … according to a … pattern’ is interpreted as ‘receiving track is formed as a pattern such as seen in Fig. 6-1.1’.
Claim 1 in lines 25-28 recites the limitation "wherein the first graduation track and the second graduation track are arranged on the carrier layer and are formed from webs and gaps arranged alternately along the first direction". It is not clear what “webs and gaps” are intended to imply. For the purposes of examination (and based on Fig. 4-2.111: “webs” & Fig. 4-2.112: “gaps” and based on the need to induce different strength magnetic fields in the “receiving tracks”), webs and gaps are interpreted as regularly spaced magnetic field producing (through induction) elements.
Claim 1 in lines 30-31 recites the limitation "the first material of the carrier layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination (and based on claim 1 lines 19-20), “the first material of the carrier layer” is interpreted as ‘the first electrically conductive material’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
Claims 3 & 4 in line 3 (both claims) recites the limitation "structured [structuring an] electrically conductive graduation layer". It is not clear what “structured” or “structuring” is intended to imply; a layer inherently is a structure. Claim 1 previously stated “graduation track are arranged on the carrier layer and are formed from webs and gaps arranged alternately along the first direction; wherein the webs are made of a second electrically conductive material”; therefore it is already specified that ‘graduation tracks are electrically conductive’. For the purposes of examination (and based on claim 1), these claims are interpreted as repeating that ‘graduation tracks are electrically conductive’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1 in line 6 recites the limitation "at least one excitation line". It is not clear what an “excitation line” is or what is being ‘excited’. Possible interpretations include a line for marking lengths or a track along which the “sensing element” moves. For the purposes of examination (and based on Fig. 5-1.6: “excitation line” and the specification page 11 lines 25-27: “If the excitation line 1.6 is supplied with current, a tubularly or cylindrically oriented electromagnetic field is formed around the excitation line 1.6. The field lines of the resulting electromagnetic field extend around the excitation line 1.6”), an “excitation line” is interpreted as ‘a conductive wire orientated along a track, in which an electromagnetic field can be induced or altered‘.
Claim 1 in line 8 (and throughout) recites the limitation "receiving track". It is not clear what is being ‘received’ by a track. A “track” implies that there is guided element which moves along the track; “receiving” might mean that there is something which attaches to or is held by a moving element on a track (it is not clear what is received). For the purposes of examination (and base on Fig. 5-1.1 through 1.5: “receiving tracks”), a “receiving track” is interpreted as ‘a repeating pattern along which measurements are made’ (see Fig. 2 & Fig. 5).
Claim 1 in line 19 (and throughout) recites the limitation "carrier layer". It is not clear what is being carried; possibilities include an element which can slide along a track (such as “sensing element 1”) or an electromagnetic field. For the purposes of examination (and based on page 6 lines 17-21: “The first material used for the carrier layer 2.3 is a ferritic stainless steel with a permeability index of between 100 and 2,000. For example, EN 1.4016 steel may be used for the carrier layer 2.3. This steel has a specific electrical resistance of approximately 0.60 Ω mm2/m.”, a “carrier layer” is interpreted as ‘a material whose functionality is dependent on its ability conduct a magnetic field (i.e. permeability of the material determines effectiveness of the layer).
Claim 14 in lines 2-4 recites the limitation "wherein the electrically conductive material of the shielding web includes the second electrically conductive material of the webs". It is unclear what it means for to “shielding web includes the second electrically conductive material of the webs”; the webs and the shielding web were instantiated as separate structures in the parent claim 1. For the purposes of examination (and based on claim 1), the webs and the shielding web are interpreted as separate structures made of the same material.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 5 in lines 2-3 recites the limitation "wherein the webs and the shielding web have a same thickness in the third direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of ‘a third direction’; “third direction” might be orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (which are apparently orthogonal due to first track and second track being aligned in the first direction but offset by a second direction), but this is not clear. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that first second and third directions are orthogonal and correspond to x-y-z axes in Fig. 4.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-20 in line 1 recites the limitation "The inductive position measuring device according to claim 1[10][13][19]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11703359 B2 (Smith) in view of US 20200278190 A1(Bertini).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an inductive position measuring device, comprising: a scale element (Fig. 4-204: “member”, column 12 lines 6-8: “Movement (illustrated by arrow 208) of the member 204 relative to sensor element 202 can be detected by the sensor element 202”, scale element/(“member”)); and a sensing element (Fig. 2-101: “inductive sensor element”, sensing element/(“sensor element”)) movable relative to the scale element in a first direction; wherein the sensing element includes: at least one excitation line (Fig. 3B: “transmit aerial”, excitation line/(“transmit aerial”); a first receiving track (Fig. 2-102: “sensor element”, receiving track/(“sensor element”) including at least one receiving line (Fig. 2-104: “receive aerial”, receiving line/(“receive aerial”) that extends along the first direction according to a first periodic pattern (Fig. 2-103: “cosine winding” & Fig. 2-105: “sine winding”, periodic pattern/(cosine or sine winding or their combination)); … and is arranged offset in a second direction with respect to the first receiving track, so that a spacer strip extends between the first receiving track and the second receiving track in the first direction (column 12 lines 11-15: “The sensor element 202 (e.g., including the receive winding and/or transmit winding) can be can be spaced apart from the exposed portion 214 of the member surface of the member 204 in a lateral direction 216 that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction 206 by a spacing distance 218.”, “spaced apart” requires some sort of spacer strip to position elements as ‘spaced apart’) ; wherein the scale element includes: a carrier layer made of a first electrically conductive material (column 12 lines 38-41: “Unlike the screening layer(s) 212, 213, which can be configured to mask the presence of a conductive material (e.g., the member 204 or a conductive layer formed on the member 204)”); a first graduation track (column 12 lines 41-45: “conductive layer formed on the member 204) as described herein, the target ferrite layer can be configured to interact with sensor element 202 such that the sensor element 202 can detect the relative position of the target ferrite layer with respect to the sensor element 202.”, graduation track/(“member 204”)); … ; wherein the webs are made of a second electrically conductive material that differs from the first material of the carrier layer (column 11 lines 61-64: “An exposed portion 214 of the member surface of the member 204 can be free of the screening layer. For example the screening layers 212, 213 may be spaced apart in the longitudinal direction 206.”, the regularly space pattern/scale must be made of materials with different conductivities for their difference to be detected); wherein, in relation to the second direction, a shielding web, made of an electrically conductive material, is arranged between the first graduation track and the second graduation track (column 4 lines 47-52: “Aspects of the present disclosure can be used to form or “mark” a target area on a previously “featureless” shaft. In other words, instead of building up a feature to act a target, a target can be formed by “cloaking” other parts of the shaft. The cloaking structure can be formed as a ferrite sticker or paint applied to a surface of the object.”, shielding/(“cloaking”), conductive materials are used to block stray magnetic fields); …
Smith does not teach and a second receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a second periodic pattern … and a second graduation track arranged offset in the second direction with respect to the first graduation track; wherein the first graduation track and the second graduation track are arranged on the carrier layer and are formed from webs and gaps arranged alternately along the first direction … wherein the shielding web is arranged offset in a third direction opposite the spacer strip, the third direction being oriented orthogonal to the first direction and to the second direction
Bertini teaches and a second receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a second periodic pattern (Fig. 6C-656 & Fig. 6C-658, & para 0035: “Some embodiments use two algorithms: a) a Pseudo Vernier (Double scale: one for raw positioning and one for fine positioning); and b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils.”) … and a second graduation track arranged offset in the second direction with respect to the first graduation track (Fig. 2A & Fig. 2B, para 0036: “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate relative relationships of sensor coils according to some embodiments of the present invention. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, configuration 200 includes a first coil 202, including periods 202-1 through 202-N, having N periods and a second coil 204 having a single period. Both sets of receive coils are arranged to have the same target travel range.”, both the instant application and the reference of Bertini have a system with two tracks with different periods); wherein the first graduation track and the second graduation track are arranged on the carrier layer and are formed from webs and gaps arranged alternately along the first direction (para 0036: “As illustrated in FIG. 2A, configuration 200 includes a first coil 202, including periods 202-1 through 202-N, having N periods and a second coil 204 having a single period. Both sets of receive coils are arranged to have the same target travel range.”, webs and gaps/(“coil … including periods”), system requires regularly spaced inductive elements) … wherein the shielding web is arranged offset in a third direction opposite the spacer strip, the third direction being oriented orthogonal to the first direction and to the second direction (for two inductive sensors which are in close proximity the stray fields from one device must be shielded/cloaked from the other device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Smith with the teachings of Bertini. One would have added to the “Inductive Position Sensing Apparatus Including A Screening Layer And Method For The Same” of Smith the “Method For Increasing The Position Measurement Accuracy Using Inductive Position Sensor” of Bertini. The motivation would have been that that the multiple position sensors with different periods would enable the use of a Vernier algorithm to more accurately determine positions (see Bertini para 0035: “Some embodiments use two algorithms: a) a Pseudo Vernier (Double scale: one for raw positioning and one for fine positioning); and b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils.”)
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the first material of the carrier layer is a ferritic stainless steel (column 1 line 66 to column 2 line 2: “FIG. 2 depicts a schematic of the example inductive position sensor of FIG. 1 including an example configuration of a transmit aerial, a receive aerial and a member having a ferrite coating”).
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the graduation tracks are arranged as a structured electrically conductive graduation layer (column 2 lines 35-40: “Example aspects of the present disclosure are directed to position sensors and more particularly, to inductive position sensors. A soft magnetic material, such as ferrite, may be used to form a “spot target” for the inductive sensor by “hiding” a portion of a surface of a conductive member from the inductive sensor.”, the arrangement as regularly periodic conductive elements is the means by which differences in distance are detectable).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the graduation tracks are generated by structuring an electrically conductive graduation layer (column 2 lines 35-40: “Example aspects of the present disclosure are directed to position sensors and more particularly, to inductive position sensors. A soft magnetic material, such as ferrite, may be used to form a “spot target” for the inductive sensor by “hiding” a portion of a surface of a conductive member from the inductive sensor.”, the arrangement as regularly periodic conductive elements is the means by which differences in distance are detectable).
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the webs and the shielding web have a same thickness in the third direction (column 5 lines 19-25: “The high permeability material of the screening layer may be continuous or patterned. Such patterning could, for example, include local variations in thickness. For example, the screening layer can be patterned (e.g. have portions of “zero thickness”), in the form of stripes, squares, geometric, or other repeating patterns such that at least a portion of the layer of conductive material is exposed.”, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.", One of ordinary skill in the art would find same thickness to achieve similar results).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the webs have a thickness of at least 5 µm in the third direction (para 0012: “FIG. 4 illustrates parameters for various sensor geometries according to a particular 140 mm example sensor.”, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the webs have a thickness of at least 10 µm in the third direction (para 0012: “FIG. 4 illustrates parameters for various sensor geometries according to a particular 140 mm example sensor.”, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the first material of the carrier layer has a permeability index of at least 100 (column 2 lines 40-45: “More specifically, properties of the ferrite material may be selected to approximately balance, on the one hand, interaction between the conductive member and the sensor element, and, on the other hand, interaction between the soft magnetic ferrite material and the sensor element.”, system uses ferritic steels which have relative magnetic permeabilities within the range of 1000-1800).
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the first material of the carrier layer has a permeability index of between 100 and 2,000 (column 2 lines 40-45: “More specifically, properties of the ferrite material may be selected to approximately balance, on the one hand, interaction between the conductive member and the sensor element, and, on the other hand, interaction between the soft magnetic ferrite material and the sensor element.”, system uses ferritic steels which have relative magnetic permeabilities within the range of 1000-1800).
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the scale element includes a compensation layer, the carrier layer being arranged between the graduation tracks and the compensation layer relative to the third direction (Fig. 4-212: “screening layers”, column 11 lines 59-62: “One or more screening layers 212, 213 can be formed over screened portion(s) of a member surface of the member 204. An exposed portion 214 of the member surface of the member 204 can be free of the screening layer.”, compensation layer/(“screening layer”)).
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 10,
Smith further teaches wherein the compensation layer includes the second electrically conductive material (Fig. 4-212 & Fig. 4-214, column 11 lines 59-62: “One or more screening layers 212, 213 can be formed over screened portion(s) of a member surface of the member 204. An exposed portion 214 of the member surface of the member 204 can be free of the screening layer.”, screening layer and the member are made of different conductive materials).
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the first electrically conductive material of the carrier layer has a higher specific resistance than the second electrically conductive material of the webs (column 5 lines 53-60: “one or more properties of the screening layer may be selected to reduce or minimize electromagnetic interaction between the inductive sensor element and the screened portion of the second member. For example, magnetic permeability, electrical conductivity, a thickness, patterns within the screening material (e.g., ferrite) or the like can be selected to reduce (e.g., minimize) the effect on the inductive sensor element caused by the screened portion of the second member.”, the lower specific conductivity of the webs would make them more effective at blocking undesired fields).
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Smith further teaches wherein the first electrically conductive material of the carrier layer has a higher specific resistance than the second electrically conductive material of the webs and/or of the electrically conductive material of the shielding web(column 5 lines 53-60: “one or more properties of the screening layer may be selected to reduce or minimize electromagnetic interaction between the inductive sensor element and the screened portion of the second member. For example, magnetic permeability, electrical conductivity, a thickness, patterns within the screening material (e.g., ferrite) or the like can be selected to reduce (e.g., minimize) the effect on the inductive sensor element caused by the screened portion of the second member.”, the lower specific conductivity of the webs would make them more effective at blocking undesired fields).
Regarding claim 14, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 13,
Smith further teaches wherein the electrically conductive material of the shielding web includes the second electrically conductive material of the webs (Fig. 4-212, column 11 lines 59-61: “One or more screening layers 212, 213 can be formed over screened portion(s) of a member surface of the member 204”, shielding is used to block undesired fields).
Regarding claim 15, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein one of the webs and one of the gaps of the first graduation track has a first period length in total in the first direction, and one of the webs and one of the gaps of the second graduation track has a second period length in total in the in the first direction, the first period length and the second period length being different (para 0035: “Some embodiments use two algorithms: a) a Pseudo Vernier (Double scale: one for raw positioning and one for fine positioning); and b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils.”, multiple periods over the same length of travel improves measurement accuracy when using Vernier algorithm).
Regarding claim 16, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the first periodic pattern has a first period length, and the second periodic pattern has a second period length, the first period length and the second period length being different (para 0035: “Some embodiments use two algorithms: a) a Pseudo Vernier (Double scale: one for raw positioning and one for fine positioning); and b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils.”, multiple periods over the same length of travel improves measurement accuracy when using Vernier algorithm).
Regarding claim 17, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the first periodic pattern has a first period length, and the second periodic pattern has a second period length, the shielding web extending along the first direction over a length that is greater than the first period length and/or the second period length (para 0035: “b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils”, the shielding disclosed in claim 1 would extend over at least the full length of the full travel with some regions missing so as to be detectable).
Regarding claim 18, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the scale element includes a third graduation track, a fourth graduation track, a fifth graduation track, and respective shielding webs arranged between the second graduation track and the third graduation track, between the third graduation track and the fourth graduation track, and between the fourth graduation track and the fifth graduation track, each of the third graduation track, the fourth graduation track, and the fifth graduation track arranged on the carrier layer and formed from webs and gaps arranged alternately along the first direction (para 0035: “b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils”, the shielding disclosed in claim 1 would extend over at least the full length of the full travel with some regions missing so as to be detectable, while Bertini doesn’t specifically mention 3rd 4th and 5th tracks, to one of ordinary skill in the art this would be an obvious extension of Bertini’s teachings which would result in the obvious benefit of further improved accuracy of measurements).
Regarding claim 19, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 1,
Bertini further teaches wherein the sensing element includes a third receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a third periodic pattern and arranged offset in the second direction with respect to the second receiving track so that a second spacer strip extends between the second receiving track and the third receiving track, a fourth receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a fourth periodic pattern and arranged offset in the second direction with respect to the third receiving track so that a third spacer strip extends between the third receiving track and the fourth receiving track, and a fifth receiving track including at least one receiving line that extends along the first direction according to a fifth periodic pattern and arranged offset in the second direction with respect to the fourth receiving track so that a fourth spacer strip extends between the fourth receiving track and the fifth receiving track (para 0035: “b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils”, the shielding disclosed in claim 1 would extend over at least the full length of the full travel with some regions missing so as to be detectable, multiple tracks with different periods).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11703359 B2 (Smith) in view of US 20200278190 A1(Bertini) in further view of US 12072213 B2 (Cook).
Regarding claim 20, Smith in view of Bertini teaches the inductive position measuring device according to claim 19,
Bertini teaches a third period length of the third receiving track is greater than the first period length, and a second period length of the second receiving track and a fourth period length of the fourth receiving track are greater than a second period length of the second receiving track and a fourth period length of the fourth receiving track are greater than the first period length the first period length and are greater than the third period length (para 0035: “b) A Vernier algorithm. Some embodiments employ the use of at least two sets of sensor coils working in parallel (i.e. simultaneously), each one having a different period with respect to the full travel of the target over the sensor coils”, the shielding disclosed in claim 1 would extend over at least the full length of the full travel with some regions missing so as to be detectable, multiple tracks with different periods).
Neither Smith nor Bertini teach wherein a first period length of the first receiving track and a fifth period length of the fifth receiving track are the same
Cook teaches wherein a first period length of the first receiving track and a fifth period length of the fifth receiving track are the same (Fig. 2 & Fig. 9, if the tracks aren’t aligned then information from tracks 1 and 5 (which should have the same period) will indicate as such)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Smith in view of Bertini with the teachings of Cook. One would have added to the “inductive position sensing apparatus” with “method for increasing position measurement accuracy” of Smith in view of Bertini with the “Inductive Position Encoder Utilizing Slanted Scale Pattern” teachings of Cook. The motivation would have been that the teachings of Cook would enable the system to tell if the sensing elements were misaligned with the scale elements (See column 7 lines 22-27: “This may have a technical advantage of making the resulting transducer TDR/encoder less sensitive (e.g., relatively insensitive) to a dynamic scale gap or pitch misalignment, such as misalignment between the sensing element gap GAPSEN and the field generating element gap GAPFGE (see FIG. 6).”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11525702 B2 "Sensor System For Determining At Least One Rotation Characteristic Of A Rotating Element" (Oshinubi) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 3.
US 7015687 B2 "Inductive Position Sensor With A Cursor And A Coupling Scale" (Meyer) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights