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 .
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) 1-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoichi (JP S61-197510) in view of Saito et al (JP S62-153710).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 8, Yoichi discloses a reflective type optical scale for encoder comprising: a disk-shaped metal substrate (9; Figs.1-2) including a first surface, and a second surface facing the first surface; and a low reflection layer (10; Figs.1-2) disposed on the first surface side of the metal substrate in a patterned shaped along with a circumferential direction of the metal substrate (Fig.1), wherein the metal substrate has a reflection coefficient on at least the first surface side that is 50% or more (page 8, lines 3-5) and a thickness of 0.05 mm or more and 0.60 mm or less (page 7, lines 9-14). While Yoichi discloses that, in the manufacturing step of the rotary scale (8), a substrate (9) processed into a circular shape of forming the rotary scale of the rotary encoder is prepared first, it doesn’t specifically disclose the means for processing the substrate into a circular shape. However, it is well known in the art to use a punching process as a means for processing a base material of scale of an encoder into a circular shape as disclosed by Saito et al (page 1, lower right column, lines 9-18) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Saito et al in the device of Yoichi in view of the desire to afford large scale production resulting in reducing manufacturing cost. Furthermore, it can be said that the disk-shaped based material formed by punching has a shear droop. It should also be noted that the thickness of the base material disclosed in Yoichi is equivalent to the thickness of the base material of the present application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a shear droop of a size similar to that of the present application is formed.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations therein are disclosed in page 10, lines 11-14 of Yoichi.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Yoichi.
Regarding claims 5-6, the specific configuration and dimensions utilized for the metal substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.4 of Yoichi.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoichi (JP S61-197510) in view of Ichikawa et al (JP H7311055).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 8, Yoichi discloses a reflective type optical scale for encoder comprising: a disk-shaped metal substrate (9; Figs.1-2) including a first surface, and a second surface facing the first surface; and a low reflection layer (10; Figs.1-2) disposed on the first surface side of the metal substrate in a patterned shaped along with a circumferential direction of the metal substrate (Fig.1), wherein the metal substrate has a reflection coefficient on at least the first surface side that is 50% or more (page 8, lines 3-5) and a thickness of 0.05 mm or more and 0.60 mm or less (page 7, lines 9-14). While Yoichi discloses that, in the manufacturing step of the rotary scale (8), a substrate (9) processed into a circular shape of forming the rotary scale of the rotary encoder is prepared first, it doesn’t specifically disclose the means for processing the substrate into a circular shape. However, it is well known in the art to use a punching process as a means for processing a base material of scale of an encoder into a circular shape as disclosed by Ichikawa et al (paragraph 6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Ichikawa et al in the device of Yoichi in view of the desire to afford large scale production resulting in reducing manufacturing cost. Furthermore, it can be said that the disk-shaped based material formed by punching has a shear droop. It should also be noted that the thickness of the base material disclosed in Yoichi is equivalent to the thickness of the base material of the present application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a shear droop of a size similar to that of the present application is formed.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations therein are disclosed in page 10, lines 11-14 of Yoichi.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Yoichi.
Regarding claims 5-6, the specific configuration and dimensions utilized for the metal substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.4 of Yoichi.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoichi (JP S61-197510) in view of Saito et al (JP S62-153710), and further in view of Koganehira (JP 20200076700).
Regarding claim 7, although the modified device of Yoichi doesn’t specifically mention the feature of providing a distance between an outer circumferential surface of the metal substrate and an outer circumferential surface of the low reflection layer, the use of such feature is known in the art as disclosed by Koganehira (Figs.5 and 7; a small distance is provided between the outer peripheral surface of the body part 61 of the rotary body 60 and the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring part 615bx) and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the desire to meet the designer’s preferred manufacturing requirements. Furthermore, the specific distance utilized in accordance with the allowable size of the scale would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application (i.e. the desire to reduce size) and involving only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoichi (JP S61-197510) in view of Koganehira (JP 20200076700).
Regarding claim 9, Yoichi discloses a reflective type optical scale for encoder comprising: a disk-shaped metal substrate (9; Figs.1-2) including a first surface, and a second surface facing the first surface; and a low reflection layer (10; Figs.1-2) disposed on the first surface side of the metal substrate in a patterned shaped along with a circumferential direction of the metal substrate (Fig.1). Regarding the feature of providing a distance between an outer circumferential surface of the metal substrate and an outer circumferential surface of the low reflection layer, the use of such feature is known in the art as disclosed by Koganehira (Figs.5 and 7; a small distance is provided between the outer peripheral surface of the body part 61 of the rotary body 60 and the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring part 615bx) and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the desire to meet the designer’s preferred manufacturing requirements. Furthermore, the specific distance utilized in accordance with the allowable size of the scale would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application (i.e. the desire to reduce size) and involving only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a method for producing a reflective type optical scale for encoder comprising, in addition to the other recited features of the claim, the manufacturing step of manufacturing a multi-surface attaching body and an individualizing step of individualizing the multi-surface attaching body in the manner recited in claim 11. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a multi-surface attaching reflective type optical scale for encoder comprising, in addition to the other recited features of the claim, the details and functions of a metal substrate, multiple of a low reflection layer, a projected line for outer circumferential punching of the reflective type optical scale and a distance between a projected line for outer circumferential punching of the reflective type optical scale and an outer circumferential surface of the low reflection layer in the manner recited in claim 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakazawa et al (US 2025/0116537) is cited for disclosing a reflective optical encoder scale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights