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 .
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 1-18 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.
In claim 1, lines 4, the phrase “a readhead comprising:” should be changed to “the readhead comprising:” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 9, the phrase “the optical path” appears to lack antecedent basis. Is “the optical path” and the “first polarization axis” one in the same? Should the phrase “the optical path” be changed to the phrase “the first polarization axis” for claim language consistency and clarity? For examining purpose, “the optical path” and “the first polarization axis” will be treated as one in the same.
In claim 1, lines 10, the phrase “the polarization state” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase, “the polarization state” be changed to “a polarization state” to set forth proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, the phrase “a polarization state which is at least partially resolveable along the first polarization axis” is indefinite and confusing. Is part of a polarization state of light being filtered, blocked and/or absorbed while passing partially other and/or selective part of a polarization state of light? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, the phrase “the ratio of: the optical power of light resolvable along the first polarization axis” appears to lack antecedent basis and is confusing. Is part of the optical power of light being filtered, blocked and/or absorbed while passing partially other and/or selective part of a polarization state of light? Should the phrase be changed to “a ratio of: said optical power of light” to set forth proper antecedent basis? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, lines 3-4, the phrase “the optical power of light resolvable along a second orthogonal polarization axis” appears to be indefinite and confusing. How can a second orthogonal polarization axis exist without a first orthogonal polarization axis? What is meant by “the optical power of light resolvable? Is part of the optical power of light being filtered, blocked and/or absorbed while passing other and/or selective part of the optical power of light? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 3, lines 2-3, the phrase “all other factors being equal” and the phrase “for all possible polarizations orientation of the light” is vague and confusing. Is the optical power of light sensed by the first sensor substantially the same as the polarization of light emitted from the polarized light source? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 4, lines 8-9, the phrase “a polarization state which is at least partially resolvable along the second axis” is vague and confusing. Is part of the light having a polarization state filtered, blocked and/or absorbed while passing other and/or selective part of the light? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 6, line 2, the phrase “ for all other factors being equal” is vague and confusing. Referring back to claim 4, how does “a light having a polarization state” relative to “all other factors being equal”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 7, lines 2-3, the phrase “the effective total wave retardance” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase be changed to “an effective total wave retardance”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 8, lines 2, the phrase “its fast axis” is vague and confusing. Is the waveplate adjustable and/or pivots angularly along the polarization axis? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 10, lines 4, replace “sensor” with “sensor.”
In claim 12, lines 3, the phrase “a first polarization axis” should be changed to “the first polarization axis” for antecedent compliance.
In claim 13, lines 4-5, the phrase “a first polarization axis” should be changed to “the first polarization axis” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, lines 6-7, the phrase “a second polarization axis” should be changed to “the second polarization axis” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, lines 9, after “second” insert “sensor”.
In claim 14, lines 4, the phrase “a readhead comprising:” should be changed to “the readhead comprising:” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 14, lines 10, the phrase “the effective total wave retardance” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase be changed to “an effective total wave retardance” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 14, lines 11, the phrase “its fast axis” is vague and confusing. Is the waveplate adjustable and/or pivots angularly along the polarization axis? Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 17, the phrase “A position measurement encoder apparatus” should be changed to “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 18, the phrase “A position measurement encoder apparatus” should be changed to “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 18, lines 10, replace “the such” with “such” to acquire claim clarity and consistency.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to their dependency.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
US10,823,587B2 to McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the readhead (4) is used to measure the relative position of itself and the scale (6) and hence can be used to provide a measure of the relative position of the two movable parts of the machine, (column 5, lines 14-20) defines a position measurement encoder. To the contrary, McAdam is not concern with a polarization manipulator arranged anywhere along a first polarization axis and/or optical path, and a waveplate, located in the optical path between the polarised light source and the first sensor, and a waveplate, located in the optical path between the polarised light source and the first sensor, in which the effective total wave retardance of the waveplate is n +M, wherein n is an integer 0, and which is arranged such that its fast axis is arranged at an angle of between 300 and 600 to the first polarization axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON J WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m..
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.
/DON J WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
