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 1-17 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 5, 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 7, the phrase “readhead along the measuring dimension;” should be changed to “the readhead along the measuring dimension;” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 9, insert the phrase “the readhead” before the phrase “configured such that” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 1, replace “An apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends and to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 3, lines 2, the phrase “a first-sensor filter” should be changed to “a first sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 3, lines 3, the phrase “a second-sensor filter” should be changed to “a second sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 4, line 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 4, lines 2, the phrase “the first-sensor filter” should be changed to “the first sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 5, line 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 5, lines 2, the phrase “the second-sensor filter” should be changed to “the second sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 6, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 7, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 7, lines 2, the phrase “the first-sensor filter” should be changed to the “the first sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 7, lines 2, the phrase “the second-sensor filter” should be changed to “the second sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 8, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 9, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 9, lines 2, the phrase “the first-sensor filter” should be changed to “the first sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 9, lines 2, the phrase “the second-sensor filter” should be changed to “the second-sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 10, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 11, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 12, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 13, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 13, lines 4, the phrase “the readhead comprises a diffraction order encoder” appears to be inconsistent with proper antecedent basis. Should the phrase change to “the readhead comprises the diffraction order encoder” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 14, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 15, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 16, lines 1, replace “The apparatus” with “The position measurement encoder apparatus” to be consistent with the preamble statement from which it depends.
In claim 16, lines 3, the phrase “the first and/or second position information sensors” should be changed to “the first and/or second sensors” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 17, lines 5, the phrase “determine the relative position of the scale” should be changed to “determine a relative position of the scale” to set forth and/or be in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 17, lines 5, the phrase “and readhead,” should be changed to “and the readhead,” to set forth and/or in compliance with proper antecedent basis.
In claim 17, lines 9-10, the phrase “from which the signals which can be used to determine the relative position of the scale” is vague and confusing. Are the signals output from the primary position information sensor and the secondary position information sensor? If so, replace the phrase with “output the signals which can be used to determine the relative position of the scale” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 17, lines 11, the phrase “a primary-sensor filter” should be changed to “a primary sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 17, lines 13, the phrase “a secondary-sensor filter” should be changed to “a secondary sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 17, lines 16, the phrase “the primary and secondary position sensors” should be changed to “the primary and secondary position information sensors” for claim clarity and consistency.
In claim 17, lines 18-19, the phrase “one primary-sensor and/or at least one secondary-sensor filters” should be changed to “one primary sensor filter and/or at least one secondary sensor filter” for claim clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 8, 10-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McAdam (US10,823,587B2).
As to claim 1, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) a position measurement encoder apparatus (2), comprising: a scale (6), comprising a series of position features (series of periodic marks 10, 12, 16, 40), (column 5, lines 28-32) which are readable by a readhead (4), (column 5, lines 10-20), the series (series) extending along a measuring dimension (the incremental position can be counted from the reference position, limit positions or limits or ends of the scale 6), (column 5, lines 48-53) defines measuring dimensions, and which diffract (diffracts) light (light) into multiple diffraction orders (diffracted orders), (column 5, lines 28-45, column 7, lines 45-67, column 8, lines 1-7); a readhead (4) comprising: i) a light source (18) for illuminating the scale (6), and ii) first and second sensors (22, 24) for detecting signals (signals) produced thereat by one or more of the diffraction orders (diffraction orders), (column 5, lines 44-45, column 7, lines 43-51, lines 60-65, column 8, lines 1-7) which can be used to determine the relative position (relative positions) of the scale (6) and readhead (4), (column 5, lines 10-27) along the measuring dimension (the incremental position can be counted from the reference position, limit positions or limits or ends of the scale 6), (column 5, lines 48-53) defines measuring dimensions; the readhead (4) configured such that at least one of the diffraction orders (diffracted orders) has (fig. 3) an optical state (change in intensity of modulated spots, 0th ) different to that of at least one other diffraction order (+/-1st diffraction orders), and configured such that, by way of the optical state (change in intensity of modulated spots, 0th) of the diffraction orders (diffracted orders), (column 7, lines 59-67, column 8, lines 1-24), the signal (signal) sensed by the first sensor (22) is formed from (fig. 3) a diffraction order composition (+/-1st, +/-3rd, +/-5th) that is different to that of the signal (difference signal 38) sensed by the second sensor (24) (column 6, lines 59-67, column 7, lines 19-37).
As to claim 2, McAdam discloses (fig. 3) an apparatus (2) in which (fig. 3) the 0th diffraction order (0) has a different optical state (change in intensity of modulated spots) to the optical state of the +/-1st diffraction orders (change in intensity of modulated spots, +1, -1 diffraction orders) as illustrated in figure 3, (column 7, lines 63-column 8, lines 1-24).
As to claim 8, McAdam discloses (fig. 2) the apparatus (2) in which (fig. 3) the optical state (+1, 0, -1, +/-1st, +/-3rd, +/-5th) comprises the wavelength (light) of the diffraction order (diffracted orders), (column 7, lines 59-67, column 8, lines 1-7).
As to claim 10, McAdam discloses (fig. 3, fig. 4) the apparatus (2) in which different diffraction orders (+1, 0, -1, +/-3rd, +/-5th) of the light (light) relayed, (column 7, lines 52-67, column 8, lines 1-7) to (fig. 1, fig. 2) the first and second sensors (22, 24), (column 5, lines 54-67, column 6, lines 1-29) are configured to converge to respective (fig. 3, fig. 4) different points of convergence (modulated spots and/or interference fringes at the resultant field 26 relative to detector 22, 24 define different points of convergence), (column 8, lines 15-24) in the optical path (light path) between the scale (6) and the first and second sensors (22, 24), (column 6, lines 1-29).
As to claim 11, McAdam discloses (fig. 3, fig. 4) the apparatus (2) in which the points of convergence (modulated spots and/or interference fringes at the resultant field 26 relative to detector 22, 24 define points of convergence), (column 8, lines 1-24) are located at the conjugate plane (every point emitting light from the light source focused into a corresponding point and/or modulated spots on a specific parallel optical plane as illustrated in figure 1 and figure 2 defines the conjugate plane) of the light source (18), (column 6, lines 1-25).
As to claim 14, McAdam discloses (fig. 2) the apparatus (2) in which the first sensor (22) comprises an incremental position sensor (incremental detector 22), configured to sense an incremental position signal (signal, output, incremental up/down count which enables an incremental measurement of displacement), (column 8, lines 15-24).
As to claim 15, McAdam discloses (fig. 2) in which the second sensor (24) comprises an absolute or reference mark sensor (reference photodetector 24), configured to sense an absolute or reference mark signal (difference signal 38), (column 7, lines 19-40).
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) 3-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAdam (US10,823,587) in view of .
As to claim 3, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) discloses the apparatus (2), comprising the readhead (4) and the sensors (22, 24), (column 5, lines 10-27, column 6, lines 15-30). McAdam fail to disclose comprising a first-sensor filter configured to filter light based on its optical state before it falls on the first sensor and/or a second-sensor filter configured to filter light based on its optical state before it falls on the second sensor. Hock et al disclose (fig. 6) comprising a first-sensor filter (65) configured to filter (filter) light (filtered out order
-1, 0, +1) defines filtered light based on its optical state (-1, 0, +1) before it falls on the first sensor (92, 92’), (column 11, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include a first-sensor filter configured to filter light based on its optical state before it falls on the first sensor as taught by Hock et al in order to more accurately determine the relative position between the scale and the readhead.
As to claim 4, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the apparatus (2) comprising the readhead (4) and sensors (22, 24), (column 5, lines 10-27, column 6, lines 15-30). McAdam et al fail to disclose such that the first-sensor filter prevents substantially all 0th diffraction order light from reaching the first sensor. Hock et al disclose (fig. 6) such that the first sensor filter (65) prevents all 0th diffraction order light (filtered out orders of diffraction light 0), (column 11, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include such that the first-sensor filter prevents substantially all 0th diffraction order light from reaching the first sensor as taught by Hock et al in order to remove any noise interference resulting in more accurately determining the relative position between the scale and the readhead.
As to claim 5, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the apparatus (2) comprising the readhead (4) and sensors (22, 24), (column 5, lines 10-27, column 6, lines 15-30). McAdam et al fail to disclose such that the second-sensor filter prevents substantially all +/-1st diffraction order light from reaching the second sensor. Hock et al disclose (fig. 6) such that the second sensor filter (65) prevents substantially all +/-1st diffraction order light (filtered out orders of diffraction light -1, +1), (column 11, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include such that the second-sensor filter prevents substantially all +/-1st diffraction order light from reaching the second sensor as taught by Hock et al in order to remove any noise interference resulting in more accurately determining the relative position between the scale and the readhead.
As to claim 6, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the apparatus (2), (column 5, lines 10-12). McAdam fail to disclose the optical state comprises a state of polarization. Hock et al disclose the light of the two diffraction orders of a moving grating, after these beam proportions have been polarized with respect to each other linearly or in a circulary, (column 7, lines 25-30) defines the optical state comprises a state of polarization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include the optical state comprises a state of polarization as taught by Hock et al in order to more accurately use the polarization beam of light to determine the relative position between the scale and the readhead.
As to claim 7, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the apparatus (2), (column 5, lines 10-12). McAdam fail to disclose in which the first-sensor filter and/or second sensor-filter comprises a polarizing filter, and in which the optical state comprises a state of polarization. Hock et al disclose (fig. 6) the first-sensor filter (65), and in which the optical state (-1, 0, +1) comprises a state of polarization (beam components differing by 90º in polarization direction), (column 10, lines 64-68, column 11, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include a first sensor filter comprising a polarizing filter and in which the optical state comprises a state of polarization as taught by Hock et al in order to more accurately use the polarization beam of light to determine the relative position between the scale and the readhead.
As to claim 9, McAdam discloses (fig. 1, fig. 2) the apparatus (2), (column 5, lines 10-12). McAdam fail to disclose the first-sensor filter and/or the second-sensor filter comprises a wavelength filter. Hock et al disclose (fig. 6) a spatial frequency filter (65) defines a first sensor filter (65) used to filter out light and/or diffraction orders (-1, 0, +1) defines a wavelength filter (65), (column 10, lines 63-68, column 11, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McAdam to include the first sensor filter as taught by Hock et al as a wavelength filter used to filter out unwanted light and/or diffraction orders resulting in determining a more accurate relative position between the scale and the readhead.
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
