Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/732,105

MAGNETIC RAIL WITH LASER

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
GUADALUPE, YARITZA
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Stanley Black & Decker INC.
OA Round
4 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

82%
Career Allow Rate
940 granted / 1140 resolved
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 pending
1163
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION In response to the Amendment filed November 11, 2025 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 . Drawings The Drawings filed April 28, 2022 is accepted. Abstract The Abstract filed April 28, 2022 is accepted. Specification The specification filed April 28, 2022 is accepted. 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. Claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 – 9, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pioch (US 3,741,662). With respect to claim 1, Pioch discloses a mount assembly (See Figure 1), comprising a rail (26); a mount (Figure 2) at least partially received in a portion of the rail (See Figures 1 and 2) and configured to secure the rail to a surface (See Figure 1); a laser assembly (20), the laser assembly comprising a laser output configured to output a laser line/beam (Column 2, lines 29 - 36); and wherein the laser assembly (20) is slidable along the rail (Column 2, line 52). Referring to claim 2, Pioch sets forth a mount assembly ( See Figure 1) further comprising a slider (30), the slider mounted to the rail (26) and the laser assembly (20) secured to the slider (See Figure 1). In regards to claim 4, Pioch teaches a mount assembly wherein the mount (26) is secured to a rear surface of the rail (i.e. slider 30 is secured at two ends of the rail as shown in figure 1). With regards to claim 7, Pioch teaches a mount assembly further comprising a first connector (30) at a first end of the rail (i.e. there are two connectors 30 provided to each assembly). Referring to claim 9, Pioch shows a mount assembly further comprising a secondary rail (27) connected to the rail (26) such that the laser output of the laser assembly is slidable along the rail and the secondary rail (See Figure 1). Regarding claim 8, Pioch shows a mount assembly further comprising a second connector (30) at a second end of the rail (i.e. there are two connectors 30 provided to each assembly). In regards to claim 17, Pioch discloses a mount assembly (See Figure 1), comprising a rail (26); a mount (Figure 2) configured to secure the rail to a surface (See Figures 1 and 2); a laser assembly (20), the laser assembly (20) comprising a laser output configured to output a laser line/beam (Column 2, lines 29 - 36); wherein the rail has a rear and a front opposite the rear (See Figure 1); wherein the mount extends at least partially through the rear of the rail (See Figure 1); wherein the laser assembly (20) is slidable along a front of the rail (Column 2, line 52). With respect to claim 19, Pioch sets forth a mount assembly (See Figure 1) further comprising a slider (30), the slider mounted to the rail (26) and the laser assembly (20) secured to the slider (See Figure 1). In regards to claim 22, Pioch teaches a mount assembly further comprising a first connector (30) at a first end of the rail and a second connector (30) at a second end of the rail (i.e. there are two connectors 30 provided to each assembly). 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. Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pioch (US 3,741,662). Pioch discloses a mount assembly as recited in paragraph 5 above. Pioch does not disclose the suction cup or magnetic mount as recited in claims 5, 6, 20 and 21. With regards to claims 5, 6, 20 and 21: Pioch discloses a mount assembly wherein the mount is a slider sleeve member (30). The use of the particular type of mount claimed by applicant, i.e., suction cup or magnetic, absent any criticality, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design because 1) neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the mount assembly is securely attached to the surface, as already suggested by Pioch, 2) the mount claimed by Applicant and the mount used by Pioch are well known alternate types of mounts which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of securely attaching the mount assembly to the structure, and 3) the use of the particular type of mount by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of mounts that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to securely attach the mount assembly to the structure as already suggested by Pioch. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pioch (US 3,741,662) in view of Wilhelm (US 7,322,229). Pioch discloses a mount assembly as recited in paragraph 5 above. Pioch does not disclose the bubble level as recited in claim 18. With regards to claim 18, Wilhelm discloses a laser measurement device comprising a rail and a laser slidably mounted to the rail, wherein the device is provided with a leveling device such as a bubble level (Column 4, line 6) in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement by ensuring levelness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Pioch by providing a bubble level as taught by Wilhelm in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement by ensuring levelness. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 – 11 and 13 - 15 are allowed. Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 23 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a mount assembly comprising a secondary rail wherein a secondary rail is attached to one of the first connector or the second connector to form an extended rail in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Claims 10 – 11 and 13 - 15 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a mount assembly, comprising a first rail and a second rail connected together to form an extended rail; and a mount at least partially recessed within the extended rail and configured to secure the extended rail to a surface in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 2, 4 – 15 and 17 - 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2244. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thu, 8:00am - 6:00pm. 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, Laura Martin can be reached on 571-272-2160. 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. YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2855 January 30, 2026 /YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 10, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 31, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595995
ELECTRONIC SCALE RULER AND VERNIER CALIPER, AND USE METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595994
SPOOLED MARKING APPARATUS AND METHODS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590790
MULTIFUNCTIONAL SPEED SQUARE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589613
Marking and Measuring Fastener
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590793
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1140 resolved cases by this examiner