DETAILED ACTION
In response to the Amendment filed November 25, 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Drawings filed December 7, 2022 is accepted.
Abstract
The Abstract filed December 7, 2022 is accepted.
Specification
The specification filed December 7, 2022 is accepted.
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 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eidinger et al. (US 11,320,263 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Eidinger et al. discloses a construction laser level (Figure 1), comprising a housing (13); a first laser generator (30) disposed in the housing and operable to generate a first output beam (50), the first output beam projecting outside of the housing (Figure 1); a second laser generator (30) disposed in the housing and operable to generate a second output beam (52), the second output beam projecting outside of the housing (Figure 1); said laser generators (30) selected to emit visible light having a wavelength between 537 and 580 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10); wherein the first output beam comprises a first laser line; wherein the second output beam comprises a second laser line (Column 8, lines 24 – 27); and wherein the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line (See Figure 1).
Eidinger et al. does not disclose the use of DPSSL as recited in claims 8, 9, 11, 16 and 17.
Referring to claim 2, Eidinger et al. sets forth a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 537 to 580 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
In regards to claim 3, Eidinger et al. teaches a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 540 to 575 nanometers; and wherein a wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 540 to 575 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Regarding claim 4, Eidinger et al. shows a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 545 to 565 nanometers; and wherein a wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 545 to 565 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
With regards to claim 5, Eidinger et al. discloses a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 550 to 560 nanometers; and wherein a wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 550 to 560 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Referring to claim 6, Eidinger et al. sets forth a construction laser level wherein the first output beam is configured to be projected as a first line on a target surface (Column 8, lines 24 – 27).
In regards to claim 7, Eidinger et al. teaches a construction laser level wherein the second output beam is configured to be projected as a second line on a target surface (Column 8, lines 24 – 27).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Eidinger et al. shows a construction laser level wherein the first laser generator comprises a laser diode (See Column 8, line 4). The use of the particular type of laser generator claimed by applicant, i.e., DPSSL, 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 laser source generates a beam in the visible range, as already suggested by Eidinger et al., 2) the particular laser generator claimed by Applicant and the laser generator used by Eidinger et al. are well known alternate types of laser generators which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of generating a light beam in the visible range, and 3) the use of the particular type of laser generator by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of laser generators that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to generate a laser beam in the visible range as already suggested by Eidinger et al.
With respect to claim 10, Eidinger et al. discloses a construction laser level, comprising a housing (13); a gimbal assembly (26a) disposed in the housing; wherein the gimbal assembly includes a laser generator (30) operable to generate an output beam, the output beam projecting outside of the housing (Figure 1); wherein the output beam is configured to be projected as a line on a target surface (Column 8, lines 24 - 27); and wherein a wavelength of the output beam is in the range of 540 to 575 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Referring to claim 11, Eidinger et al. shows a construction laser level wherein the first laser generator comprises a laser diode (See Column 8, line 4). The use of the particular type of laser generator claimed by applicant, i.e., DPSSL, 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 laser source generates a beam in the visible range, as already suggested by Eidinger et al., 2) the particular laser generator claimed by Applicant and the laser generator used by Eidinger et al. are well known alternate types of laser generators which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of generating a light beam in the visible range, and 3) the use of the particular type of laser generator by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of laser generators that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to generate a laser beam in the visible range as already suggested by Eidinger et al.
In regards to claim 12, Eidinger et al. discloses a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the output beam is in the range of 545 to 570 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Regarding claim 13, Eidinger et al. sets forth a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the output beam is in the range of 550 to 560 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
With regards to claim 14, Eidinger et al. sets forth a construction laser level, comprising a housing (13); a gimbal assembly (26a ) disposed in the housing; wherein the gimbal assembly includes a first laser generator (30) operable to generate a first output beam, the first output beam projecting outside of the housing onto a target surface (Figure 1); wherein the gimbal assembly includes a second laser generator (30) operable to generate a second output beam, the second output beam projecting outside of the housing onto the target surface (Figure 1); wherein the first output beam is configured to be projected as a first line on the target surface (Figure 1); wherein the second output beam is configured to be projected as a second line on the target surface (Figure 1); wherein the first line is generally perpendicular to the second line (Figure 1); wherein a wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 540 to 575 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Referring to claim 15, Eidinger et al. teaches a construction laser level wherein a wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 540 to 575 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
In regards to claims 16 and 17, Eidinger et al. shows a construction laser level wherein the first laser generator comprises a laser diode (See Column 8, line 4). The use of the particular type of laser generator claimed by applicant, i.e., DPSSL, 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 laser source generates a beam in the visible range, as already suggested by Eidinger et al., 2) the particular laser generator claimed by Applicant and the laser generator used by Eidinger et al. are well known alternate types of laser generators which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of generating a light beam in the visible range, and 3) the use of the particular type of laser generator by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of laser generators that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to generate a laser beam in the visible range as already suggested by Eidinger et al.
Regarding claim 18, Eidinger et al. discloses a construction laser wherein the wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 545 to 570 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
With regards to claim 19, Eidinger et al. sets forth a construction laser wherein the wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 545 to 570 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Referring to claim 20, Eidinger et al. teaches a construction laser level wherein the wavelength of the first output beam is in the range of 550 to 560 nanometers; and wherein the wavelength of the second output beam is in the range of 550 to 560 nanometers (See Column 8, lines 8 – 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 20 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
February 18, 2026
/YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855