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
.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the
claims and specification filed 04/21/2026
have been considered and
entered
.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I
in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 11-24 was/were cancelled by Applicant
, where said claim(s) was/were drawn to a(n) nonelected invention. Cancelled claim(s) is/are not rejoinable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Unsatisfactorily Reproducible:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l),
fig(s). 1A-1E & 4A (cos/sin)
requiring correction. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. The Examiner also suggests, but does not require, darker outlines for fig(s). 2.
Improper Text Placement:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3),
fig(s). 2A
requiring correction. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Improper Shading:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m),
fig(s). 3A
requiring correction. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
The drawing(s) is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for
not showing claimed features
. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Furthermore, any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. See MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (emphasis added):
“wherein the rangefinder is coupled to the housing by means of a hinge allowing vertical translational movement of the rangefinder while remaining aligned with the horizontal bearing of the resolver board” (at least claim 6; see [0032] of PgPub).
No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that conventional features may be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a). The Examiner also compares “precise” as analogous to use of the word “improved” and suggests omission thereof, further noting that precision of bearing devices may yet increase in the future, rendering then an at that time old title of “precise” as possibly inaccurate/misleading in comparison to future standards. See MPEP § 606.
The following title is suggested:
“ COUPLABLE TO A RANGEFINDER”.
The improper use of the term(s) “Bluetooth”, which is/are (a) trade name(s)/mark(s) used in commerce, has/have been noted in this application. Trade names/marks should be capitalized and include “®” wherever they appear, and said trade names/marks should further be accompanied by the generic terminology for at least the first instance of each. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
The improper use of the term(s) “Bluetooth”, which is/are (a)
trade name(s)/mark(s)
used in commerce, has/have been noted in this application. Trade names/marks should be capitalized and include “®” wherever they appear, and said trade names/marks should further be accompanied by the generic terminology for at least the first instance of each. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The Examiner further objects to Applicant’s statement (bold for emphasis) “Due to the requirement of cable coupling of the current TruAngle device to a laser-based rangefinder or speed measurement unit” in the background of the invention, as the Examiner found instances of TruAngle being able to use Bluetooth instead of a cable with a prior art date. Applicant’s explanation and/or correction is respectfully requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”.
Regarding claim(s) 5,
“Bluetooth” is a trade name/mark. Since the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; see MPEP § 2173.05 and Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name. The Examiner generally suggests broadening the claim to describe the pertinent feature(s) of the protocol and/or use more generic terminology.
Regarding claim 6,
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation (independent claim limitation, emphasis added) “the housing being couplable to a rangefinder” and (dependent claim limitation, emphasis added) “wherein the rangefinder is coupled to the housing by means of a hinge allowing vertical translational movement of the rangefinder while remaining aligned with the horizontal bearing of the resolver board” with more than one reasonable interpretation including that the rangefinder and hinge thereof are now claimed elements of the precise bearing measurement or that the wherein is simply further details of the rangefinder which is still merely capable of being coupled to the housing. As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner utilizes the broader claim interpretation of the merely being couplable. Applicant clarification and appropriate correction is respectfully requested. See also related Drawing objection.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Forrer et al (US 20150015277 A1; hereafter “Forrer”) in view of (prior art) Laser Technology Inc.’s commercial products TruAngle® & TruPulse®200 as factually evidenced by MapStar® TruAngle® User’s Manual (hereafter “TruAngle User Manual”), MapStar® TruAngle® Specification sheet (hereafter “TruAngle Specification sheet”), & TruePulse® 200 User’s Manual (hereafter “TruPulse User Manual”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Forrer teaches a precise bearing measurement device (see fig. 9 showing device coupled to both tripod and rangefinder) (Title “CAPACITIVE ROTARY POSITION ENCODER”; Abstract “capacitive rotary position encoder for the absolute determination of a rotary position about a rotary spindle” and “evaluation circuit, by means of which an electrical capacitance value between the reference area and one of the sensitivity areas is determinable”; [0004] “the rotary position encoders dealt with here have a significantly higher precision and angle measuring accuracy of less than 1 degree, preferably even significantly below that--that is to say for instance in the range of 1/10 degree, 1/100 degree or below that”; [0105]) comprising:
a housing (fig. 8, housing 22) rotatably supported about a shaft (fig. 8, rotary spindle 13) couplable to a support, the housing (fig. 8, housing 22) being couplable to a rangefinder (fig. 9, optoelectronic distance measuring device 25),
a rotator board (fig. 8, counterpart 10; see fig. 10, electronic printed circuit board 3) ([0078] “the counterpart 10 can be embodied as a second electronics printed circuit board 3, on which the reference coupling area 1 and the code areas 2 are embodied as a conductor track structure”) within the housing (fig. 8, housing 22) coupled to the shaft (fig. 8, rotary spindle 13) and a parallel and spaced apart resolver board (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) capacitively coupled therewith, the housing (fig. 8, housing 22) being affixed to the resolver board (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) ([0066] “A counterpart 10 is arranged opposite the transceiver unit 9 and in a manner rotatable relative thereto about the rotary spindle. Said counterpart has a reference coupling area 1 arranged opposite the reference area 4, and an arrangement of X.gtoreq.3 electrically conductive code areas 2 electrically connected to the reference coupling area 1. In this case, opposite specifically means that the planes of extent of the reference area 4 and of the reference coupling area 1 are at least approximately parallel. In this case, the planes of extent of the reference area 4 and of the reference coupling area 1 is also at least approximately orthogonal to the rotary spindle 13”);
a processor (fig. 2, evaluation circuit 11; not shown in fig. 8) (at once envisaged that evaluation circuit can be, comprise, or be part of processor; additional obviousness analysis provided) coupled to receive a signal indicative of a relative position of the rotator (fig. 8, counterpart 10; see fig. 10, electronic printed circuit board 3) ([0078) and resolver (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) boards indicative of a horizontal bearing of the resolver board (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) and the housing (fig. 8, housing 22).
Forrer does not teach explicitly state item 1) a processor. Forrer does not teach item 2): a wireless communication medium for communicating the horizontal bearing to the rangefinder.
Regarding item 1), the Examiner takes Official Notice that a processor is a conventional component capable of being utilized for purposes of evaluation.
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Forrer’s evaluation circuit is reasonably interpretable as a processor, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so utilize a conventional processor for the expected advantages of increased processing flexibility including for employing more advance algorithms pertaining to signal/noise, calibration, error-correction, multifunctionality (e.g., handling additional functions such as communication and/or file formatting variations), and/or merely as convenient based upon commercial availability or for versatility in manufacturing (e.g., a processor could be utilized with a wider variety of electronics).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
245
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding item 2), Laser Technology (prior art) commercial products as factually supported by the aforementioned User Manuals & Specification sheets teaches a bearing measurement device (MapStar TruAngle) (Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s discussion of increased precision over this previous version in Applicant’s specification, and is inclined to believe that Applicant’s new resolver version is more precise than the previous encoder version) comprising: a housing rotatably supported about a shaft couplable to a support (see fig. 1, Tripod Mount 4 in TruAngle User Manual), the housing being couplable to a rangefinder (TruPulse 200, see fig. 4 in TruAngle User Manual ), a rotary encoder within the housing coupled to the shaft; a processor (processor of MapStar TruAngle) coupled to receive a signal indicative of a relative position from the rotary encoder indicative of a horizontal bearing of the housing; and a wireless communication medium for communicating the horizontal bearing to the rangefinder (TruPulse 200). The Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification stated “the requirement of cable coupling of the current TruAngle device to a laser-based rangefinder”, the Examiner found evidence to the contrary in both the TruAngle Specification sheet (2021 version) and in the TruPulse User Manual (2018 sixth edition), each discussing the Bluetooth Loop availability (see asterisked last line of first page of TruAngle Specification sheet, as well as page 3 and especially subsection Bluetooth Enable on pages 16-17 of TruPulse User Manual, the Examiner noting in particular “The MapStar TruAngle current production firmware version 1.17 has a Bluetooth® Encoder Loop feature. Mapping systems consisting of a TruPulse and TruAngle can now work via Bluetooth with a wider variety of data collectors. The MapStar TruAngle current production firmware version 1.17 contains a Bluetooth® Encoder Loop feature so a cable is no longer necessary”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laser Technology’s already known (i.e., prior art) Bluetooth communication between an angle sensor & a rangefinder with Forrer’s angle sensor & rangefinder for the expected advantages of dispensing with cables which restrict movement, can become inconveniently unplugged, can be lost, and/or might otherwise be undesirable for reasons of consumer ease of use and/or preference. Complimentarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Forrer’s resolver angle sensor for the rotary encoder angle sensor found in Laser Technology’s TruAngle (one) for the reasons put forth in Forrer further inclusive of ruggedness/durability, resistance to heat/shock/vibration/contamination, and/or absolute positioning even with power loss. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Forrer teaches wherein the resolver board (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) is rotatable with the housing (fig. 8, housing 22) with respect to the rotator board (fig. 8, counterpart 10; see fig. 10, electronic printed circuit board 3) ([0078]).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Forrer teaches wherein the rotator (fig. 8, counterpart 10; see fig. 10, electronic printed circuit board 3) and resolver (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10) boards each comprise a substrate (substrate of board) having annular conductive rings (sensitivity areas 5 & code areas 2) formed thereon (Abstract “The rotary position encoder may include a transceiver unit, comprising a first arrangement of N electrically conductive, capacitive sensitivity areas which are embodied as angle segments over a defined angle range, which are distributed uniformly over the circumference, an electrically conductive reference area and an evaluation circuit, by means of which an electrical capacitance value between the reference area and one of the sensitivity areas is determinable. In some embodiments the sensitivity areas and the reference area are embodied as conductor track structures on a first electronics printed circuit board. A counterpart may be situated opposite the transceiver unit and rotatable relative thereto about the rotary spindle and may include a reference coupling area arranged opposite the reference area, and an arrangement of electrically conductive code areas connected thereto”; [0016]-[0021]; [0031] “sensitivity areas are arranged in a circular fashion--in the example shown in the form of segments of an annulus which in each case cover (within the scope of the manufacturing tolerances) angle segments of identical magnitude and are spaced apart from one another”; [0032] “reference area is situated as a circle or annulus in the center of this sensitivity area annulus. Alternatively or additionally, the reference area could also enclose the sensitivity area annulus”; see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
the previous combination (see analysis of independent claim) of Forrer & of (prior art) Laser Technology’s commercial products TruAngle & TruPulse200 suggests
wherein the support comprises one of
a GPS pole (silent, but so capable of being couplable to such a support) ,
a monopole (TruPulse User Manual: page 3, feature item 6. “Tripod / Monopod mount”, or
a tripod (FORRER: reasonably shown in fig. 9; see also MapStar TruAngle Specification Sheet).
The Examiner additionally notes that the determination of whether a wherein/whereby/adaptation or similar clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case as put forth by MPEP § 2111.04. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). In the present case, the wherein statement is directed to referencing the limitation of the independent claim (emphasis added) “shaft couplable to a support”, and it is the Examiner’s position that not only are Forrer and (prior art) Laser Technology’s commercial products TruAngle & TruPulse200 so capable of being couplable to each of the aforementioned pole(s), but furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that each of the aforementioned pole(s) are conventional in the art and it is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: combine a GPS pole for the expected advantages of providing GPS including increased precision, consistency, and standardization of mounting; combine a monopole for the simplicity &/or ease of setup and deployment as well as being less bulky; and/or to combine a tripod for stability. The Examiner additionally notes that as the Examiner considers these supports to be conventional and because the claim is directed merely to the capability, no drawing objections have been put forth pertaining to the absence of showing the subject matter of these supports.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, as best understood,
the previous combination (see analysis of independent claim) of Forrer & of (prior art) Laser Technology’s commercial products TruAngle & TruPulse200 suggests wherein the wireless communication medium comprises Bluetooth® (Forrer silent; MAPSTAR TRUANGLE Specification sheet, see section Bluetooth® Loop Function; TruPulse User Manual page 3 and especially subsection Bluetooth Enable on pages 16-17 “The MapStar TruAngle current production firmware version 1.17 has a Bluetooth® Encoder Loop feature. Mapping systems consisting of a TruPulse and TruAngle can now work via Bluetooth with a wider variety of data collectors. The MapStar TruAngle current production firmware version 1.17 contains a Bluetooth® Encoder Loop feature so a cable is no longer necessary”).
The available factual evidence for the (prior art) Laser Technology’s commercial products TruAngle & TruPulse200 are silent to whether the Bluetooth® is Classic or Low energy.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that both Bluetooth® Classic and Bluetooth® Low energy are conventional in the art, and the Examiner further takes Official Notice that automatic selection is also conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize either/both of Bluetooth® Classic or Bluetooth® Low energy protocol’s in accordance with the international standards development organization responsible for Bluetooth® technology with Bluetooth® compatible devices (i.e., the prior art commercial product), and/or more specifically to utilize Classic for continuous high-bandwidth data and/or to use Low Energy for intermittently sending small amounts of data (e.g., to save battery).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, as best understood,
Forrer broadly reasonably teaches wherein the rangefinder (fig. 9, optoelectronic distance measuring device 25) is coupled to the housing (fig. 8, housing 22) by means of a hinge (rotatable hinge at location of second encoder 14, see fig. 9) allowing vertical translational movement (vertical translational movement provided by rotation of hinge) of the rangefinder (fig. 9, optoelectronic distance measuring device 25) while remaining aligned with the horizontal bearing of the resolver board (printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10). Having a similar interpretation, the (prior art) Laser Technology’s commercial products TruAngle & TruPulse200 likewise broadly reasonably teaches wherein the rangefinder (TruPulse200) is coupled to the housing by means of a hinge (rotatable hinge) allowing vertical translational movement of the rangefinder (TruPulse200) while remaining aligned with the horizontal bearing of the (as previously modified by Forrer) resolver board (Forrer: printed circuit board 6 of transceiver unit 9; see figs. 8 & 10). See drawing objections, the Examiner noting that the claim interpretation was made without the assistance of the claimed subject matter being shown.
The Examiner additionally notes that the determination of whether a wherein/whereby/adaptation or similar clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case as put forth by MPEP § 2111.04. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). In the present case, the wherein statement is directed to referencing the limitation of the independent claim (emphasis added) “the housing being couplable to a rangefinder”, which is suggestive that the rangefinder & the hinge thereof referenced in this dependent claim are not part of the precise bearing measurement device, see related 112(b)/2nd indefinite rejection.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Forrer in view of (prior art) Laser Technology Inc.’s commercial products TruAngle® & TruPulse®200 as factually evidenced by MapStar® TruAngle® User’s Manual, MapStar® TruAngle® Specification sheet, & TruePulse® 200 User’s Manual, and in further view of newly cited Hartman et al (US 20120059575 A1; hereafter “Hartman”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Forrer does not teach
further comprising:
a set of accelerometers coupled to the processor for indicating a level horizontal position of the device in operation.
Hartman teaches a set of accelerometers (fig. 1, accelerometers of inertial reference unit 112) coupled to a processor (fig. 1, processor 118) for indicating a level horizontal position of the device (fig. 1, target locator device 100) in operation (Title “TARGET LOCATOR DEVICE AND METHODS”; Abstract “target locator device comprises: a high performance gyroscope; an inertial measurement unit including an accelerometer triad and a gyroscope triad; a rangefinder; a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; and a processor coupled to the high performance gyroscope, the inertial measurement unit, the rangefinder and the GNSS receiver”; [0018]; [0021] “Housing 410 also includes a tripod mount 430 to facilitate use of device 400 with a tripod”; [0027] “The leveling task is performed electronically with the accelerometers of the inertial measurement unit 112”; [0025] “The accelerometers within inertial measurement unit 112 will provide inertial data to processor 118 that will indicate when the target locator device 100 is sufficiently level (indicated on indicator panel 426, for example)”; [0028] “measurement of target locator device 100 degree of levelness” and “the degree of levelness is sensed by inertial measurement unit 112 and provided to processor 118”; [0051] “The leveling is determined from the IMU's three accelerometers”; [0024] “the target locator device 100 should go through a complete alignment/calibration process to reach full specified range performance” and “greater accuracies”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hartman’s accelerometers and associated leveling with Forrer’s bearing measurement device, thereby increasing the accuracy of the bearing and range finding. The Examiner additionally notes with comparison to the bubble leveling of (prior art) Laser Technology Inc.’s commercial products, that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to replace a bubble level with a processor connected to accelerometers to perform the leveling process for substantially the same combination and motivation as previously explained with respect to Forrer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are 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.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 24JUN2026
Prosecution Insights