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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 03/02/2026. The amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings are accepted and entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/08/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of applications 18/673463 and 18/734763 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that even though a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability (emphasis added). While the large number of documents submitted on the IDS have been reviewed, none of them seemed to be relevant to the instant application’s patentability. Applicant is encouraged to point out a document(s) that seems to be relevant to the instant application’s patentability.
Applicants are encouraged to avoid submitting large numbers of documents in an IDS, particularly where the documents are not material to patentability. Submitting large numbers of documents, especially when many are only marginally relevant, may hinder rather than help the examination process. See MPEP 609.04(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “222” has been used to designate both a void in at least fig. 16 and also a vertical mounting bracket in at least fig. 18.
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. 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.
Response to Affidavit
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/02/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-27 based upon as set forth in the last Office action.
The affidavit is not commensurate in scope with the pending claims because claims 1-8 and 21-25 do not recite any limitation requiring careful balancing of motors and batteries, reduced vibration, low weight, specific material selection, particular rigidity, or any defined torque/weight-distribution arrangement. Nor does the relied-upon disclosure define the invention by such features. Thus, the affidavit lacks the required nexus to the full scope of the claimed invention.
Further, the affidavit is conclusory and is unsupported by comparative factual evidence showing that the proposed combination of Stud Pack and Eidinger would have been inoperable or beyond the level of ordinary skill. Unsupported expert opinion is entitled to limited weight. See MPEP 716.01(c)III.
The rejection is based on the combined teachings of Stud Pack and Eidinger, not Stud Pack alone. Applicant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. Stud Pack teaches the manually adjustable laser mount architecture, and Eidinger teaches motorized translation in a laser level mount context. Substituting a motorized actuator for a manual knob to automate adjustment would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to known methods. To the extent implementation would require selecting motor size, battery size, or support rigidity, such matters constitute routine engineering optimization within the ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the affidavit does not outweigh the evidence supporting the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Butler
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Butler discloses a motorized vertically adjustable laser level assembly in which laser scanner 50 is mounted on platform 226 of carriage 206, and that movable support structure is translated relative to the supporting structure by motor 214. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation of claim 1, Butler’s movable carriage/platform structure corresponds to the claimed base portion and first surface, and the supporting column corresponds to the claimed mounting portion. Further, when first surface 226 is moved upward relative to the supporting portion in Butler, the relevant structures move relative to one another in the same general manner required by claim 1, namely, that the base portion is configured for vertical translation relative to the mounting portion. Therefore, Butler is considered to disclose the structural and functional relationship recited in claim 1. For at least the same reasons, Applicant’s derivative arguments as to claims 2, 6, and 7 are likewise unpersuasive since they rely on the same alleged deficiency in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 is unpersuasive.
II. Claims 1-8 and 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stud Pack in view of Eidinger
Regarding claim 1, Stud Pack discloses the adjustable laser mount architecture and manual vertical adjustment structure, while Eidinger discloses motorized actuation in a laser-level mount context. It would have been obvious to substitute Eidinger’s motorized actuation for Stud Pack’s manual knob-driven adjustment in order to automate a known adjustment and obtain expected benefits such as repeatability, convenience, and reduced manual manipulation. Applicant’s argument that Eidinger does not itself disclose the exact translational structure is not persuasive because the previous rejection relies on the combined teachings of Stud Pack and Eidinger, not on Eidinger alone. Applicant’s argument that Stud Pack already provides fine tuning also is not persuasive because a prior art device need not be deficient before one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to improve it.
Further, numerous publications evidence that substituting an electrical motor for a manual knob was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See, for example, paragraph 53 of US 2002/0043857, paragraph 1021 of US 2015/0320437, paragraph 41 of US 2021/0268952, and paragraph 167 of US 2012/0149537. Accordingly, replacing Stud Pack’s manual knob-driven adjustment with motorized actuation would have been a known and predictable modification yielding expected benefits such as automated adjustment, repeatability, convenience, and reduced manual manipulation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1 is unpersuasive, and for at least the same reasons Applicant’s derivative arguments as to claims 2-8 are likewise unpersuasive.
Claims 21-25
Regarding claims 21-25, the rejection relies on the combined structural teachings of Stud Pack and Eidinger for the recited bracket, support, mounting, spacing, and electrical relationships. The prior art is not required to use identical claim terminology so long as the corresponding structure is taught or suggested by the applied combination. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 21-25 is unpersuasive.
Prima facie / official notice / hindsight arguments
Applicant’s general prima facie, official notice, and hindsight arguments are not persuasive. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references and articulated reasoning that known motorized actuation would have been used in the context of known adjustable laser mounts to obtain expected benefits. The rejection does not rely on Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap, but on a predictable substitution of a motorized actuator for a manual actuator in the same field of endeavor. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Claims 2-5 redesign argument
Regarding claims 2-5, Applicant argues there the need to select a motor location, coupling arrangement, shaft connection, or pinion drive does not itself render the modification nonobvious. The use of a motor to drive a pinion in a rack-and-pinion arrangement represents a predictable application of known mechanical principles to automate a known adjustment. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 2-5 is unpersuasive.
III. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stud Pack in view of Jackson
Regarding claim 12, Stud Pack discloses the adjustable mount architecture, including manual vertical and rotational adjustment, while Jackson discloses motorized actuation in a laser-level system in place of manual adjustment. It would have been obvious to replace Stud Pack’s manual controls with motorized controls as taught by Jackson in order to automate known adjustments and obtain expected benefits such as repeatability and reduced manual manipulation. Applicant’s argument that Jackson does not itself disclose translational movement is not persuasive because Stud Pack supplies the adjustable mount structure and Jackson supplies the motorized actuation teaching. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 12 is unpersuasive.
IV. Claims 13-15 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stud Pack and Jackson in further view of Butler
Claims 13-15
Regarding claims 13-15, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Stud Pack discloses the adjustable mount structure and rotatable arrangement, Jackson discloses motorized actuation, and Butler discloses remote-controlled motor operation for adjusting a laser level assembly. It would have been obvious to provide the Stud Pack/Jackson motorized assembly with Butler’s remote-control capability in order to permit remote positioning of the laser level without manual actuation. Applicant’s argument that Butler does not itself disclose the claimed first-axis/second-axis arrangement is not persuasive because Butler is not relied upon as the sole reference for that arrangement. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 13-15 is unpersuasive.
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Butler discloses a gear-driven rotational arrangement within a rotatable base for rotating the laser level about a vertical axis, and the rejection relies on that disclosure together with the predictable variation of limiting a full rotational path to a finite arcuate path where only a finite range of motion is desired. Modifying a full circular gear arrangement to an arc gear guided along an arcuate path would have been a predictable variation while retaining the same basic mechanical function of driven rotation. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 26 is unpersuasive.
V. Claims 16-20 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stud Pack and Jackson
Claims 16-20
Regarding claim 16, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Stud Pack discloses a laser level assembly including a mounting bracket connected to a ceiling/wall mount with a manual adjustment mechanism causing vertical translation of the mounting bracket relative to the mount, while Jackson discloses replacing manual controls with motorized actuation in a laser-level system. It would have been obvious to replace Stud Pack’s manual adjustment control with an electrical motor as taught by Jackson in order to automate the known adjustment. Applicant’s request for more granular citations does not, by itself, establish that the claimed ceiling/wall mount and adjustment relationship are absent from the applied combination. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 16 is unpersuasive, and for at least the same reasons Applicant’s derivative arguments as to claims 17-20 are likewise unpersuasive.
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Stud Pack discloses positional end limits for the rack arrangement, Butler discloses a removable battery pack for energizing the laser level and motorized assembly, and it would have been obvious to provide a known sensor or contact-switch arrangement in communication with a controller to stop motor-driven movement at a positional limit in order to prevent overtravel and reduce wear. The use of a known positional sensor in a motorized positioning system would have represented a predictable application of known control techniques. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 27 is unpersuasive.
VI. Claims 14 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Butler
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Butler discloses a bottom portion having a surface configured to receive a battery pack for energizing a motorized laser level assembly, and further discloses a motorized rotational arrangement associated with the laser support. It would have been obvious to power the relevant motors from the same battery pack in order to reduce component duplication, simplify the power arrangement, and reduce weight and failure points. Applicant’s argument that the rejection did not restate every parent-claim limitation is not persuasive because those inherited limitations were already addressed in the rejection. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 14 is unpersuasive.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Butler discloses a motorized vertically adjustable laser level assembly including a mounting structure and a motor-driven vertical adjustment arrangement, and it would have been obvious to configure the mount for ceiling attachment in order to increase mounting options and utility. Further, substituting one known linear drive arrangement, such as a rack-and-pinion, for another known linear drive arrangement, such as Butler’s worm-driven adjustment, would have represented a predictable mechanical substitution. Applicant’s assertion of inoperability is not persuasive because the claim is directed to the mounting and translation arrangement, and persuasive evidence has not been provided that the modified support would have been incapable of performing the claimed function. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 16 is unpersuasive.
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 12-15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Regarding claim 14, it depends from dependent claim 15, which depends on independent claim 12. Claim 14 appears to be directed to the embodiments shown in fig. 16 and elements of fig. 2 and paragraph [0102]. Applicant’s claim 14 now reads as follows and is mapped to the disclosure as follows:
(Claim 12) A laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket (fig. 16; 220) comprising a mounting portion (222 ? is shown to be different parts in fig. 16 and fig. 18. For the purpose of examination, examiner reads the mounting portion to be 222 as shown in fig. 18 and amended figure 22) and a base portion (221) transverse to the mounting portion (fig. 18; 222); a laser level (121) positioned on a surface of the base portion (221); a first electrical motor (best seen in fig. 20; 150) configured to drive vertical translation of the laser level (121), the mounting portion (222), and the base portion (221) collectively; and a second electrical motor (160) configured to drive rotational motion of the laser level (121) about a vertical axis (fig. 2; A);
(Claim 15) further comprising a rotatable base (fig. 1; 300 can be used in fig. 15 as discussed in paragraph [100], but not shown in fig 16, where the rotatable base is between 221 and 121, Examiner reproduced below for clarity) positioned between the laser level (121) and the base portion (221) of the mounting bracket (220); wherein the laser level (121) and the rotational base (300) are positionable about a first axis (fig. 2; 151 and rotational direction B?) relative to the mounting portion (222); and wherein the laser level (121) is rotatable about a second axis (A? is this the same as the previous vertical axis?) relative to the mounting portion (222) and the rotational base (300);
(Claim 14) further comprising a bottom portion (223) having a surface (not separately numbered, but assumed to be the surface on which sensor 228 is formed in new fig. 22) configured to receive (shown in fig. 15) a battery pack (250, alternatively 251) thereby to energize the first electrical motor (150) and the second electrical motor (50) when installed, the bottom portion (223) configured to be adjustably spaced from the base portion (221) upon vertical translation, and wherein the second electrical motor (50) is disposed in the rotatable base (300) positioned on the base portion (221).
First, what element number is the mounting portion?
Second, is the second axis the same as the vertical axis? If so, this lacks proper antecedent basis.
Third, if the phrase “second electrical motor … disposed in the rotatable base” is mapped to the specification, the best-supported numeral is motor 50 in rotatable base 300. But the motor disclosed for rotating the laser level about a vertical axis in the translating embodiment is motor 160, not motor 50.
The examiner has tried extensively to understand the invention of amended claims 12-15, however they are so unclear they preclude a reasonable search for prior art. The dependent claims 13 and independent claim 28 suffer from the same deficiencies and are likewise treated.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previously cited Butler et al (USPN 5903345; “Butler”).
Regarding claim 1, Butler discloses a laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket (fig. 5; 200); a laser level (50); and an electrical motor (214); wherein the mounting bracket (200) includes a mounting portion (206) extending from a base portion (204), the base portion (204) positioned transverse to the mounting portion (206); wherein the laser level (50) is positioned on a first surface (226) of the base portion (204; the first surface 226 is an indirect part of the base portion 204 under BRI); wherein the base portion (204) is configured for vertical translation relative to the mounting portion (206); and wherein the electrical motor (214) drives the vertical translation from the base portion (204) relative to the mounting portion (206).
Regarding claim 2, Butler discloses in at least fig. 5 the electrical motor (214) is mounted in the mounting bracket (200) base portion (204).
Regarding claim 6, Butler discloses in at least fig. 5 the mounting bracket (200) further comprises a bottom portion (bottom of 202), wherein the base portion (204) comprises a second surface (unlabeled horizontal surface above 210) positioned opposite the first surface (226) and facing the bottom portion (202), the second surface (unlabeled parallel surface) configured to receive a battery pack (210) thereby to energize the electrical motor (214).
Regarding claim 7, Butler discloses in at least fig. 5 the bottom portion (202) is parallel to the base portion (204), and wherein a space between the second surface (unlabeled horizontal surface) of the base portion (204) and the bottom portion (bottom of 202) is configured to position a battery pack (210) therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stud Pack in view of previously cited Eidinger (USPGPUB 20200240783; “Eidinger”).
Regarding claim 1, Stud Pack a laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket; a laser level; and a rotating knob; wherein the mounting bracket includes a mounting portion extending from a base portion, the base portion positioned transverse to the mounting portion; wherein the laser level is positioned on a first surface of the base portion; wherein the base portion is configured for vertical translation relative to the mounting portion; and wherein the rotating knob drives the vertical translation from the base portion relative to the mounting portion.
While Stud Pack discloses the laser level mount can be finely tuned, i.e. moved up and down, and left and right with knobs, Stud Pack fails to teach the knobs could be replaced with motors.
Eidinger discloses a laser level mount which has motors for translations.
Furthermore, the examiner takes official notice that replacing knobs with motors is a well-known modification, as discussed in
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Stud Pack’s mount with electrical motors to allow for more precise and more stable adjustments for moving the laser level.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand there are several places the motors could be mounted. Furthermore, Eidinger discloses in fig. 3 the motor (70) is mounted in the mounting bracket.
The reasons for combing and motivation are the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-5, Stud Pack shows the vertical movement comprises a rack engaging with a pinion, and the rack is on the mounting portion of the bracket, but is silent to the electrical motor driving rotation of the pinion via a shaft, and wherein the shaft extends from the base portion to engage the rack, and wherein the rack extends in a vertical direction along a central side of the mounting portion.
However, Eidinger teaches that a motor can be used to drive a pinion. And even if Eidinger did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that this is a well-known method of driving motorized rack and pinion elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a motor on Stud Pack’s pinion to allow for finer, more stable movement with the operator being a distance away from the mount.
Regarding claims 6, Stud Pack shows the mounting bracket further comprises a bottom portion, wherein the base portion comprises a second surface positioned opposite the first surface and facing the bottom portion.
Since Stud Pack is non-electrical, there is no teaching of where the battery pack should be placed to energize the motor.
However, Eidinger teaches in at least paragraph 103 that a battery pack (55) to energize the motor (70) can be placed in a variety of places to suit the intended platform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Stud Pack’s laser level mount with the second surface configured to receive a battery pack thereby to energize the electrical motor, to allow for more battery and motor configurations which will allow for a more robust device capable of fitting more applications.
Regarding claim 7, Stud Pack shows wherein the bottom portion is parallel to the base portion.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 6, Stud Pack is silent to a battery, but Eidinger teaches the battery can be placed anywhere on the device to energize the motor. The reasons for combining and motivations are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 24, the combined device of Stud Pack and Eidinger shows a space between the second surface of the base portion and the bottom portion is adjustable upon on the vertical translation of the base portion.
Regarding claim 25, Since Stud Pack is non-electrical, there is no teaching of where the battery pack should be placed to energize the motor.
However, Eidinger shows the second surface of the base portion includes electrical components configured to energize the laser level and the electrical motor when connected to a battery pack. Even if Eidinger did not show this, Eidinger teaches in at least paragraph 103 that a battery pack (55) to energize the motor (70) can be placed in a variety of places to suit the intended platform.
The reasons for combining and motivations are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Stud Pack discloses wherein the bottom portion includes a screw thread mount, and wherein the mounting bracket further comprises magnets.
Even if Stud Pack did not disclose this configuration, the examiner notes this is well-known modification in the mounting art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Stud Pack’s bottom portion with a screw thread mount, and wherein the mounting bracket further comprises magnets to allow for more mounting options, thereby increasing the device’s utility.
Regarding claim 21, both Stud Pack and Eidinger disclose the mounting bracket further includes one or more structural supports, wherein the one or more structural supports directly connect the mounting portion and the first surface of the base portion thereby to support the base portion transverse to the mounting portion. The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, both Stud Pack and Eidinger disclose the mounting bracket further comprises a mounting component, the mounting component configured to matingly interface with the mounting portion to enable the vertical translation of the mounting portion along a length of the mounting component, and wherein the mounting component includes the rack configured to engage with the pinion, the rack positioned to extend in a vertical direction along the mounting portion. The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, both Stud Pack and Eidinger disclose the rack is positioned along a side of a central portion of the mounting component, the central portion comprising an internal volume within a body of the mounting component, the central portion having an opening facing the laser level to expose the internal volume and configured to receive the pinion. The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stud Pack in view of Jackson et al. (USPN 5994688; “Jackson’’).
Regarding claim 12, Stud Pack shows a laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket comprising a mounting portion and a base portion transverse to the mounting portion; a laser level positioned on a surface of the base portion; a first knob configured to drive vertical translation of the laser level, the mounting portion, and the base portion collectively; and a second knob configured to drive rotational motion of the laser level about a vertical axis.
Stud Pack is silent to the knobs being electric motors.
Jackson teaches in col. 12, Il. 39-60 that motors can be used in place of knobs for laser levels. And even if Jackson did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that this is a well-known modification to one skilled in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace Stud Pack’s knobs with a motor configuration to allow for smoother, steadier leveling without requiring manual labor from the worker.
Claim 13-15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stud Pack and Jackson in further view of Butler.
Regarding claims 13-15, Stud Pack shows the first and second knobs are located in the mounting bracket, with rotatable bases in the mounting bracket, but is silent to electrical motors. And while Jackson discloses electrical motors and associated batteries being positioned in different places in the mount, and also rotatable base Jackson is silent to a remote-controlled motor.
However, Butler discloses a remote-controlled motor to move a laser level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the recited device of claims 13-15 with the motors being remotely controlled to allow for the operator to more efficiently control the position of the laser level. Even if Butler did not disclose a remote control, the examiner takes official notice that remote controlled devices are well-known in the art to allow for broader market appeal.
Regarding claim 26, Stud Pack and Jackson are silent to the rotatable base comprises an internal volume that houses an arc gear positioned within an arcuate guide way within the internal volume, the arc gear configured to be mechanically driven by the second electrical motor along the arcuate guide way thereby to rotate the laser level about the vertical axis.
However, Butler teaches in at least figs. 2 and 5 that the rotatable base (54) comprises an internal volume (not labeled) that houses a circular gear (108) within the internal volume, the circular gear (108) configured to be mechanically driven by the second electrical motor (described in spec as 98 but not labeled in fig. 2 driving gear 100) thereby to rotate the laser level (76) about the vertical axis.
Neither Stud Pack, Jackson or Butler teaches the arc gear is in a guideway.
However, the examiner takes official notice that using a full circular gear vs a partial arc gear in a guideway is a well-known modification and equivalent in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the combined device of Stud Pack, Jackson and Butler with an arc gear in place of the circular gear since this will allow for a finite range of motion improving the accuracy and speed while reducing the overall weight of the device.
Claim 16-20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stud Pack and Jackson.
Regarding claim 16, Stud Pack shows a laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket comprising a mounting portion and a base portion transverse to the mounting portion; a laser level on the mounting bracket; and a ceiling wall mount (@ 4:26); wherein the mounting bracket is connected to the ceiling wall mount at the mounting portion; wherein the mounting bracket includes a knob and a pinion driven by the knob; wherein the ceiling wall mount includes a rack engaged with the pinion; and wherein rotation of the knob causes the mounting bracket to translate in a vertical direction relative to the ceiling wall mount.
Stud Pack is silent to the knobs being electric motors.
Jackson teaches in col. 12, ll. 39-60 that motors can be used in place of knobs for laser levels. And even if Jackson did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that this is a well-known modification to one skilled in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace Stud Pack’s knobs with a motor configuration to allow for smoother, steadier leveling without requiring manual labor from the worker.
Regarding claim 17, Stud Pack shows the ceiling wall mount includes a metal plate.
Regarding claim 18, Stud Pack shows the mounting portion comprises magnets and attraction between the magnets and the metal plate connect the mounting bracket to the ceiling wall mount.
Regarding claim 19, Stud Pack shows the rack extends along an edge of the metal plate.
Regarding claim 20, Stud Pack shows the mounting bracket further includes a rotational knob which selectively drives rotational motion of the laser level about a vertical axis.
While Stud Pack fails to disclose electrical motors, as described in the above rejection, one skilled in the art would understand it would be a simple substitution to replace Stud Pack’s knobs with electrical motors, thus yielding first and second motors being disposed in the mounting bracket. Furthermore, Jackson teaches in col. 12, ll. 39-60 that motors can be used in place of knobs for laser levels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Stud Pack’s mount with first and second motors disposed in the mounting as this would allow for the easiest, least expensive way to modify the overall mount.
Regarding claim 27, Stud Pack shows the rack comprises one or more positional limits (the ends of the rack) thereby to cease movement of the laser level, but fails to show a battery or the positional limits include a sensor or contact switch.
However, Butler shows in at least fig. 2, the mounting bracket is configured to receive a removable battery pack (110) thereby to energize at least the laser level (76) and the electrical motor (98).
While Jackson, Stud Pack nor Butler shows the positional limits include one or more of a sensor or a contact switch configured to communicate with a controller configured to cease movement, the Examiner takes official notice that using this sensor (such as a Hall sensor) is well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Stud Pack’s laser mount with the removable battery to energize both the laser and electrical motor to save space. Furthermore, using a sensor such as a Hall sensor to cease movement will better prevent any unwanted wear and tear on the sensitive gears and motor, thereby improving the precision of the movement.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler.
Regarding claim 14, Butler discloses in at least fig. 5, a bottom portion (202) having a surface (bottom) configured to receive a battery pack (210) thereby to energize the first electrical motor (214), the bottom portion configured to be adjustably spaced from the base portion upon vertical translation, and wherein the second electrical motor is disposed in the rotatable base positioned on the base portion mounting bracket.
Butler discloses that the second electrical motor is powered by battery 110, but is silent to the first and second motor being powered by the same battery pack.
However, the examiner hereby takes official notice that POSITA would be capable of powering both motors with only Butler’s battery pack (210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Butler’s wiring so that the first and second motors are powered by the same battery pack since this will reduce weight and failure points making the overall device more robust.
Regarding claim 16, Butler discloses in figures 1-5, a laser level assembly including: a mounting bracket (fig. 5; 200) comprising a mounting portion (226) and a base portion (204) transverse to the mounting portion (226); a laser level (50) on the mounting bracket (200); and a mount (202); wherein the mounting bracket (200) is connected (via 216) to the mount (202) at the mounting portion (226); wherein the mounting bracket (200) includes an electrical motor (214); wherein rotation of the electrical motor (214) causes the mounting bracket (226) to translate in a vertical direction relative to the mount (202).
Butler discloses in col. 4, lines 47-52 the mount can be arranged in a variety of configurations, but is silent to the mount being a ceiling wall mount. Also, while butler discloses a worm screw, Butler is silent to the motor driving a rack and pinion for movement.
The Examiner takes official notice that arranging a stand-alone mount like Butlers being mounted on the ceiling is a well-known configuration. Furthermore, using a rack and pinion instead of a worm screw is also well-known equivalents in the art available to POSITA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Butler’s assembly with the mount being capable of attaching to a ceiling to allow for more attachment points, thus making the level more useful. And replacing Butler’s worm screw with a rack and pinion will allow for faster linear motion up and down, and a simpler and cheaper design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights