DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", page 5, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification of 08/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, on pages 7-8 Applicant argues that Zhang (CN 208269762 U; cited in prior PTO-892) does not teach the following claim limitation of claim 1:
a lower interior plate [separating plate 5] attached to and covering only a bottom of the tapeline wheel [tape wheel 32] and forming a lower part of a tapeline cavity [shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; and wherein no portion of the upper interior plate [shielding plate 6] extends into the tapeline cavity and no portion of the lower interior plate extends into an upper part of the tapeline cavity [shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]. (Emphasis copied from Applicant’s “Remarks” on page 7).
Applicant utilized Zhang’s Fig. 7 to illustrate their point. However, Examine would draw Applicant’s attention to Image 1 (an annotated Fig. 7) below. As seen below, Zhang’s separating plate 5 only covers the bottom of the tape wheel 32, as shown in Figs. 5-6. Further, Figs. 3-6 show that no portion of the shielding plate 6 extends into the tapeline cavity, and that no portion of the separating plate 5 extends into the an upper part of the tapeline cavity. As such, these claim limitations are fully met by Zhang.
PNG
media_image1.png
780
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1 – Zhang Fig. 7, Annotated
As stated, Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments that Zhang does not teach the original claim limitations as recited in the Non-Final Rejection of 08/12/2025. As such, Zhang fully discloses original claims 1 and 3, and therefore provides the requisite basis for the rejections of claims 2 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Li (AU 2016427468 A1; cited in prior PTO-892), and the arguments of pages 9-10 are therefore unpersuasive.
Examiner has addressed the newly added claim limitations in the updated claim rejections below.
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.
4. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to read:
“…and a lower interior plate attached to and covering only a bottom of the tapeline wheel and forming a lower part of a tapeline cavity; and wherein no portion of the upper interior plate extends into the tapeline cavity, and no portion of the lower interior plate extends into the cavity for the laser ranging device, extends into an upper part of the tapeline cavity or forms a part thereof.” (Emphasis added.)
As currently written, it is unclear if the Applicant intends that the lower plate, which forms a lower part of a tapeline cavity, cannot form an upper part of the tapeline cavity – or if the Applicant intends that said lower plate cannot form any part of the tapeline cavity, (which would contradict the original claim limitation). As such, it is unclear whether the newly amended claim limitations contradict the original claim limitation, thus rendering claim 1 indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the amendments to claim 1 to mean that the lower plate cannot form an upper part of the tapeline cavity.
Since claims 2-5 are dependent on independent claim 1, they inherit the above deficiencies.
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.
5. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang.
In regard to claim 1, Zhang discloses a laser tape measure device [tape measure with laser distance-measuring function], comprising a casing [shell 10] comprised of a first housing [rear shell 2] and a second housing [front shell 1]; a laser ranging device [laser-distance measuring component 4] arranged toward and attached to the first housing [shown in Fig. 7]; an upper interior plate [shielding plate 6] arranged between the first housing and the second housing [shown in Fig. 7], and being attached to the second housing to form a chamber for the laser ranging device [shown in Fig. 3]; a tapeline structure [tape assembly 3] arranged toward and fastened to the second housing [shown in Fig. 7] and including a tapeline wheel [tape wheel 32] upon which a measuring tape [tape 31] is wound [shown in Fig. 7]; and a lower interior plate [separating plate 5] attached to and covering only a bottom of the tapeline wheel and forming a lower part of a tapeline cavity [shown in Image 2 below]; and wherein no portion of the upper interior plate extends into the cavity for the laser ranging device, extends into an upper part of the tapeline cavity or forms a part thereof [shown in Image 2, the plate 5 only forms the lower part of the tapeline cavity, and does not extend into the laser ranging device or upper part of the tapeline cavity].
PNG
media_image2.png
407
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2 – Zhang Image 6, Annotated
In regard to claim 3, Zhang discloses the laser tape measure device of claim 1 wherein the first housing comprises a first housing bottom face and a first housing side wall [shown in Fig. 4]; the second housing comprises a second housing bottom face and a second housing side wall [shown in Fig. 3]; and the second housing side wall and the first housing side wall are connected to each other, forming a side wall of the casing [shown in Fig. 2].
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.
6. Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Li.
In regard to claim 2, Zhang teaches the laser tape measure device of claim 1.
Zhang does not teach the tape measure including a sheath covering at least a portion of the first and second housings, and wherein the sheath is made of elastic material or soft material.
However, Li also teaches a laser tape measure device [distance measuring device], as well as a sheath [shell outer casing 6] covering at least a portion of the first and second housings [shown in Fig. 7], and wherein the sheath is made of elastic material or soft material [page 30 para. 4 describes using an elastic material such as rubber].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Li’s rubber shell outer casing with Zhang’s laser tape measure device in order to better prevent the two housings from separating, as taught by Li [page 30 para. 4].
In regard to claim 4, Zhang teaches the laser tape measure device of claim 1, a display means [display screen 43], a display mounting bracket holding the display means [fixing seat 23], and a viewing panel [panel 431] located in the upper surface of the casing.
Zhang does not teach the display means connected to a processor so as to show distance measurements from the laser range finder, mounting the display means parallel to the bottom of the casing between the first and second housing, or the viewing panel being mounted in a similar parallel fashion.
However, Li also teaches a display means [display means 24], a display mounting bracket holding the display means [fixed mounting plate described on page 18 para. 4], and a viewing panel [display screen of the display means page 25 para. 2], as well as the display means connected to a processor [processor 231] in the laser ranging device so as to display distance measuring information from the laser ranging device [page 17 para. 2]; the display mounting bracket holding the display means parallel to a bottom of the casing between the first and second housings towards an upper surface of the casing [shown in Fig. 7]; and the viewing panel parallel to the bottom of the casing, said viewing panel permitting a direct view of the display means [shown in Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Li’s use of a processor to display distance measuring information with Zhang’s laser tape measure device display means in order to better store and display the measurement data, thus enabling a user to check the measurement again if the user forgets the reading as described by Li [page 13 para. 4] and to have also combined Li’s orientation of display and viewing panel parallel to a bottom of a casing between two housings with Zhang’s laser tape measure device, display means, display mounting bracket, and viewing panel in order for the user to better read the measured distance while operating the device by simply looking down as described by Li [page 23 para. 4].
In regard to claim 5, Zhang further teaches the laser tape measure device of claim 4 wherein the viewing panel is recessed from the upper surface of the casing [shown in Fig. 6].
Conclusion
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 DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights