Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/357,428

Laser Level Interface and Control

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Jul 24, 2023
Examiner
GUADALUPE, YARITZA
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
943 granted / 1143 resolved
+14.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1163
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1143 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2023 and June 30, 2025 were 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 July 24, 2023 are accepted. Abstract The Abstract filed July 24, 2023 is accepted. Specification The specification filed July 24, 2023 has been entered. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1 – 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,754,393. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter recited in the present application are already disclosed in the US Patent. With respect to claim 1, the US Patent teaches the method of controlling a laser beam generating device, the method comprising: determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level, the laser level comprising a housing and a laser light generator disposed within the housing, the laser light generator operable to emit a beam of light at a predetermined orientation with respect to gravity; generating a visual interface at the remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level, the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level; and a plurality of operable instructions selectable to adjust an orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing; emitting a signal, by the remote control, indicating that a first instruction of the plurality of operable instructions was selected; and as a result of receiving the signal, controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing (See Claim 9 of the US Patent). Referring to claim 2, the US Patent shows a method wherein the visual interface being generated at the remote control comprising a first image representative of the laser level (See Claim 10 of the US Patent). In regards to claim 3, the US Patent discloses a method wherein the visual interface being generated at the remote control comprising a second image representative of the remote control (See Claim 11 of the US Patent). Regarding claim 4, the US Patent sets forth the method wherein the step of determining the relative position comprises identifying a quadrant relative to the laser level in which the remote control is located, wherein the quadrant extends approximately 90 degrees circumferentially around the laser level (See Claim 12 of the US Patent). With regards to claim 5, the US Patent teaches the method wherein the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to a percent gradation with respect to horizontal (See Claim 13 of the US Patent). Regarding claim 6, the US Patent shows the method wherein the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to an angle with respect to horizontal (See Claim 14 of the US Patent). In regards to claim 7, the US Patent discloses the method wherein the step of determining the relative position comprises: utilizing a plurality of receivers to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received (See Claim 15 of the US Patent). Referring to claim 8, the US Patent sets forth a method of controlling a laser beam generating device, the method comprising: generating a visual interface at a remote control to control a laser level, the laser level comprising a housing and a laser light generator disposed within the housing, the laser light generator operable to emit a beam of light, wherein the visual interface comprises: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level; and a plurality of operable instructions selectable to adjust an orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing; emitting, by the remote control, a signal indicating that a first instruction of the plurality of operable instructions was selected; determining a relative position of the remote control and the laser level with respect to each other; and as a result of receiving the signal, the laser level adjusting the orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing at least in part based on the determined relative position (See Claim 16 of the US Patent). In regards to claim 9, the US Patent teaches the method wherein the step of determining the relative position is initiated in response to the laser level receiving the signal (See Claim 17 of the US Patent). Regarding claim 10, the US Patent shows the method wherein the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to a non-zero angle with respect to horizontal (See Claim 18 of the US Patent). With respect to claim 11, the US Patent discloses the method wherein the step of determining the relative position comprises: utilizing a plurality of receivers to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received (See Claim 19 of the US Patent). Referring to claim 12, the US Patent sets forth the method wherein the remote control comprises the plurality of receivers (See Claim 20 of the US Patent). 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 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horky et al. (US 10,545,021) in view of Lukic et al. (US 10,684,129). With respect to claim 1, the method of controlling a laser beam generating device is substantially disclosed by Horky et al., including the method comprising a laser level , the laser level comprising a housing (58) and a laser light generator (14) disposed within the housing, the laser light generator (14) operable to emit a beam of light at a predetermined orientation with respect to gravity; and a plurality of operable instructions selectable to adjust an orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing (58); emitting a signal (124), by the remote control (58), indicating that a first instruction of the plurality of operable instructions was selected; and as a result of receiving the signal, controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing. Horky et al. does not disclose the step of determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level; generating a visual interface at the remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; and the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level, the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level as recited in claim 1. Lukic et al teaches (See Column 11, line 39; Column 15, line 32) to use a display (73) to indicate to the user a variety of information as desired by the user, such as, determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level, generating a visual interface at a remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a display on the remote in Horky et al. as taught by Lukic et al. to display a variety of information to the user as desired, such as, determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level, generating a visual interface at a remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level. Referring to claim 2, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. sets forth the visual interface (as taught by Lukic et al.) being generated at the remote control comprising a first image representative of the laser level. In regards to claim 3, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. teaches a visual interface being generated at the remote control comprising a second image representative of the remote control (the display as taught by Lukic et al. as stated above). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. shows the step of determining a relative position comprises identifying a quadrant relative to the laser level in which the remote control is located, wherein the quadrant extends approximately 90 degrees circumferentially around the laser level (inherent from the teachings of the prior art). With regards to claim 5, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to a percent gradation with respect to horizontal (as taught by Horky et al. above). Referring to claim 6, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to an angle with respect to horizontal (as taught by Horky et al. above). In regards to claim 7, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of determining the relative position comprises: utilizing a plurality of receivers to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received. The duplication of existing parts is not considered, lacking some unexpected result, a patentably distinct feature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of receivers in the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received. Regarding claim 8, the method of controlling a laser beam generating device is substantially disclosed by Horky et al., including the method comprising a laser level , the laser level comprising a housing (58) and a laser light generator (14) disposed within the housing, the laser light generator (14) operable to emit a beam of light at a predetermined orientation with respect to gravity; and a plurality of operable instructions selectable to adjust an orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing (58); emitting a signal (124), by the remote control (58), indicating that a first instruction of the plurality of operable instructions was selected; and as a result of receiving the signal, controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light with respect to the housing. Horky et al. does not disclose the step of determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level; generating a visual interface at the remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; and the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level, the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level as recited in claim 1. Lukic et al teaches (See Column 11, line 39; Column 15, line 32) to use a display (73) to indicate to the user a variety of information as desired by the user, such as, determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level, generating a visual interface at a remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a display on the remote in Horky et al. as taught by Lukic et al. to display a variety of information to the user as desired, such as, determining a relative position of a remote control with respect to a laser level, generating a visual interface at a remote control, the visual interface based at least in part on the relative position of the remote control with respect to the laser level; the visual interface comprising: a visual representation of the beam of light emitted by the laser level. With respect to claim 9, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of determining the relative position is initiated in response to the laser level receiving the signal. With respect to claim 10, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of controlling the laser level to adjust the orientation of the beam of light comprises tilting the beam of light to a non-zero angle with respect to horizontal. Referring to claim 11, the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. disclose the step of determining the relative position comprises: utilizing a plurality of receivers to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received. The duplication of existing parts is not considered, lacking some unexpected result, a patentably distinct feature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of receivers in the combination of Horky et al. in view of Lukic et al. to receive a plurality of positional signals; and calculating the relative position based at least in part on a timing when two or more of the plurality of positional signals were received. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13 – 20 are allowed. Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 13 - 20 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method of controlling a laser beam generating device, the method comprising a plurality of non-operable instructions to operate laser levels, wherein the non-operable instructions are not selectable to operate the laser level in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as claimed: Draeger (US Pub. No. 2025/0035442) Gould et al. (US 12,152,882) 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 E Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2855 January 6, 2026 /YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601581
Generator Rotor Centering Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603976
FOUNDATION PROJECTION LINE-DRAWING DEVICE AND A LINE-DRAWING METHOD FOR A SPORTS FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595995
ELECTRONIC SCALE RULER AND VERNIER CALIPER, AND USE METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595994
SPOOLED MARKING APPARATUS AND METHODS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590790
MULTIFUNCTIONAL SPEED SQUARE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1143 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month