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.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 11 May 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are based on amendment to the Claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to independent Claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on amendment to the Claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to independent Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejection of Claims 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Status
A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-20.
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) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan et al. (US 10591296 B2; see reference in its entirety) in view of Chou et al. (US 6922901 B1; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Kwan disclose(s): A laser level system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a mount (Fig. 1: 3) comprising a base portion (Fig. 1: 4), the mount configured to receive a laser level (Fig. 1: 2) disposed on the base portion of the mount (Fig. 1), the laser level configured to project a first line (Fig. 1: 7) and a second line (Fig. 1: 8), the first line being perpendicular to the second line (Fig. 1);
a motor (Fig. 1: motor is inherent to rotate the turn table 6) configured to drive rotation of the laser level relative to the mount (Fig. 1);
wherein the motor is configured to operate in response to a wireless signal from a remote transceiver device (Fig. 5: 20).
Kwan does not specifically disclose: wherein the rotation of the laser level relative to the mount is accomplished via at least one gear.
However, Chou teach(es) a system (Fig. 2) comprising: wherein the rotation of the laser level relative to the mount is accomplished via at least one gear (Fig. 2: 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kwan, with the teachings of Chou, for the purpose of allowing rotation adjustment (col. 4, lines 25-28).
With respect to Claim 2, Kwan and Chou teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
Kwan further discloses: wherein the mount further comprises a wireless receiver (Fig. 5: 15) which is configured to receive the wireless signal from the remote transceiver device (Fig. 5).
With respect to Claim 3, Kwan and Chou teach(es) the system of Claim 2.
Kwan further discloses: wherein the mount further comprises a controller (Fig. 5: 10).
With respect to Claim 4, Kwan and Chou teach(es) the system of Claim 3.
Kwan further discloses: further comprising a circuit board (Fig. 5: it is inherent the microcontroller 10 is on a circuit board); wherein the wireless receiver is on the circuit board (Fig. 5); and wherein the controller is on the circuit board (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Kwan and Chou disclose(s) the system of Claim 1.
Kwan further discloses: wherein the mount further comprises an attachment portion(Fig. 5: 5), and wherein the attachment portion comprises an attachment element configured to secure the mount to a surface (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Kwan and Chou disclose(s) the system of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: a manual adjustment actuator, which is configured to allow a user to manually rotate the laser level relative to the mount.
However, Chou further teach(es): a manual adjustment actuator (Fig. 1: 63), which is configured to allow a user to manually rotate the laser level relative to the mount (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kwan and Chou, with the further teachings of Chou, for the purpose of allowing for adjustment (col. 3, lines 32-36).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan and Chou further in view of Rando (US 5621975; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to Claim 5, Kwan and Chou teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the laser level is configured to be selectively driven by the motor in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction.
However, Rando teach(es) a system (Fig. 6) including: wherein the laser level is configured to be selectively driven by the motor in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (col. 3, lines 38-45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kwan and Chou, with the further teachings of Rando, for the purpose of allowing to facilitate measurements (col. 2, lines 29-43).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan and Chou further in view of Steffen (US 8511635 B2; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to Claim 7, Kwan and Chou teach(es) the system of Claim 6.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the attachment element comprises a magnet.
However, Steffen teach(es) a system (Fig. 1) including: wherein the attachment element comprises a magnet (Fig. 1: 20 & 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kwan and Chou, with the further teachings of Steffen, for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the fastening onto different substrates (col. 2, lines 38-41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter regarding Claims 9-20.
Regarding independent Claims 9 & 16, the prosecution history, especially at the previous Remarks by applicant (Amendment filed on 11 May 2026, pages 8-12) indicates the reasons for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to laser level systems: Swittel et al. (US 2023/0033519 A1); DeArmond (US 10766121 B2); Ran et al. (US 12546598 B2); Yung et al. (US 6804892 B1); Li et al. (US 12584738 B1).
The following reference(s) relate to laser level systems with same assignee (STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC): Schmittdiel et al. (US 12656113 B2); Khan et al. (US 11435181 B2).
The following reference(s) relate to the NPL of YouTube video screen capture found in the IDS filed 09 April 2026: Hills et al. (US 2025/0210925 A1, assignee BOSCH).
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 TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
08 July 2026
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights