Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/413,265

LEVELING METHOD AND LEVELING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 16, 2024
Examiner
BENNETT, GEORGE B
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fulian Precision Electronics (Tianjin) Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
423 granted / 533 resolved
+11.4% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
549
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 533 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claims 1-19 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. Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 all set forth “a plurality of first containers” and “a plurality of connecting pipes”. However, throughout the claims, these features are referenced back to as “a first container”, “the first container”, “a connecting pipe” or “the connecting pipe”. This is unclear and confusing, please clarify. Claims 9 and 17: the term “waist-shaped hole” is unclear and vague. 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US Pat. No. 4,686,773). Regarding independent claim 1, Brewer discloses a leveling mechanism as shown in FIG 1 used for leveling a target device 12. The leveling mechanism includes a plurality of first containers 18, 26 and a plurality of connecting pipes 36. The method as claimed is described in the Summary of the Invention of Brewer (col. 1, l. 55-col. 2, l.2). However, Brewer does not disclose a second container for introducing the observation liquid into the connecting pipes as claimed. A container is an old and well-known device used for storing a liquid for later use. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a second container for the purpose of introducing liquid into the connecting pipes and first containers of Brewer in the manner as disclosed in the Summary of the Invention of Brewer (col. 1, ll. 65-68). Claims 2-18 include various components (quick connectors, connection seats, plate bodies, a first container and second container with the same specifications, etc.) that are functionally-equivalent to the components taught by Brewer. It is old and well-known to use functionally equivalent components with a known apparatus for the purpose of achieving the same results. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Brewer device in the manner as claimed based on manufacturer and/or end-user preferences. Regarding independent claim 19, Brewer discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1, above. However, Brewer does not disclose that the leveling method is used specifically with a liquid cooling device. Brewer does disclose that the device may be used with other devices that need to be leveled (see col. 1, ll. 5-10 of Brewer). It is old and well-known to use a leveling device with a liquid cooling tank for the purpose of ensuring proper operation of the tank. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the level of Brewer for the purpose of ensuring that a cooling tank is in the proper orientation. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. BRADLEY BENNETT whose telephone number is 571.272.2237. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 8:00-6:00. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571.272.2375. 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. /GEORGE B BENNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 gbb 25 FEB 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599974
Mounting Bracket Template Support and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595996
SMALL-SIZED MEASURING DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590782
ARCHERY BOW SIGHT SUPPORT SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590789
FISH MEASURING BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590465
FRAMING BUDDY DECK FRAMING TOOL
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
79%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 533 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month