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 .
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.
3. Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter
(US 20190154443 A1, Winter et al.; hereinafter "Winter") in view of Ranieri (US 20140352161 A1, Ranieri et al.; hereinafter "Ranieri").
In regard to claim 1, Winter teaches a circular framing guide laser device [rotating laser level 11] comprising: a body [housing 31] comprised of a first opening [opening shown in Fig. 2A]; and a laser lens [optical collimator 40] that projects a circular laser guide [laser plane 38].
Although Winter is not explicit as to the use of a display screen on the body, Winter does teach an operating panel 35. Winter also is not explicit as to a means for a power source, although battery-powered laser levels are well-known in the art.
However, Ranieri also teaches a laser level device with an opening [shown in Fig. 2] that utilizes a battery {para. [0072] describes the power source 40 as a battery}; and a display screen {para. [0038] describes user interface as a display or touch screen}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ranieri’s battery as Winter’s power source for a laser level in order to improve the portability of a laser level device – a well-known engineering practice – as taught by Ranieri {para. [0072]}, and to have used Ranieri’s display screen as Winter’s operating panel in order to better facilitate information to a user, as taught by Ranieri {para. [0038]}.
In regard to claims 2-4, Winter further teaches that the laser lens is comprised of a self-leveling laser lens {para. [0038] describes the laser as self-leveling}, the circular laser guide is projected as a continuous laser line [Fig. 2C shows the laser as a rotating continuous line], and the circular laser guide is projected as a non-continuous laser line [Fig. 2A shows the laser as a rotating non-continuous line].
It should be noted that although Winter teaches the claims mentioned above, that other prior art is explicit in laser levels and other laser projectors using laser beams to project a variety of patterns onto surfaces[see PTO-892].
In regard to claim 5, although Winter teaches a second laser beam 23, Winter is not explicit that the second laser beam is projected as a crosshair.
However, Ranieri teaches the intersection of the laser lines creating a crosshair [shown in Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ranieri’s crosshair projection as Winter’s second laser beam projection in order to better illustrate a location of interest – a known engineering practice – as taught by Ranieri [Fig. 2].
In regard to claims 6-9, Winter further teaches that the body is comprised of a protective cover [main housing 32]; the body is comprised of a guard rail [handles 34]; the laser guide has a button [buttons shown on operating panel 35 in Fig. 2A]; and the radius or the diameter of the circular laser guide is adjustable {paras. [0048]-[0054] describe the process of self-levelling, with para. [0051] describing inclining the angle of the circle – thus it is obvious that if the laser beam was projected on a surface such as a ceiling, that changing the angle of inclination would change the radius}.
In regard to claim 11, Winter teaches a circular framing guide laser device [rotating laser level 11] comprising: a body [housing 31] comprised of a first opening [opening shown in Fig. 2A]; a laser lens [optical collimator 40] that projects a circular laser guide [laser plane 38]; and a tripod comprised of a leg [shown in Fig. 1B].
Although Winter is not explicit as to the use of a display screen on the body, Winter does teach an operating panel 35. Winter also is not explicit as to a means for a power source, although battery-powered laser levels are well-known in the art. Further, although Winter teaches that the rotating laser level 11 is mounted to the stand 14 {para. [0029]}, and Fig. 2A shows the rotating laser level 11 not mounted to the stand 14 – Winter is not explicit that the rotating laser level 11 is removably attached to the stand 14.
However, Ranieri also teaches a laser level device with an opening [shown in Fig. 2] that utilizes a battery {para. [0072] describes the power source 40 as a battery}; a display screen {para. [0038] describes user interface as a display or touch screen}, and that the laser level can be removed from its base {para. [0071]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ranieri’s battery as Winter’s power source for a laser level in order to improve the portability of a laser level device – a well-known engineering practice – as taught by Ranieri {para. [0072]}, to have used Ranieri’s display screen as Winter’s operating panel in order to better facilitate information to a user, as taught by Ranieri {para. [0038]}, and to use Ranieri’s method of removing a laser level from a bracket with Winter’s mounting a laser level to a tripod in order to make the laser level more portable – a well-known engineering practice.
In regard to claims 12-16 and 18, Winter further teaches that the tripod is comprised of a telescopic leg [Fig. 1B shows that the stand 14 has telescoping leg members]; the leg is comprised of a foot [shown in Fig. 1B]; the telescopic leg can be locked at a specific length via a locking member {Fig. 1B shows that the stand 14 has locking components, and para. [0029] describes that the mount 14 enables height adjustment – thus it would be obvious to use the locking members to lock the telescoping legs at specific lengths, which is a well-known engineering practice}; the leg is comprised of a foot {shown in Fig. 1B}; the body is comprised of a second opening [shown in Fig. 2A, laser beam 23 exits through a second opening}; and the laser lens is comprised of a self-leveling laser lens {para. [0038] describes the laser as self-leveling}.
It should be noted that although Winter teaches the claims mentioned above, that other prior art is explicit in teaching the use of telescoping legs with locking members and feet for the purposes of adjusting a height of a laser level [see PTO-892].
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter in view of Ranieri as applied to claims 1-16 and 18 above, and further in view of Smith (US 20140202013 A1, Smith M.; hereinafter "Smith").
In regard to claim 17, although Winter describes measuring the heights between two reference points {described at least in paras. [0048]-[0054]}, Winter is not explicit that the distances are a ground surface and a ceiling,
However, Smith also teaches a laser level device capable of measuring a distance between a ground surface and a ceiling {described at least in para. [0026], shown in Figs. 7-8}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Smith’s method of measuring a distance between a floor and ceiling as Winter’s height difference from two reference points in order to better provide flexible height routine determinations – a well-known engineering practice – as described by Smith {para. [0026]}.
4. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter in view of CivilLaser (YouTube video by user CivilLaser entitled "520nm Green Laser Diode Module Circle”; hereinafter CivilLaser).
In regard to claim 19, Winter teaches a method of using a circular framing guide laser device [rotating laser level 11], the method comprising the following steps: providing a circular framing guide laser device comprised of a body comprised [housing 31] of a laser lens [optical collimator 40]; and activating the laser lens such that a circular laser guide is projected from the laser lens onto a surface [Fig. 1B shows the laser guide projected onto a surface].
Although Winter teaches that a radius distance can be adjusted based on calculation of the inclination angle {described at least in paras. [0048]-[0054]}, Winter is not explicit that a radius distance is selected.
However, CivilLaser also teaches a circular laser device that projects a circular laser guide from the laser lens onto a surface {shown throughout video, an explicit example is seen at [0:46] timestamp}, and that a desired radius of a circle can be selected {[0:46]-[0:56] timestamp shows adjusting the laser light to a desired radius/diameter}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used CivilLaser’s method of determining the desired radius for Winter’s projected circular laser guide in order to better select a circle of desired size – a known engineering practice – as shown by CivilLaser {[0:46]-[0:56] timestamp}.
In regard to claim 20, Winter further teaches that the surface is comprised of a ceiling {paras. [0048]-[0054] describe that the laser level is adjusted at an inclination angle in a vertical direction - thus it is conceivable that if the laser level was projected onto a joining of a wall and a ceiling, that the increase in inclination vertical in the positive vertical direction would put the circular laser guide on the ceiling}.
Conclusion
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