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.
Claim 8, lines 2-3 recites the limitation "the adjustable colors of the LED segments”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear how the “adjustable colors” would be adjusted. Please clarify.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arlinsky (US Pub. No. 2007/0193046).
Regarding claim 1, Arlinsky discloses: a digital spirit level 10 comprising: an at least substantially cuboid or prismatic housing 11 having at least one surface 12 designed as a supporting surface configured for placing the digital spirit level on a workpiece which is to be oriented with respect to the earth's gravitational field; and a digital display unit 22 controlled by an electronic control device 17 and arranged at least in a region of a further surface of the housing, the display unit being configured to display to a user an orientation of the housing with respect to the earth's gravitational field in an intuitively perceivable manner.
Regarding claim 2, 27 is at least one digital display which is in the longitudinal direction of the housing and which displays a target angle specified by a user (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, the at least one digital display is a bar display (27 in FIG 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinsky.
Regarding claim 3, Arlinsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Arlinsky does not disclose at least two longitudinally spaced apart digital displays as claimed. Arlinsky does disclose two displays 27 and 28. It would be obvious to shift one of the displays from an overlapping position to a spaced apart position to take different measurements. 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 alter the digital displays of Arlinsky in the manner as claimed based on end user and/or manufacturer preferences.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Arlinsky discloses that the arrays 27, 28 are seven segments (see [0026]).
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinsky in view of Leidel et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0226845).
Arlinsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Arlinsky does not disclose differently colored LEDs (claims 5, 6, 15 and 16), the acoustic signal transmitter (claim 9) or the accelerometer (claims 10 and 17) as claimed.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, Leidel et al. discloses how red, green and yellow lights may be used to distinguish different ranges with a level (see [0008]). 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 colored lights as taught by Leidel et al. in conjunction with the Arlinsky device for the purpose of more clearly distinguishing levels with the Arlinsky device.
Regarding claim 9, Leidel et al. discloses that acoustic transmitters may be used with a digital level (see [0075]) for the purpose of indicating a level. 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 an acoustic transmitter as taught by Leidel et al. in conjunction with the Arlinsky device for the purpose of indicating a level with the Arlinsky device.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Leidel et al. discloses how at least one accelerometer (which could be a well-known MEMS accelerometer) 62, 72 may be used to measure levelness in a digital spirit level. 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 accelerometers as taught by Leidel et al. in conjunction with the Arlinsky device for the purpose of measuring levelness with the Arlinsky device.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinsky and Leidel et al. as applied to claim 5, above, and in further view of Zhuang (US Pub. No. 2016/0084648).
Arlinsky and Leidel et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed. However, neither Arlinsky nor Leidel et al. disclose the scale as claimed. Zhuang discloses a scale with angle values to easily interpret a display (see FIG 5). 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 scale taught by Zhuang et al. in conjunction with the combination of Arlinsky and Leidel et al. for the purpose of more easily determining measurements with the combined device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinsky in view of Ludlow et al. (US Pat. No. 4,182,046).
Arlinsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Arlinsky does not disclose the specific input unit as claimed. Ludlow et al. discloses a input unit that uses a rotary knob to specify a target angle (col. 4, ll. 34-58). 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 an input unit with a knob in conjunction with the device of Arlinsky for the purpose specifying a target angle with a level device.
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
18 DEC 2025