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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/630056 is responsive to communications filed on March 12th, 2026. Currently, claims 1-29 are pending are presented for examination while claims 1-7, 10, 20 were canceled.
Claim Objections
The claim set filed on 03/12/026 should be separated from the REMARKS section.
Response to the Arguments
On pages 8-11, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 18, 29 have been considered. The applicant is arguing that Khatuntsev in view of Goad fails to disclose each and every feature of the claims particularly the invented claim of the application is configured to demodulate information encoded in the laser beam to determine that the laser beam originated from the laser transmitter among a set of multiple laser transmitters. While applicant’s arguments have been considered and understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The reason is that limitation “information encoded in the laser beam” does not really hold any encoded information as described the applicant. The examiner does not see any difference between a laser light beam and the information encoded in the laser beam as the applicant mentioned in the claim, particularly no coding unit was described to generate the encoded information. The claimed invention as the whole thing is just a modification of Khatuntsev with more laser transmitters in the structure. The examiner does not believe this is the inventive structure because it is just a simple modification from the prior arts. That is why the examiner pointed to Goad in which a system with one laser receiver and multiple laser transmitters. And this modification with more laser transmitters can be applied in Khatuntsev for different purposes. That is why the examiner do think the prior arts are still good to meet the limitation of the claimed invention. The technique to differentiate a transmitter from multiple transmitters from the laser beam is very well-known in the art. To verify this feature, the prior art Blumbkin (US 20180027339 A1) is introduced in which it discloses multiple laser transmitters may have multiple different self-mix carrier frequencies by using one or more suitable methods. And each of the multiple laser transmitters can be differentiated by a laser receiver by its self-mix carrier frequencies [paragraph. 0033]. With the above techniques, the examiner hopes the applicant has the same view about the claimed invention as the examiner. Adding more laser transmitters in a system and differentiating them with its self-mix carrier frequencies (interpreted as the encoded information) by a receiver are not a complex modification from one with ordinary skill in the art.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 8-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-25, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A system, comprising:
a laser transmitter [i.e. laser transmitter 110, Fig. 7], comprising:
a laser transmitter housing [i.e. Fig. 7];
a laser transmitter controller [i.e. processor 710; Fig. 7];
a laser transmitter motor [i.e. rotary irradiation; paragraph. 0004, 0025, Fig. 1 and 7]; and
a laser transmitter transceiver [i.e. the reflective surface 125; Fig. 1];
wherein the laser transmitter is configured to project a vertical beam [i.e. laser beam source 720; Fig. 1 and 7];
a layout indicator [i.e. laser receiver 135; Fig. 5], comprising:
a layout indicator housing [i.e. Fig. 5];
a layout indicator controller [i.e. processor 530; Fig. 5];
a layout indicator transceiver [i.e. the reflective surface 150; Fig. 1]; and
at least one photodetectors [i.e. photodetection unit 510; Fig. 5];
wherein the layout indicator is configured to demodulate information encoded in the laser beam to determine that the laser beam originated from the laser transmitter [i.e. the laser receiver 135 uses at least one of transmitted modulated laser beam signals from the laser transmitter 110 to estimate its distance with the laser transmitter; Fig. 1, 6].
Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses a system with one laser transmitter and one laser receiver without mentioning the laser transmitter being a laser transmitter among a set of multiple laser transmitter.
In the same field of endeavor, Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
the laser transmitter being a laser transmitter among a set of multiple laser transmitter [i.e. a system with a laser transmitter and a laser receiver while a modified system with multiple laser transmitters can be used a long a length of a work surface, col. 2, ll. 5-25, col. 10, ll. 1-10, Fig. 1-2].
In the same view of endeavor, Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses a laser receiver to distinguish different laser transmitters by its carrier frequency [i.e. paragraph. 0033].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at filing date of invention to modify the teachings of Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1), Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) and Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) in order to create a system as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the layout indicator further comprises a power supply and the
laser transmitter further comprises a power supply [i.e. battery 515 and 730; Fig. 5, 7].
Regarding claim 11, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 9, wherein the power supply of the layout indicator and the power supply of the laser transmitter is configured to accept power from a power tool battery pack [i.e. battery; paragraph. 0040, Fig. 5 and 7].
Regarding claim 12, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the laser transmitter further comprises optics [i.e. laser diode window 120, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 13, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one photodetector comprises at least one photodiode [i.e. the photodetection unit includes a plurality of photodetectors; paragraph. 0040].
Regarding claim 14, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one photodetector is configured to indicate when it has been lighted by the vertical laser beam originating from the laser transmitter [i.e. Fig. 1 and 5].
Regarding claim 15, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one photodetector comprises a plurality of photodetectors [i.e. the photodetection unit includes a plurality of photodetectors; paragraph. 0040]; and
wherein the plurality of photodetectors are disposed on different faces of the layout indicator housing. [i.e. a plurality of photodetector; paragraph. 0040].
Regarding claim 17, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the layout indicator further comprises a display [i.e. the display unit 570; Fig. 5].
Regarding claims 18-19, 21-25, 27, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claims 8-9, 11-15, 17 respectively.
Regarding claim 28, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 18.
Furthermore, Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 18, wherein the encoded information includes information uniquely identifying the laser transmitter [i.e. carrier frequency associated with the laser transmitter; paragraph. 0033].
Regarding claim 29, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Claims 16, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) further in view of DUMOULIN et al. (US 20160315703 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
However, Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1) in view of Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1) further in view of Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) does not mention about the laser receiver comprises an inertial measurement unit sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, DUMOULIN et al. (US 20160315703 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 8, wherein the layout indicator comprises an inertial measurement unit sensor configured to provide information to the layout indicator controller [i.e. the laser receiver comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU); paragraph. 0083, 0131].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Khatuntsev (US 20170284790 A1), Goad et al. (US 7456943 B1), Blumbkin et al. (US 20180027339 A1) and DUMOULIN et al. (US 20160315703 A1) in order to create a system as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 16.
New Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights