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 § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by North et al. (US 4467527) “North”.
Regarding claim 1, North discloses a level system (10), comprising: a level module (16) comprising one or more sensors (114), one or more displays (22), and control elements (126) configured to provide level indications (48) on the one or more displays (22) based on data collected by the one or more sensors (114); and a set of level extrusions (12), each of the level extrusions comprising a structural arrangement configured to independently receive and retain the level module (Column 3; lines 50-65), wherein a first of the level extrusions has a geometry or size different from a second of the level extrusions (Column 2; lines 42-45).
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 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North, in view of Leidel et al. (US 20210364286) “Leidel”.
Regarding claim 2, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1, wherein the level module (16), a first front-facing display (22).
North does not disclose a second top-facing display.
Leidel teaches a second top-facing display (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Leidel’s second top-facing display on North’s level module with first front-facing display, making it easier for a user to view the display from multiple angles.
Regarding claim 3, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1, and the control elements (126) configured to use the data collected (Fig. 9) by the one or more sensors (114) to generate control signals (130, 132, 134) that control the one or more displays (22) to provide the level indications (48).
North does not disclose a microcontroller and program code.
Leidel teaches a microcontroller and program code ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Leidel’s microcontroller and program code in North’s level system control elements, providing greater functionality through programmable instructions rather than fixed combinational logic.
Regarding claim 4, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1, wherein an additional sensor (18) is associated with the level module (16) to detect an orientation or position (Column 9; lines 12-15) of the level module within a given level extrusion (12) of the set (Column 2; lines 42-45) of level extrusions.
Regarding claim 5, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1, wherein each level extrusion (12) of the set (Column 2; lines 42-45) of level extrusions comprises a mounting feature (94) to facilitate coupling and positioning of the level module (16) within the level extrusion (12).
Regarding claim 6, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1, wherein the mounting feature is one of: a mechanical arrangement (94), magnets, and discrete fittings (94 and Column 6-7; lines 65-68 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1.
North does not disclose first and second sensors to detect angular rotation along a pair of axes.
Leidel teaches first (62) and second sensors (72) to detect angular rotation along a pair of axes ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Leidel’s first and second sensors to detect angular rotation in North’s level system, improving orientation reading accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, North discloses the level system as described in claim 7.
North does not disclose indicating an orientation of the level module against three principal rotations with respect to gravity.
Leidel teaches indicating an orientation against three principal rotations ([0087]) with respect to gravity ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Leidel’s indication of orientation against three principal rotations with respect to gravity in North’s level system, improving orientation reading accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, North discloses the level system as described in claim 1. North does not disclose electronics and data storage.
Leidel teaches electronics (Fig. 16) and data storage (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Leidel’s electronics (Fig. 16) and data storage (30) in North’s level extrusion to better ensure accurate readings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights