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 Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 14 recite “such that emitted vertically oriented planar laser beam”. Both omit “the” before “emitted”.
Claim 4 also recites “ “the detector” followed by “the laser sensor detector”. Examiner recognizes this as the same element, but merely unprecise antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it will be read as “the detector.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher et al. (US20180340771) “Schumacher”, in view of Cain et al (US4732471) “Cain”.
Regarding claim 1, Schumacher discloses a laser level system (Fig. 5) comprising: a detector (Fig. 5; 200) comprising a laser sensor (Fig. 5; 210); a laser level (Fig. 5; 110) configured to emit a planar laser beam ([0037]) and rotate relative to the detector (Fig. 5; 200) such that the planar laser beam ([0037]) traverses across the detector (Fig. 5; 200); wherein, the planar laser beam ([0037]) is incident ([0054]) on the laser sensor (Fig. 5; 210).
Schumacher does not disclose selecting a first pairing frequency from a group of pairing frequencies: determining a frequency and comparing the frequency to the first pairing frequency; and when the frequency is the same as the first pairing frequency, generating a control signal.
Cain teaches selecting a first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54) from a group of pairing frequencies (Column 4; lines 52-54; “three frequencies”); determining a frequency (Column 7; lines 39-45) and comparing the frequency to the first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54); and when the frequency (Column 7; lines 39-45) is the same as the first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54), generating a control signal (Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s frequency selection, comparison, and control signal generation in Schumacher’s laser level system, reducing signal interference and ensuring more secure device pairing.
Regarding claim 2, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level system of claim 1, wherein, when the detector (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 200) determines a frequency (Cain; Column 7; lines 39-45) of the incident planar laser beam (Schumacher; [0037]) is different than the first pairing frequency (Cain; Column 4; lines 52-54), the detector (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 200) does not recognize the laser level (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 110) and the detector (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 200) does not generate the control signal (Cain; Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI") based on the planar laser beam (Schumacher; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s frequency comparison in Schumacher’s laser level system, improving reliability by ensuring Schumacher’s detector ignores interfering frequency signals.
Regarding claim 3, Schumacher discloses the laser level system of claim 1, wherein the planar laser beam (Schumacher; [0037]) is a vertically oriented (Schumacher; Fig.1; 130) planar laser beam.
Regarding claim 4, Schumacher discloses the laser level system of claim 3, wherein the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) is configured to rotate ([0037]; “rotation axis”) such that emitted vertically oriented planar laser beam (Schumacher; [0037]) sweeps horizontally ([0056]) over the detector (Fig. 5; 200) such that the vertically oriented planar laser beam (Schumacher; [0037]) traverses the laser sensor detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Regarding claim 5, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level system of claim 3, wherein the group of pairing frequencies (Cain; Column 4; lines 52-54) includes three pairing frequencies (Cain; “7.8 kHz, 8.0 kHz, 8.2 kHz”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s three pairing frequencies in Schumacher’s laser level system, reducing signal interference and ensuring more secure device pairing.
Regarding claim 7, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level system of claim 5.
Although Cain discloses using different frequencies so as to not interfere with other similar transmitters located at the same site, neither Schumacher nor Cain disclose the specific values of a laser frequency of about 9.5 kHz, a laser frequency of about 10 kHz, and a laser frequency of about 10.5 kHz.
The Examiner takes official notice that these values are known in the art for transmitters of this type. selecting these specific values of about 9.5 kHz, about 10 kHz, and about 10.5 kHz is routine optimization within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to elect the specific frequency values of about 9.5 kHz, about 10 kHz, and about 10.5 kHz in Schumacher’s laser level system using Cain’s frequency pairing approach, as routine optimization to reduce signal interference.
Regarding claim 8, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level system of claim 1, wherein the control signal (Cain; Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI") generated by the detector (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 200) is an electronic signal (Cain; Column 10; lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s electronic control signal in Schumacher’s detector, providing automated and more reliable feedback to Schumacher’s laser level system.
Regarding claim 9, Schumacher discloses a laser level alignment system (Fig. 5) comprising: a detector (Fig. 5; 200) comprising: a detector panel (Fig. 5; 210); a laser level (Fig. 5; 110) configured to emit a laser beam ([0037]; “laser beam”) and rotate (Fig. 3; 320) relative to the detector (Fig. 5; 200) such that the laser beam ([0037]; “laser beam”) traverses across the detector (Fig. 5; 200); wherein, when the laser beam is incident ([0054]) on the detector panel (Fig. 5; 210).
Schumacher does not disclose a first pairing frequency from a group of pairing frequencies: determining a frequency and comparing the frequency to the first pairing frequency; and when the frequency is the same as the first pairing frequency, generating a control signal, and when the frequency is different than the first pairing frequency, does not generate the control signal.
Cain teaches a first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54) from a group of pairing frequencies (Column 4; lines 52-54; “three frequencies”): determining a frequency (Column 7; lines 39-45) and comparing the frequency to the first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54); and when the frequency is the same as the first pairing frequency, generating a control signal (Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI"), and when the frequency is different than the first pairing frequency, does not (“lock signal”) generate the control signal (Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s frequency selection, comparison, and control signal generation in Schumacher’s laser level system, reducing signal interference and ensuring more secure device pairing.
Regarding claim 10, Schumacher discloses the laser level alignment system of claim 9, wherein, when the laser (Fig. 5; 110) receives a signal (Fig. 3; 330) the laser beam was detected by the detector (Fig. 5; 200), the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) rotates (Fig. 3; 320) the laser beam until the laser beam is aligned with the detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Regarding claim 12, Schumacher discloses the laser level alignment system of claim 9.
Schumacher does not disclose the first pairing frequency is a pulse width modulation frequency.
Cain teaches the first pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54) is a pulse width modulation frequency (Column 4; lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s pulse width modulation in Schumacher’s laser level system, reducing signal interference and ensuring more secure device pairing.
Regarding claim 13, Schumacher discloses the laser level alignment system of claim 9, wherein the detector and the laser level communicate via Bluetooth ([0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Schumacher discloses the laser level alignment system of claim 9, wherein the laser beam ([0037]) emitted by the laser level is a vertically oriented (Fig.1; 130) planar laser beam ([0037]), and wherein the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) is configured to rotate such that the emitted vertically oriented planar laser beam (Fig.1; 130) sweeps horizontally ([0056]) over the detector (Fig. 5; 200) such that the vertically oriented planar laser beam ([0037]) traverses the detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Regarding claim 15, Schumacher discloses the laser level alignment system of claim 9, wherein the detector panel (Fig. 5; 210) comprises a photodiode array ([0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Schumacher discloses a method (Figs. 3 and 4) of aligning a laser ([0037]) from a laser level (Fig. 5; 110) with a detector (Fig. 5; 200) comprising: positioning a laser level (Fig. 5; 110) and a detector (Fig. 5; 200) in a working environment (“construction site”); emitting a laser ([0037]) from the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) and rotating the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) such that the laser ([0037]) is received at the detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Schumacher does not disclose choosing a pair frequency, and generating a control signal at the pairing frequency and communicating the control signal to the laser level.
Cain teaches choosing a pair frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54), and generating a control signal (Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI") at the pairing frequency (Column 4; lines 52-54) and communicating the control signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s frequency selection, comparison, and control signal generation in Schumacher’s laser level system, reducing signal interference and ensuring more secure device pairing.
Regarding claim 18, Schumacher discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising rotating (Fig. 3; 320) the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) until the emitted laser ([0037]) reaches an alignment position (Fig. 4; 430) relative to the detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Regarding claim 19, Schumacher discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising sending a signal (Fig. 4; 430) from the detector (Fig. 5; 200) to the laser level (Fig. 5; 110) to stop rotating once the alignment position (Fig. 4; 430) has been reached.
Regarding claim 20, Schumacher and Cain disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising the detector (Schumacher; Fig. 5; 200) failing to generate a control signal (Cain; Fig. 9; "LO", "ON" and "HI") based on a laser (Schumacher; [0037] ) at a frequency (Cain; Column 4; lines 39-45) different than the pairing frequency (Cain; Column 4; lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cain’s frequency comparison in Schumacher’s laser level system, improving reliability by ensuring Schumacher’s detector ignores interfering frequency signals.
Claims 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher and Cain, in view of Horky et al. (US20210254974) “Horky”.
Regarding claim 6, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level system of claim 5, wherein the first pairing frequency (Cain; Column 4; lines 52-54) is chosen from the three pairing frequencies (Cain; “7.8 kHz, 8.0 kHz, 8.2 kHz”).
Neither Schumacher nor Cain disclose random choosing.
Horky teaches random choosing ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to randomly choose, as taught by Horky, one of Cain’s three pairing frequencies in Schumacher’s laser level system, making it easier to set up and operate on crowded jobsites.
Regarding claim 11, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level alignment system of claim 10, wherein, when the laser beam ([0037]) is aligned with the detector (Fig. 5; 200).
Schumacher and Cain do not disclose a stop signal.
Horky teaches a stop signal ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Horky’s stop signal in Schumacher and Cain‘s laser level alignment system, ensuring better laser beam alignment.
Regarding claim 16, Schumacher and Cain disclose the laser level alignment system of claim 9.
Schumacher does not disclose selecting a second pairing frequency.
Horky teaches selecting a second pairing frequency ([0044] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Horky’s second pairing frequency in Schumacher and Cain‘s laser level alignment system, ensuring more accurate laser beam alignment.
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