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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, because laser leveling and ranging depend on precise alignment, the limitation “as close as possible” is indefinite since there are no tolerances or standards in the specification. Additionally, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator beam”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for “the planes formed”. For the purposes of examination, “the planes formed” will be interpreted as the laser lines.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, there is no antecedent basis for “the origin”, “the reference plane, ”nor “the projection light”. For the purposes of examination, “the origin” will be interpreted as “intersection point”, “the projection light” will be interpreted as “planes formed by the laser lines”, and “the reference plane” will be interpreted as the plane where the coordinate system is located.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for “the laser beam projection direction ”.
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 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, 3, 5-6, and 8-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20070204474) “Lin” in view of Hill (WO2018009193) “Hill”.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a laser line device (Fig. 1; 1), comprising a bracket (Fig. 1; 12), a suspension system (Fig. 1; 13), a laser leveling module (Fig. 2; 30), the suspension system (Fig. 1; 13) is movably connected to the bracket (Fig. 1; 12) and allows the suspension system (Fig. 1; 13) to freely swing to a suspended state ([0016]) under gravity; the laser leveling module (Fig. 2; 30) is fixedly mounted on the suspension system (Fig. 1; 13), the laser leveling module (Fig. 2; 30) projects a crossing beam ([0007]; “cross laser beam plane”) on a plane (“vertical wall”) with a intersection point ([0007])
Lin does not disclose a laser ranging module, nor an axis of a ranging beam emitted by the laser ranging module.
Hill teaches a laser ranging module (Fig. 2; 150), and an axis of a ranging beam (Fig. 2; 166) emitted by the laser ranging module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hill’s laser ranging module in Lin’s laser line device, and to align Hill’s ranging beam with Lin’s crossed beam intersection point, using a single reference point for both leveling and range finding, making Lin’s laser line device easier to set up and reducing alignment errors.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses a laser line device (Fig. 1; 1) according to claim 1, wherein the suspension system (Fig. 1; 13) is a dual-degree-of-freedom ([0008]; “rotate about two axes”) cross suspension system.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses a laser line device according to claim 3, characterized in that: the laser leveling module (Fig. 2; 30) comprises a vertical line laser module ([0017] and Fig. 3; 32) and a horizontal line laser module ([0017] and Fig. 3; 32), and the planes ([0018]; “vertical laser beam plane” and “horizontal laser beam plane”) formed by the laser lines ([0018]; “horizontal reference line” and “vertical reference line”) emitted by the vertical line laser module ([0017] and Fig. 3; 32) and the horizontal line laser module ([0017] and Fig. 3; 32) are perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 6, Lin and Hill disclose a laser line device according to claim 5, characterized in that: a plane Cartesian coordinate system (Lin; [0018]) is established with a suspended surface (Lin; [0018]; “vertical wall”), and the plane where the coordinate system (Lin; [0018]) is located is taken as the reference plane (Lin; [0018]; “vertical wall”); the ranging laser axis (Hill; Fig. 2; 166) of the laser ranging module (Hill; Fig. 2; 150) passes through the origin (Lin; [0007]; “cross laser beam plane”) of the coordinate system (Lin; [0018]) and is perpendicular to the reference plane (Lin; [0018]; “vertical wall”), the projection light (Lin; [0018]; “vertical laser beam plane”) of the vertical line laser module (Lin; [0017] and Fig. 3; 32) passes through the Y-axis (Lin; [0018]; represented by “vertical laser beam plane”) of the coordinate system and is perpendicular to the reference plane (Lin; [0018]; “vertical wall”), the projection light ([0018]; “horizontal laser beam plane”) of the horizontal line laser module (Lin; [0017] and Fig. 3; 32) passes through the X-axis (Lin; [0018]; represented by “horizontal laser beam plane”) of the coordinate system and is perpendicular to the reference plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hill’s laser ranging module in Lin’s laser line device and to align Hill’s ranging axis with Lin’s origin so ranging and leveling share a common reference point, making setup simpler and minimizing alignment errors.
Regarding claim 8, Lin and Hill disclose a laser line device according to claim 3, characterized in that the laser beam projection direction (Lin; Fig. 3; direction of beam 31) of the laser leveling module (Lin; Fig. 2; 30) is the same as or opposite to the laser beam direction (Hill; Fig. 3; direction of beam 166) emitted by the laser ranging module (Hill; Fig. 2; 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hill’s laser ranging module’s laser beam in the same as or opposite direction as Lin’s laser leveling module’s laser beam projection direction, ensuring easier setup and more accurate alignment of Lin’s laser line device.
Regarding claim 9, Lin and Hill disclose a laser line device according to claim 3, characterized in that the suspension system (Lin; Fig. 1; 13) also includes a position locking module (Hill; [046]; “pin or similar fastener”), which locks the relative angle between the suspension system (Lin; Fig. 1; 13) and the support (Fig. 1; 12) when the position locking module (Hill; [046]; “pin or similar fastener”) is activated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hill’s position locking module in Lin’s laser line device, better protecting Lin’s suspension system or allowing custom-angled laser lines.
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses a laser line device according to claim 2, wherein the suspension system (Lin; Fig. 1; 13) is a dual-degree-of-freedom ([0008]; “rotate about two axes”) cross suspension system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Hill, further in view of Chen (US7493701) “Chen”.
Regarding claim 4, Lin and Hill disclose a laser line device (Fig. 1; 1) according to claim 3.
Neither Lin nor Hill disclose a main shaft, a secondary shaft, a suspension frame, a fixed frame, and a suspension bracket; the main shaft passes through the suspension bracket and is hinged on the suspension frame through bearings at both ends. A radial main shaft hole is opened in the center of the main shaft, and the secondary shaft passes through the main shaft hole and is hinged on the fixed frame through bearings at both ends, the fixed frame is fixedly connected to the bracket.
Chen teaches a main shaft (Fig. 3; 146), a secondary shaft (Fig. 3; 113), a suspension frame (Fig. 3; 161), a fixed frame (Fig. 3; 142, 143), and a suspension bracket (Fig. 3; 15); the main shaft (Fig. 3; 146) passes through the suspension bracket (Fig. 3; 15) and is hinged on the suspension frame (Fig. 3; 161) through bearings (Fig. 3; 145 and 145') at both ends. A radial main shaft hole (Fig. 4; 152) is opened in the center of the main shaft (Fig. 3; 146), and the secondary shaft (Fig. 3; 113) passes through the main shaft hole (Fig. 4; 152) and is hinged on the fixed frame (Fig. 3; 142, 143) through bearings (Fig. 3; 145 and 145') at both ends, the fixed frame (Fig. 3; 142, 143) is fixedly connected to the bracket (Fig. 3; 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Chen’s suspension configuration in Lin’s laser line device, allowing Lin’s laser line device and Hill’s laser ranging module to be leveled and oriented independently about two axes for better positioning accuracy and self-leveling capability.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Hill, further in view of Jiang at al. (US10393521) “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses a laser line device as claimed in claim 1.
Lin does not disclose an indication point laser, nor the indicator beam emitted by the indication point laser is parallel to and as close as possible to the ranging beam.
Jiang teaches an indication point laser (Fig. 2; 62), and the indicator beam (Fig. 3; 77) emitted by the indication point laser (Fig. 2; 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Jiang’s indicator beam parallel and as close as possible to Lin’s ranging beam, improving alignment precision and minimizing parallax.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses a laser line device according to claim 6.
Lin does not disclose the indication beam emitted by the indication point laser is as close to the origin as possible.
Jiang teaches the indication beam (Fig. 3; 77) emitted by the indication point laser (Fig. 2; 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Jiang’s indicator beam perpendicular to Lin’s reference plane and as close as possible to Lin’s origin, improving alignment precision and ensuring more accurate laser line placement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US11145084 discloses a laser unit for providing at least one of a laser level line and a laser plumb line, where the unit includes both a locked mode and an unlocked (or auto-leveling) mode.
CN212989651 discloses a range finder with marking function.
US20240210540 discloses a construction surveying system where the horizontal and vertical laser beams in a sector intersect at an intersection line, and an optical axis of ranging beams of the leveling laser rangefinder coincides with the intersection line.
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