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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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(s) 26 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 26: The term “approximately" (lines 1) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ approximately” in “the distance is approximately 27 feet” “ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It may be interpreted the “distance” is greater than 27 feet or less than 27 feet.
For examination purposes the Claim(s) 26 will be treated as: the distance is 27 feet.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-26 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howle (US 6338204 B1, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 21, Howle disclose(s): A level apparatus for measuring a level of a target surface (Fig. 3) , the level apparatus comprising:
at least one level element (Fig. 3: 42 & 46) configured to measure (i) a relative slope of the target surface along a first axis (Fig. 3: 42) relative to a predetermined slope angle (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 30-36), and (ii) a pitch of the target surface along a second axis (Fig. 3: 46) relative to a predetermined pitch angle (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 30-36);
wherein the predetermined slope angle is set by a shape of a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 3 below) of the level apparatus relative to the first axis (Fig. 3), and the predetermined pitch angle is set by the shape of the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 3 below) relative to the second axis (col. 3, lines 33-38).
PNG
media_image1.png
994
1791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the first axis and the second axis are substantially perpendicular to each other in a two-dimensional plane (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the at least one level element is a first tube level disposed along the first axis (Fig. 3: 42) and a second tube level disposed along the second axis (Fig. 3: 46).
Regarding Claim(s) 25, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle further disclose(s): further comprising an engagement member (see annotated Fig. 3 above) disposed proximate to a front portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 3 above) , the engagement member configured to engage one end of a measuring element (see annotated Fig. 3 above) configured to measure a distance from the level apparatus (Fig. 3).
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 26, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 25.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the distance is 27 feet (Fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 59-61).
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the predetermined pitch angle is zero degrees along the second axis (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 30-36).
Regarding Claim(s) 31, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 30.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the zero degree pitch angle is along the second axis between a left side of the level apparatus and a right side of the level apparatus (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim(s) 32, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle further disclose(s): further comprising a retention member (Fig. 1a: 14) disposed proximate to a rear portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 3 above and col. 2, lines 21-39), the retention member configured to engage the level apparatus with the target surface (Fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 21-39).
Claim(s) 21-23 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kufrovich et al. (US 4471535, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 21, Kufrovich disclose(s): A level apparatus for measuring a level of a target surface (Fig. 1) , the level apparatus comprising:
at least one level element (Fig. 2: 18) configured to measure (i) a relative slope of the target surface along a first axis (Fig. 2: 34) relative to a predetermined slope angle (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 20-23), and (ii) a pitch of the target surface along a second axis (Fig. 2: 34) relative to a predetermined pitch angle (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 20-23);
wherein the predetermined slope angle is set by a shape of a bottom surface (Fig. 3: 16) of the level apparatus relative to the first axis (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 20-23), and the predetermined pitch angle is set by the shape of the bottom surface (Fig. 3: 16) relative to the second axis (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the first axis and the second axis are substantially perpendicular to each other in a two-dimensional plane (Fig. 2: 34).
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the at least one level element is a bullseye level (Fig. 2: 18).
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the predetermined slope angle is a ten degree angle along the first axis (Fig. 4: 35).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 28.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the ten degree angle is a down angle along the first axis from a rear portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 1 below) to a front portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the predetermined pitch angle is zero degrees along the second axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 31, Kufrovich disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 30.
Kufrovich further disclose(s): wherein the zero degree pitch angle is along the second axis between a left side of the level apparatus and a right side of the level apparatus (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
844
1722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howle in view of Tango, Jr. et al. (US 6578274 B1, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 27, Howie disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 25.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein a second end of the measuring element (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Howle does not specifically disclose: the measuring element is configured to engage with an engagement member of a second level apparatus.
However, Tango teach(es) an apparatus (Fig. 11) including: the measuring element is configured to engage with an engagement member (Fig. 11: 50N) of a second level apparatus (Fig. 16: 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Howle , with the teachings of Tango , for the purpose of facilitating measurement of distances (col. 3, lines 13-17).
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howle in view of Roth et al. (US 6691421 B2, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle does not specifically disclose: wherein the predetermined slope angle is a ten degree angle along the first axis.
However, Roth teach(es) an apparatus (Fig. 2) including: wherein the predetermined slope angle is a ten degree angle along the first axis (Fig. 2: 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Howle , with the teachings of Roth , for the purpose of providing calibrated markings to facilitate reading measurements (col. 1, lines 60-61).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Howle and Roth disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 28.
Howle further disclose(s): wherein the angle is a down angle along the first axis from a rear portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 3 above) to a front portion of the level apparatus (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the angle is a ten degree angle.
However, Roth teach(es) an apparatus (Fig. 2) including: wherein the angle is a ten degree angle (Fig. 2: 65).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 28.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howie in view of Veikley (US 2008/0042360 A1, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 33, Howle disclose(s) the apparatus of Claim 21.
Howle does not specifically disclose: wherein the target surface is a cornhole game board.
However, Veikley teach(es) an apparatus (Fig. 5) including: wherein the target surface is a cornhole game board (Fig. 5: 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Howle , with the teachings of Veikley, for the purpose of leveling the surface during game setup (¶ [0010]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 21 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11333495 B1 (Caprio). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim(s) 21 and 32 of the Current Application is a broader claim than Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11333495 B1 (Caprio) by broadening "a bubble level", "a base structure" and “a retention member” (see below comparison table).
Claim(s) of Current Application 18/956605
Under Examination
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
Claim(s) of Application 17/394310
NOW U.S. Patent 11333495 B1
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
21. A level apparatus for measuring a level of a target surface, the level apparatus comprising:
at least one level element configured to measure (i) a relative slope of the target surface along a first axis relative to a predetermined slope angle, and (ii) a pitch of the target surface along a second axis relative to a predetermined pitch angle;
wherein the predetermined slope angle is set by a shape of a bottom surface of the level apparatus relative to the first axis, and the predetermined pitch angle is set by the shape of the bottom surface relative to the second axis.
32. The level apparatus of claim 21, further comprising a retention member disposed proximate to a rear portion of the level apparatus, the retention member configured to engage the level apparatus with the target surface.
1. A level apparatus for measuring a level of a target surface, the apparatus comprising:
a base structure having a bottom surface, a top surface, a rear surface, and a front surface; and at least one bubble level disposed on the top surface of the base structure, wherein the bottom surface is disposed at a predetermined slope angle along a first axis of the base structure, the predetermined slope angle associated with a desired slope angle of the target surface along the first axis, such that in response to the target surface being disposed at the predetermined slope angle, the top surface of the base structure is substantially level along the first axis, wherein the bottom surface is disposed at a predetermined pitch angle along a second axis of the base structure, the second axis perpendicular to the first axis, such that in response to the target surface being disposed at a predetermined pitch angle, the top surface of the base structure is substantially level along the second axis, wherein the at least one bubble level is disposed on the top surface along the first axis to indicate a slope level of the target surface relative to the predetermined slope angle and along the second axis to indicate a pitch level of the target surface relative to the predetermined pitch angle,
wherein the base structure has a retention member disposed proximate to the rear surface and extending from the bottom surface in retention engagement direction along a third axis, the third axis perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis, the retention member configured to hold the level apparatus in place in relation to the first axis, wherein the target surface is a gaming surface of a cornhole board, wherein the retention member is configured to engage along at least one of: a rear edge of the gaming surface of the cornhole board and a front edge of a hole of the cornhole board, and wherein the retention member is disposed at a retention angle relative to the top surface.
Claim(s) 21, 25 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12158357 B2 (Caprio). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim(s) 21, 25 and 27 of the Current Application is a broader claim than Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12158357 B2 (Caprio) by broadening “a target surface”, "a first and a second level apparatus", "a base structure", “an engagement member”, “a bubble level”, and “a retention member” (see below comparison table).
Claim(s) of Current Application 18/956605
Under Examination
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
Claim(s) of Application 17/743725
NOW U.S. Patent 12158357 B2
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
21. A level apparatus for measuring a level of a target surface, the level apparatus comprising:
at least one level element configured to measure (i) a relative slope of the target surface along a first axis relative to a predetermined slope angle, and (ii) a pitch of the target surface along a second axis relative to a predetermined pitch angle;
wherein the predetermined slope angle is set by a shape of a bottom surface of the level apparatus relative to the first axis, and the predetermined pitch angle is set by the shape of the bottom surface relative to the second axis.
25. The level apparatus of claim 21, further comprising an engagement member disposed proximate to a front portion of the level apparatus, the engagement member configured to engage one end of a measuring element configured to measure a distance from the level apparatus.
27. The level apparatus of claim 25, wherein a second end of the measuring element is configured to engage with an engagement member of a second level apparatus.
1. A level system for measuring a level of at least one cornhole board, the level system comprising:
a first level apparatus and a second level apparatus; wherein the first level apparatus and the second level apparatus each comprise: a base structure having a bottom surface, a top surface, a rear surface, and a front surface;
an engagement member disposed proximate to the front surface, the engagement member configured to engage a measuring element to measure a distance from the front surface;
and a bubble level disposed on the top surface of the base structure, wherein the bottom surface is disposed at a predetermined slope angle along a first axis of the base structure, the predetermined slope angle associated with a desired slope angle of the cornhole board along the first axis,
wherein the bottom surface is disposed at a predetermined pitch angle along a second axis of the base structure, the second axis perpendicular to the first axis, wherein the bubble level indicates a slope level of the cornhole board relative to the predetermined slope angle and a pitch level of the cornhole board relative to the predetermined pitch angle,
wherein the base structure has a retention member disposed proximate to the rear surface and extending from the bottom surface in retention engagement direction along a third axis, the retention member disposed at a retention angle relative to the top surface, and configured to engage along an edge of the cornhole board,
and wherein the measuring element is attached to the engagement member of the first level apparatus and the engagement member of the second level apparatus to measure a distance along a horizontal axis between the first level apparatus and the second level apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to level apparatus including bubble levels: Ransom (US 0161155); Eichhorn (DE 4129861 A1).
The following reference(s) relate to level apparatus including bullseye level: Tan (US 2013/0104408 A1).
The following reference(s) relate to cornhole game boards: Greiwe et al. (US 2005/0023762 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
28 September 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
