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 .
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) 1-2, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,866,827 to Egawa et al.
Egawa discloses;
As to Claim 1, A construction laser level (see FIG. 2 with annotations below), comprising: a housing (2); a laser mount (34, 35) disposed in the housing; a first laser module (A) comprising a first laser generator (31, col. 9 ll. 50-53 “The light source device 31 is not limited to the above-described LED module but may be any solid luminous element such as a laser diode, an organic EL (Electro Luminescence) or a silicon luminous element.), the laser module associated with the laser mount, the laser first generator configured to produce a first laser beam (col. 9, l. 33 “The light source device 31 lights and irradiates a light beam”) configured to be projected as a first laser line by the construction laser level; a second laser module (B) comprising a second laser generator (31), the laser module associated with the laser mount, the second first generator configured to produce a second laser line (col. 9, l. 33 “The light source device 31 lights and irradiates a light beam”) configured to be projected as a second laser line by the construction laser level; a fan (372) disposed in the housing and configured to circulate air inside the housing; wherein the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line (the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line as they first exit 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2, the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the fan is configured to direct airflow from the fan in a direction towards a front of the laser level (see exhaust 2A).
As to Claim 4, the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the fan is configured to direct airflow from the fan in a direction not towards the first laser module (away from the laser module and out of exhaust 2A).
As to Claim 5, the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the fan is disposed adjacent to a bottom of the laser level (fan is adjacent to the bottom of housing 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,562,143 to Miyazaki (hereafter Miya)
Miya discloses;
As to Claim 1, A construction laser level, comprising: a housing (col. 1, l. 40 “casing”); a laser mount (70) disposed in the housing; a first laser module (10R) comprising a first laser generator (col. 6, l. 51 “a semiconductor laser.”), the laser module associated with the laser mount, the laser first generator configured to produce a first laser beam configured to be projected as a first laser line by the construction laser level; a second laser module (10G) comprising a second laser generator, the laser module associated with the laser mount, the second first generator configured to produce a second laser line configured to be projected as a second laser line by the construction laser level; a fan (40RBG) disposed in the housing and configured to circulate air inside the housing; wherein the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line (the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line as they first exit 31).
As to Claim 3, the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the fan is configured to direct airflow from the fan in a direction towards the first laser module (FIG. 2).
As to Claim 6, the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the fan is disposed adjacent to a rear of the laser level (40G).
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0109808 to Hobden et al. in view of US 2022/0244049 to Yan et al.
As to Claim 1, Hobden discloses a construction laser level, comprising: a housing (110); a laser mount (LM, see FIG. 4 below with annotations) disposed in the housing; a first laser module (160A) comprising a first laser generator (165), the laser module associated with the laser mount, the laser first generator configured to produce a first laser beam configured to be projected as a first laser line by the construction laser level; a second laser module (160B) comprising a second laser generator (165), the laser module associated with the laser mount, the second first generator configured to produce a second laser line configured to be projected as a second laser line by the construction laser level; wherein the first laser line is perpendicular to the second laser line (see FIG. 4 below LL1 being perpendicular to LL2).
PNG
media_image2.png
796
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hobden fails to disclose a fan disposed in the housing and configured to circulate air inside the housing.
Yan teaches a fan (41) disposed in a housing (1) and configured to circulate air inside the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the housing of Hobden with a fan in order to cool heat producing components inside the housing.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0109808 to Hobden et al. in view of US 2022/0244049 to Yan et al. further in view of US 5,144,487 to Hersey.
As to Claims 14-17, modified Hobden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hobden fails to disclose wherein the first laser generator is configured to produce the first laser beam with an optical power output of greater than 4mW (Claim 14), greater than 6mW (Claim 15), or greater than 8mW (Claim 16), and less than 14mW (Claim 17).
Hersey teaches a leveling laser which has an output of 10mW. (4mW<6mW<8mW<10mW<14mW; col. 4, ll. 9-10 “The model Told 9211 emits light at a power of 5 milliwatts (mW) and the model 9215 emits light at a power of 10 mW.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the first laser generator of Hobden with a 10mW laser, depending on the design requirements, the laser visibility being a result effective variable of power, the use of such a laser being well known in the art and Applicant giving no criticality to the prescribed power output.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,562,143 to Miyazaki (hereafter Miya) in view of US 2017/0027085 to Held.
As to Claims 7-9, Miya discloses the construction laser level of claim 1.
Miya fails to disclose wherein the fan is configured to provide rated airflow of at least 1 cubic feet per minute (Claim 7), at least 2 cubic feet per minute (Claim 8), or less than 8 cubic feet per minute (Claim 9).
Held teaches a fan for an electronic housing which provides an airflow of between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute (which is greater than 1 cfpm (Claim 7), greater than 2 cfpm (Claim 8), and less than 8 cfpm (Claim 9) ([0069] “When operating with a 12-volt output power supply, each fan can pull between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the fans of Miya with the fans of Held, as a means of quietly cooling the electronic environment with multiple fans.
As to Claim 10, Miya discloses the construction laser level of claim 1.
Miya fails to disclose wherein the fan is configured to provide rated airflow of less than 6 cubic feet per minute.
Held teaches a fan for an electronic housing which provides an airflow of between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute ([0069] “When operating with a 12-volt output power supply, each fan can pull between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute,”). Although 6.2>6, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Held teaches that the voltage applied to the fans is directly proportional to the cfpm output of the fan which is a result effective variable, thus any desired level of output could be obtained by adjusting the voltage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the fans of Miya with the fans of Held, as a means of quietly cooling the electronic environment with multiple fans.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,562,143 to Miyazaki (hereafter Miya) in view of US 7,535,710 to Yang et al.
As to Claim 11, Miya discloses the construction laser level of claim 1.
Miya fails to disclose further comprising a baffle in the housing, the baffle configured to direct airflow from the fan.
Yang teaches a baffle (12) in housing (11) configured to direct airflow from fan (F1) to optical engine (E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Miya with a baffle between the fans and the laser module in order to concentrate airflow of the fans onto the laser modules.
As to Claim 12, modified Miya discloses the construction laser level of claim 11.
Miya fails to disclose wherein the baffle is disposed between the fan and the first laser module.
Yang teaches a baffle (12) in housing (11) configured to direct airflow from fan (F1) to optical engine (E), and a portion located between the fan and the optical engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Miya with a baffle between the fans and the laser module in order to concentrate airflow of the fans onto the laser modules.
As to Claim 13, modified Miya discloses the construction laser level of claim 12.
Modified Miya fails to disclose wherein the baffle is integrally formed with the housing.
However, it has been held that to make that to make integral what was in the prior art multiple pieces requires only routine skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349).
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the baffle of Miya in view Yang to be integral with the housing in order to simplify production, i.e. plastic molding.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,866,827 to Egawa in view of US 6,751,027 to Van Den Bossche (hereafter Barco).
As to Claim 18, Egawa discloses The construction laser level of claim 1.
Egawa fails to disclose wherein the housing is substantially air tight.
Barco teaches disposing optical lighting modules in a substantially airtight chamber (col. 2, ll. 25-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the housing of Egawa to be substantially air tight in order to prevent dust or foreign matter from interfering with the components as taught by Barco (col. 2, ll. 38-40).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,866,827 to Egawa in view of US 6,751,027 to Van Den Bossche (hereafter Barco) further in view of US 6,428,170 to Haba further in view of US 2017/0027085 to Held.
As to Claim 19, Egawa discloses the construction laser level of claim 1, wherein the laser mount (34) comprises a conductive material (aluminum, col. 11 l. 2) with a conductivity greater than 5 W/(mK) (thermal conductivity for Al well above 200 W/mK) further comprising a plurality of external heat dissipating projections (5, FIG. 6) extending externally from the housing;
Egawa fails to disclose wherein the laser mount comprises a plurality of heat dissipating projections, wherein the plurality of heat dissipating projections comprise first heat dissipating projections projecting in a first direction and a second heat dissipating projections projecting in a second direction, wherein the first direction is transverse to the second direction.
Barco teaches lighting module mounts (15-17, FIG. 3) comprising a plurality of heat dissipating projections (18-20), wherein the plurality of heat dissipating projections comprise first heat dissipating projections projecting in a first direction (18) and a second heat dissipating projections projecting in a second direction (19), wherein the first direction is transverse to the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the laser mounts of Egawa with projections in order to increase the heat transfer across the modules as taught by Barco (col. 6, ll. 13-16).
Egawa fails to disclose further comprising a thermoelectric cooler configured to cool air inside the housing.
Haba teaches a thermoelectric cooler (212) configured to cool air inside of a housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the housing of Egawa with a TEC in order to increase the heat transfer within the housing as taught by Haba (col. 7, ll. 25-30).
Egawa fails to disclose comprising a port in the housing configured to allow a fluid to be injected into the housing.
Haba teaches a port (240) in housing (1) configured to allow fluid to be injected into the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the housing of Egawa with a port in order to allow ambient air to enter the housing as taught by Haba (col. 4, ll. 1-5).
Egawa fails to disclose wherein the fan is configured to provide rated airflow in a range of 2.5 to 4.5 cubic feet per minute.
Held teaches a fan for an electronic housing which provides an airflow of between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute ([0069] “When operating with a 12-volt output power supply, each fan can pull between 4.8 and 6.2 cubic feet per minute,”). While this output is above the required range, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Held teaches that the voltage applied to the fans is directly proportional to the cfpm output of the fan which is a result effective variable, thus any desired level of output could be obtained by adjusting the voltage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the fans of Miya with the fans of Held, as a means of quietly cooling the electronic environment with multiple fans.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0340653 to Chifu et al. disclosing a housing with multiple lasers and cooling fan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
