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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Burbulla (Pub. No. US 2003/0076480; hereafter Burbulla) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Burbulla.
As noted in the Advisory Action dated 11/7/2025, while the prior art of Burbulla does not anticipate the claim limitations of claims 11, 12, and 17, because Burbulla does not disclose that “the first and second ends of the articulated device are pivotable relative to each other only about the first and second rotation axes” (emphasis added) as called for in claims 11 and 17, it has been held that mere removal of a part, with associated removal of its function, is deemed well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired”).
In this case, if the extra degrees of rotation of the camera were not desired, it would have been obvious to remove the drive portions enabling rotation in the roll and vertical pivot axes (R and D axes of Burbulla, respectively) thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the camera mount.
Claims 11, 12, and 17 are therefore rejected as being obvious over Burbulla.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Burbulla have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Burbulla and Chapman (Pub. No. US 2022/0002128 A1; hereafter Chapman.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Burbulla does not disclose that “the surface of connection at the first end of the articulated device is rotatable about said first rotation axis such that the filming head is positionable in at least an upper position vertically above the longitudinal axis of the filming crane, a horizontal position and a lower position vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane according to whether said shaft of the filming crane is in a position raised from the horizontal, in a horizontal position or in a position below the horizontal” (emphasis yours), Examiner first notes that these claim limitations are not found in claims 11, 12, or 17, and therefore do not apply to the 102 rejection as previously presented, or the 103 rejections made in view of Burbulla discusses above.
However, regarding claim 13, where these claim limitations are presented, Burbulla does not specifically disclose that “the filming head is positionable in… a lower position vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane” as called for in claim 13.
Chapman discloses that the filming head is rotatable about said first rotation axis such that the filming head is positionable in at least an upper position vertically above the longitudinal axis of the filming crane, a horizontal position, and a lower position vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane according to whether said shaft of the filming crane is in a position raised from the horizontal, in a horizontal position or in a position below the horizontal (see Chapman Figs. 14 and 15, item 404 which is positionable below the crane, or “over-slung” above the crane).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mount of Burbulla in order to enable both the “over-slung” position of Burbulla and Fig. 15 of Chapman, and the “under-slung” position like that in Fig. 14 of Chapman in order to increase the number of potential filming positions available to the user.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiencies of the Burbulla reference, addressed above, and therefore are similarly addressed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbulla (Pub. No. US 2003/0076480 A1; hereafter Burbulla).
Regarding claim 11, Burbulla discloses an articulated device comprising: first and second ends, the second end of the articulated device forms a second fixing plane and is connectable to a filming head (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 4 and 7) and the first end of the articulated device forms a first fixing plane and is connectable to an end of a telescopic filming crane (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 5 and 140) the filming crane defines a longitudinal axis and has a shaft (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 14) with sections which are extendable or retractable along the longitudinal axis (see Burbulla Fig. 2, items 10, 11, and 12), a counterweight means for balancing the shaft (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 2) of the filming crane around a fulcrum point (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 17); first and second rotation axes (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items H and N), the first rotation axis is linked at the first end of the articulated device to a surface of connection with an end tip of said filming crane (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 140), the second rotation axis is linked at the second end of the articulation device to a surface of connection with said filming head (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 4 and N); and a motor being associated with said second rotation axis and rotating the second fixing plane of said articulated device and said filming head about the second rotation axis (see Burbulla paragraph [0039] “The attachment platform 5 can be tilted, in the area of connection to the end 140 of the section 14 of the boom 1, about a horizontal axis H, where in the area of the end 140 there is a horizontal pivot bearing which can be moved by a directly driven electric motor”), thus allowing a rotation of the filming head of at least 90° in an upper vertical direction and 90° in a lower vertical direction (see Burbulla Fig. 5, and paragraph [0009] which discloses that “The camera crane according to this invention, in contrast, allows a much greater inclination of angle, for example, up to 300°.” In order to maintain the orientation of the camera, as shown in Fig. 5, the device must have a similar driving range, which is greater than 180°.).
Burbulla does not disclose that the first and second ends of the articulated device are pivotable relative to each other only about the first and second rotation axes.
It has been held that mere removal of a part, with associated removal of its function, is deemed well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired”). In this case, if the extra degrees of rotation of the camera were not desired, it would have been obvious to remove the drive portions enabling rotation in the roll and vertical pivot axes (R and D axes of Burbulla, respectively) thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the camera mount.
Regarding claim 12, Burbulla discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the second fixing plane and said filming head are rotatable about said second rotation axis, such that the filming head is positionable skywards, horizontally or groundwards, in order to take high angle shots, horizontal shots or low angle shots (see Burbulla Fig. 4, which shows horizontal, and Fig. 5, positions II and III which are skywards and groundwards, respectively).
Regarding claim 17, Burbulla discloses a filming crane (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 5 and 140) having a shaft (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 14) with sections which are extendable or retractable (see Burbulla Fig. 2, items 10, 11, and 12), a counterweight means for balancing the shaft (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 2) of the filming crane around a fulcrum point (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 17); and an articulated device, that connectable with a filming head and an end tip of the filming crane, said articulated device having first and second rotation axes (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items H and N), the first rotation axis fixed via a first surface of connection of the articulated device, to the end tip of said filming crane (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 140), the second rotation axis is fixed, via a second surface of connection of the articulated device, to said filming head (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 4 and N); and a motor being fixed relative to said second rotation axis and the motor rotating the second surface of said articulated device and said filming head about the second rotation axis (see Burbulla paragraph [0039] “The attachment platform 5 can be tilted, in the area of connection to the end 140 of the section 14 of the boom 1, about a horizontal axis H, where in the area of the end 140 there is a horizontal pivot bearing which can be moved by a directly driven electric motor”), thus allowing a rotation of the filming head at least 90° in an upper vertical direction and 90° in a lower vertical direction (see Burbulla Fig. 5, and paragraph [0009] which discloses that “The camera crane according to this invention, in contrast, allows a much greater inclination of angle, for example, up to 300°.” In order to maintain the orientation of the camera, as shown in Fig. 5, the device must have a similar driving range, which is greater than 180°.)
Burbulla does not disclose that the first and second ends of the articulated device are pivotable relative to each other only about the first and second rotation axes.
It has been held that mere removal of a part, with associated removal of its function, is deemed well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired”). In this case, if the extra degrees of rotation of the camera were not desired, it would have been obvious to remove the drive portions enabling rotation in the roll and vertical pivot axes (R and D axes of Burbulla, respectively) thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the camera mount.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbulla in view of Chapman (Pub. No. US 2022/0002128 A1; hereafter Chapman).
Regarding claim 13, Burbulla discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the surface of connection at the first end of the articulated device is rotatable about said first rotation axis such that the filming head is positionable in at least an upper position and a horizontal position, (see Burbulla Figs. 1 and 5, items 4 and N.).
Burbulla does not specifically disclose and lower position vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane, according to whether said shaft of the filming crane is in a position raised from the horizontal, in a horizontal position or in a position below the horizontal.
Chapman discloses that the filming head is rotatable about said first rotation axis such that the filming head is positionable in at least an upper position vertically above the longitudinal axis of the filming crane, a horizontal position, and a lower position vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane according to whether said shaft of the filming crane is in a position raised from the horizontal, in a horizontal position or in a position below the horizontal (see Chapman Figs. 14 and 15, item 404 which is positionable below the crane, or “over-slung” above the crane).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mount of Burbulla in order to enable both the “over-slung” position of Burbulla and Fig. 15 of Chapman, and the “under-slung” position like that in Fig. 14 of Chapman in order to increase the number of potential filming positions available to the user.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbulla in view of Wood et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0209085 A1; hereafter Wood).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Burbulla discloses the device according to claim 11, but does not disclose that the first fixing plane at the first end of the articulation device and the first rotation axis are manually fixed to an end point of the filming crane; [claim 15] wherein the first fixing plane and said first rotation axis are fixed by bolts to an end point of the filming crane.
Wood discloses a device where the first fixing plane at the first end of the articulation device and the first rotation axis are manually fixed to an end point of the filming crane (see Wood Figs. 1 and 3, items 29 and 72. Wood paragraph [0074] discloses “a first mounting sleeve 29A at the first end 28 of the jib arm” and that “The mounting sleeves each include a main portion having an outer diameter which is the same as the tubular portion 29 C and a mounting portion of reduced diameter for insertion into the corresponding open end of the tubular portion 29C for connection by threaded fasteners coupled therebetween.”); [claim 15] wherein the first fixing plane and said first rotation axis are fixed by bolts to an end point of the filming crane (see Wood paragraph [0071] “The mounting sleeves each include a main portion… and a mounting portion of reduced diameter… for connection by threaded fasteners coupled therebetween”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the head mount of Burbulla could be fastened to the end of the crane as disclosed in Wood in order to securely attach the mount of Burbulla to the crane.
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 24, Burbulla discloses the articulated device according to claim 11, the second fixing plane of the articulated device is a second planar connection surface which is connected to the filming head (see Burbulla Fig. 1, item 4, mounting plate can be construed as planar connection surface); and the second end of the articulated device is rotatably connected to an opposite end of the intermediate element by a second joint such that the second end and the intermediate element are rotatable relative to one another about the second rotation axis (see Burbulla Fig. 1, items 4 and N), and the motor being is mounted at the second end of the articulated device and is actuatable such that the second planar connection surface and the film head connected thereto are rotatable about the second rotation axis relative to the intermediate element and the first end of the articulated device (see Burbulla Fig. 2, item 41 and paragraph [0041] “The camera pivot head 4, by pivot bearings 41, directly driven by an electric motor, allows the tilting of the camera 7 on a horizontal camera tilt axis N”), and such that the filming head is rotatable by at least 90° in the upper vertical direction and by at least 90° in the lower vertical direction (see Burbulla Fig. 5 and Response to Arguments, above).
Burbulla does not disclose that the first fixing plane of the articulated device is a first planar connection surface which is connected to the end of the filming crane, the first end of the articulated device is rotatably connected to one end of an intermediate element of the articulated device by a first joint such that the first end and the intermediate element are rotatable relative to one another about the first rotation axis, wherein, between the first and the second connection surfaces, the first and the second ends and the intermediate element are only rotatable relative to each other about the first and the second rotation axes; [claim 23] wherein the first and the second joints are configured such that the first rotation axis extends through the one end of the intermediate element and the second rotation axis extends through the opposite end of the intermediate element; [claim 24] wherein the first connection surface is connected to the end of the filming crane such that the first end of the articulated device is positionally fixed relative to the end of the filming crane (see Wood Figs. 1 and 3, items 29 and 72. Wood paragraph [0074] discloses “a first mounting sleeve 29A at the first end 28 of the jib arm” and that “The mounting sleeves each include a main portion having an outer diameter which is the same as the tubular portion 29 C and a mounting portion of reduced diameter for insertion into the corresponding open end of the tubular portion 29C for connection by threaded fasteners coupled therebetween.”).
Wood discloses the first fixing plane of the articulated device is a first planar connection surface which is connected to the end of the filming crane (see Wood Fig. 1, item 72), the first end of the articulated device is rotatably connected to one end of an intermediate element of the articulated device by a first joint such that the first end and the intermediate element are rotatable relative to one another about the first rotation axis (see Wood Fig. 3, items 72 and intermediate device 42 are rotatable relative to each other about axle 38), wherein, between the first and the second connection surfaces, the first and the second ends and the intermediate element are only rotatable relative to each other about the first and the second rotation axes (see Wood Fig. 3, the device is only rotatable about 38 at the first end, and rotated at the second end 52, with intermediated device 42 in between.); [claim 23] wherein the first and the second joints are configured such that the first rotation axis extends through the one end of the intermediate element and the second rotation axis extends through the opposite end of the intermediate element (see Wood Fig. 3, axle 38 and item 52, which is the location of the second axis); [claim 24] wherein the first connection surface is connected to the end of the filming crane such that the first end of the articulated device is positionally fixed relative to the end of the filming crane .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the head mount of Burbulla could be modified to resemble a mount like that in Wood in order to provide a lighter, cheaper mount than the bulky mount of Burbulla.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbulla in view of Fritsch et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0316368 A1; hereafter Fritsch).
Regarding claim 16, Burbulla discloses the device according to claim 11, but does not specifically state that said motor is a harmonic type motor.
Fritsch discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that “preferably harmonic drive transmissions are used, which enable very high rotational speed trans-mission ratios without free play, with low noise propagation” (see Fritsch paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Burbulla with a harmonic drive system in order to obtain the known benefits of high rotational speed trans-mission ratios without free play, with low noise propagation, as taught by Fritsch.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbulla in view of Wood as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chapman (Pub. No. US 2022/0002128 A1; hereafter Chapman).
Regarding claim 22, Burbulla in view of Wood discloses the articulated device according to claim 21, wherein the first and the second ends and the intermediate element of the articulated device are articulatable relative to each other about the first and the second rotation axes such that the film head, connected to the second connection surface, is adjustable to a position in which the film head is located vertically above the longitudinal axis of the filming crane (see Burbulla Fig. 5, position II shows the camera vertically above the longitudinal axis).
Burbulla in view of Wood does not disclose a position in which the film head is located vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane.
Chapman discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was field to have a crane where the camera can be located either vertically above the longitudinal axis of the filming crane (see Chapman Fig. 15, items 404 and 406), or a position in which the film head is located vertically below the longitudinal axis of the filming crane (see Chapman Fig. 14, items 404 and 406)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mount of Burbulla in view of Wood to enable either and over-slung connection like that in Burbulla and Chapman Fig. 15, or an under-slung connection like that in Chapman Fig. 14, in order to increase the number of potential filming positions available to the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 2/11/2026