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 2/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Collier (U.S. Patent No. 2,922,609; hereafter Collier) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Collier in view of Roberts (U.S. Patent No. 5,692,721; hereafter Roberts).
Applicant persuasively argues that Collier does not disclose an alignment member configured to be inserted in the image capture apparatus, wherein there is a fastener extending through the alignment member and into the base, as called for in amended claim 1, and the associated method steps of claim 16.
Roberts discloses a device in which there is an adapter with an alignment member (see Roberts Fig. 2, item 15) which is inserted into the image capture apparatus (see Roberts Fig. 2, housing 10 and accommodating cutout 14), wherein there is a fastener which is configured to extend through the alignment member and into the base, and is also configured to enable tilting along a single axis (see Roberts Fig. 3, items 29, 15, and 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an alignment member and fastener like that of Roberts in the device of Collier in order to secure the device onto the adapter and ensure the components are properly connected.
Regarding claims 7-10 and 20, previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Collier, Applicants arguments rest on the deficiencies of Collier, addressed above, and therefore are also modified to be rejected in view of Collier and Roberts.
Regarding claims 3-5, previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Collier and Minelli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,663,064 B1; hereafter Minelli), Applicants arguments rest on the deficiencies of Collier, addressed above, and therefore are also modified to be rejected in view of Collier and Roberts, in further view of Minelli.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Collier 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Collier and Konuma et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0062326 A1; hereafter Konuma).
Applicant has persuasively argued that Collier does not disclose the latching mechanism called for in amended claim 11.
Konuma discloses a connection latching mechanism like that called for in claim 11 (see Konuma Fig. 10, pawls 8a and 8b are biased outwards and configured for attached and detached configurations).
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 Collier with a latching mechanism like that in Konuma in order to enable secure attachment and detachment of the device without requiring tools.
Regarding claims 13-15 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Collier, Applicants arguments rest on the deficiencies of Collier, addressed above, and therefore are also modified to be rejected in view of Collier and Konuma.
Regarding claim 12, previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Collier and Minelli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,663,064 B1; hereafter Minelli), Applicants arguments rest on the deficiencies of Collier, addressed above, and therefore are also modified to be rejected in view of Collier and Konuma, in further view of Minelli.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-10, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (U.S. Patent No. 2,922,609; hereafter Collier) in view of Roberts (U.S. Patent No. 5,692,721; hereafter Roberts).
Regarding claim 1, Collier discloses a mounting system for an image capture apparatus (see Collier Fig. 1, item 29), the mounting system comprising: an adapter configured for connection to the image capture apparatus (see Collier Fig. 1, item 14); and a mount configured for connection to the adapter (see Collier Fig. 1, item 2) such that the adapter and the image capture apparatus are tiltable in relation to the mount about a single axis extending in generally parallel relation to a longitudinal axis of the adapter (see Collier Figs. 2 and 5, which show tilting).
Collier does not disclose an alignment member configured to be inserted in the image capture apparatus, wherein there is a fastener extending through the alignment member and into the base.
Roberts discloses a device in which there is an adapter with an alignment member (see Roberts Fig. 2, item 15) which is inserted into the image capture apparatus (see Roberts Fig. 2, housing 10 and accommodating cutout 14), wherein there is a fastener which is configured to extend through the alignment member and into the base, and is also configured to enable tilting along a single axis (see Roberts Fig. 3, items 29, 15, and 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an alignment member and fastener like that of Roberts in the device of Collier in order to secure the device onto the adapter and ensure the components are properly connected.
Regarding claim 2, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the adapter and the mount include corresponding mating surfaces facilitating repositioning of the adapter in relation to the mount, wherein the corresponding mating surfaces each include an arcuate configuration (see Collier Fig. 1, items 10 and 15).
Regarding claim 7, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 1, wherein adapter the includes a channel configured to receive the fastener such that the fastener is movable therethrough during tilting of the adapter and the image capture apparatus in relation to the mount (see Collier Fig. 1, item 33).
Collier discloses that the adapter has the channel, while the mount has the hole for the fastener, while in Applicant’s invention the mount has the channel, while the adapter has the hole.
Mere reversal of parts is deemed to be well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). In this case it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to switch which component of Collier had the groove, and which had the hole.
Regarding claim 8, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 7, wherein the channel includes a first end defining a first stop configured for engagement with the fastener and a second end defining a second stop configured for engagement with the fastener, whereby the first stop and the second stop define a range of relative motion between the adapter and the mount (see P Fig. 1, note that the channel has two ends which can be construed as stops which constrain the range of motion).
Regarding claim 9, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 7, wherein the fastener includes: a fastener body extending through the adapter and into the channel (see Collier Fig. 1, item 13); and a nut located within the channel and configured to receive the fastener body (see Collier Fig. 1, item 34).
Regarding claim 10, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 9, wherein the nut is captive to the mount (see Collier Fig. 4, items 2 and 34).
Regarding claim 16, Collier discloses a method of connecting an image capture apparatus to an attachment surface, the method comprising: connecting an adapter to a mount such that the adapter is repositionable in relation to the mount via movement through a single plane extending in generally orthogonal relation to a longitudinal axis of the adapter (see Collier Figs. 1, 2 and 5, note rotation of adapter 14 with respect to mount 2); repositioning the adapter in relation to the mount (see Collier Figs. 2 and 5); securing the adapter in relation to the mount (see Collier Fig. 5, items 13a and 34 clamp on to the mount to secure the device); and connecting an image capture apparatus to the adapter (see Collier Fig. 1, item 29, which is connected to adapter 14 via mounting plate 17).
Collier does not disclose securing the adapter by adjusting a fastener, inserting an alignment member into the image capture apparatus, wherein there is a fastener extending through the alignment member and into the base.
Roberts discloses a device in which there is an adapter with an alignment member (see Roberts Fig. 2, item 15) which is inserted into the image capture apparatus (see Roberts Fig. 2, housing 10 and accommodating cutout 14), wherein there is a fastener which is configured to extend through the alignment member and into the base, and is also configured to enable tilting along a single axis (see Roberts Fig. 3, items 29, 15, and 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an alignment member and fastener like that of Roberts in the device of Collier in order to secure the device onto the adapter and ensure the components are properly connected.
Regarding claim 17, Collier discloses the method of claim 16, wherein repositioning the adapter in relation to the mount includes causing relative movement between corresponding arcuate mating surfaces on the adapter and the mount (see Collier Figs. 1, 2, and 5, items 10 and 15).
Regarding claim 19, Collier discloses the method of claim 18, wherein adjusting the fastener includes compression locking the adapter in a desired orientation (see Collier col. 3, ll. 6-11 “A clamping member 34 in the form of a nut is thread-ably secured on the lower end of the bolt 13 in contact with the lower surface of the base plate 1 for drawing the members 1, 8 and 14 in suitable frictional contact, the opening 4 permitting adjustment of the nut 34 to adjust the frictional contact indicated.”).
Regarding claim 20, Collier discloses the method of claim 16, wherein repositioning the adapter in relation to the mount includes moving the fastener through a channel defined by the adapter (see Collier Figs. 2 and 5).
Collier discloses that the adapter has the channel, while the mount has the hole for the fastener, while in Applicant’s invention the mount has the channel, while the adapter has the hole.
Mere reversal of parts is deemed to be well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). In this case it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to switch which component of Collier had the groove, and which had the hole.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier in view of Minelli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,663,64 B1; hereafter Minelli).
Regarding claim 3, Collier discloses the mounting system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the mount includes: an inner body portion; an outer body portion extending about the inner body portion; and a base secured to the outer body portion; [claim 4] wherein the inner body portion is formed from a rigid material, and the outer body portion is formed from a flexible material; [claim 5] wherein the base includes an adhesive material configured to secure the mount to an attachment surface.
Minelli discloses a mount system for a portable electronic device which includes: an inner body portion (see Minelli Fig. 14, item 192); an outer body portion extending about the inner body portion (see Minelli Fig. 14, item 182); and a base secured to the outer body portion (see Minelli col. 3, ll. 8-10 “the suction cup mount may be utilized to mount the mounting apparatus on a surface, such as a vehicle window or dashboard,”); [claim 4] wherein the inner body portion is formed from a rigid material (see Minelli col. 10, ll. 38-39 “Suction cup mount 180 further includes a housing 192, preferably formed of rigid plastic”), and the outer body portion is formed from a flexible material (see Minelli col. 10, ll. 21-23 “Suction cup mount or support 180 has a flexible suction cup 182 having a tab 184”); [claim 5] wherein the base includes an adhesive material configured to secure the mount to an attachment surface (see Minelli col. 4, ll. 60-62 which discloses an alternative embodiment where “an adhesive material may be applied within inset 22, which can then be placed on the desired surface”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the screw mountings of Collier with the suction cup or adhesive mountings of Minelli in order to enable the user to mount the device on surfaces which do not have mounting holes for screws, as are required by Collier.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier in view of Konuma et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0062326 A1; hereafter Konuma).
Regarding claims 11, 21, and 22, Collier discloses a mounting system for an image capture apparatus, the mounting system comprising: an adapter configured for connection to the image capture apparatus (see Collier Fig. 1, item 14), wherein the adapter defines a longitudinal axis and includes a body defining a first mating surface (see Collier Fig. 1, item 15 is the first mating surface, the axis is not labeled, but defined by rotation of the device.); a mount defining a second mating surface configured in correspondence with the first mating surface and positioned in contacting relation therewith (see Collier Fig. 1, items 2 and 10), whereby the adapter is tiltable in relation to the mount through an arcuate range of motion to vary an orientation of the image capture apparatus (see Collier Figs. 2 and 5, note tilting motion); and a fastener extending through the adapter and into the mount to thereby connect the adapter to the mount (see Collier Fig. 1, item 13).
Collier does not disclose the latching mechanism called for in claim 11.
Konuma discloses a connection latching mechanism like that called for in claim 11 (see Konuma Fig. 10, pawls 8a and 8b are biased outwards and configured for attached and detached configurations); [claim 21] wherein the biasing members are positioned between the latch members (see Konuma Fig. 10, items 8c); [claim 22] wherein connecting the apparatus to the adapter includes overcoming a biasing force applied to the latch members on the adapter to thereby reposition the latch members (see Konuma Fig. 10, while the steps for attaching the pawls to the device is not explicitly explained, either the chamfered top surfaces of pawls 8b cause the pawls to be deflected inward automatically during attachment, and then snap into place once attached, or the user must depress the buttons 8A to overcome the biasing so that the pawls can be inserted in the device, after which when the buttons are released the biasing spring forces the pawls into their locked configuration. Either operation involves “overcoming a biasing force applied to the latch members on the adapter” in order to reposition the latch members).
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 Collier with a latching mechanism like that in Konuma in order to enable secure attachment and detachment of the device without requiring tools.
Regarding claim 13, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 11, wherein adapter the includes a channel configured to receive the fastener such that the fastener is movable therethrough during tilting of the adapter and the image capture apparatus in relation to the mount (see Collier Fig. 1, item 33).
Collier discloses that the adapter has the channel, while the mount has the hole for the fastener, while in Applicant’s invention the mount has the channel, while the adapter has the hole.
Mere reversal of parts is deemed to be well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). In this case it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to switch which component of Collier had the groove, and which had the hole.
Regarding claim 14, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 13, wherein the channel extends in generally orthogonal relation to the longitudinal axis (see Collier Figs. 1, 2, and 5, note that the channel extends horizontally in Figs. 2 and 5, while the rotation axis is into the page).
Regarding claim 15, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 13, wherein the channel defines an arc length corresponding to the arcuate range of motion (It is necessarily true that the arc length has some correspondence with the range of motion, regardless of what that correlation is.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier in view of Konuma as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Minelli.
Regarding claim 12, Collier as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 11, but does not disclose that the mount includes a flexible material to allow the mount to contour to an attachment surface.
Minelli discloses a mount system for a portable electronic device which includes a flexible material to allow the mount to contour to an attachment surface (see Minelli col. 10, ll. 21-23 “Suction cup mount or support 180 has a flexible suction cup 182 having a tab 184”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the screw mountings of Collier with the suction cup or adhesive mountings of Minelli in order to enable the user to mount the device on surfaces which do not have mounting holes for screws, as are required by Collier.
Inquiry
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights