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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: height adjustment mechanism and extension mechanism in claims 1, 11 and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the height adjustment mechanism as mechanism 2216 shown in Fig. 22 and the extension mechanism as the button which enables extension/retraction.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 22 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. Cls. 3 and 22, the limitation “the extension mechanism has sufficient friction to prevent movement of the arm in the absence of the application of force by a user” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Claims 3 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 21 respectively, which include the limitation “an extension mechanism in the arm that has enough friction to hold the arm in place but allows the arm to be extendable and retractable.” It is unclear if the Applicant is referring to the same function of the extension mechanism in both instances and if claims 3 and 22 further limit claims 1 and 21. For instance, if the extension mechanism holds the arm in place but allows extension and retraction via sufficient friction as stated in claims 1 and 21, then it would stand to reason that extension mechanism must hold the arm still absent application of force by the user. Therefore, as best understood by the Examiner it is unclear what claims 3 and 22 do to further define Applicant’s invention. It is suggested that the Applicant specify what makes claims 3 and 22 different from claims 1 and 22 or delete claims 3 and 22 as not further limiting the base claim to overcome this issue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulesia US 10767807 (hereinafter Kulesia) in view of Sherrod US 2022/0395978 (hereinafter Sherrod) in view of Herring US 2018/0050822 (hereinafter Herring).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 21, Kulesia discloses: An adjustable camera stand (100, Fig. 1), comprising: a base (101, Fig. 1): a vertical pole (103, Fig. F) extending from the base (see Fig. 1-2) in a fixed, vertical direction (see Fig. 2); an arm (40, Fig. 2) extending horizontally from the pole (see Fig. 2), the arm being only horizontally extendable and rotatable about the vertical pole (see Fig. 1-3, arm can be adjusted about the length of 103 and rotated relative to 103 as shown in Figs. 5a-5j) ; an appliance attached to the arm (107, Fig. 1); an appliance attachment mechanism (see annotated figure 2), connecting the appliance to the arm, including a user- graspable portion (see annotated figure 2) that rotates the appliance with respect to the arm to hold the appliance in a fixed orientation as a user movement of the appliance causes the arm to extend and retract; a height adjustment mechanism (113, Fig. 1 and 803, Fig. 9) for adjusting a height of the arm on the pole (see Fig. 1, about vertical adjustment arrow along 103), with the height adjustment mechanism clamping the arm at a desired zoom and allowing the arm to move in a horizontal plane without changing the zoom (see Fig. 1-3 and 8-10a, by adjusting 109, the height adjusting mechanism can clamp the arm at a desired vertical location and allow the arm 105 to move along the horizontal directional line shown in Fig. 1); and an extension mechanism (117, Fig. 1 and 805, Fig. 9) in the arm that has enough friction to hold the arm in place but allows the arm to be extendable and retractable with respect to the pole in response to a user pulling or pushing the appliance in response to force applied to the arm from the appliance by the user (see Fig. 1-3 and 8-10a, by adjusting the friction using 109, the extension mechanism has enough friction to hold the arm in place while allowing the arm to be extendable and retractable by overcoming the friction created by 109 and 809).
Re. Cl. 23, Kulesia discloses: the extension mechanism has sufficient friction to prevent movement of the arm in the absence of the application of force by a user (see Fig. 1-3 and 8-10a, by adjusting 109, the friction can be adjusted and thus sufficient friction can be applied to prevent movement of the arm absent force from the user).
Re. Cls. 21 and 24-25, Kulesia discloses the stand is used with various different appliances for one or more tasks (Col. 3, Lines 56-59). Kulesia does not disclose the vertical pole is rotatable with respect to the base, the appliance is a camera; movement of the graspable portion causes the pole to rotate; movement of the stand thereby maintaining an image orientation of an image captured by the camera or manually adjusting a zoom of the camera by adjustment of the stand; pushing or pulling the stand causing the pole to rotate, wherein the user-graspable portion is cylindrical and further comprising a rectangular housing attached to the user-graspable portion that visually aids the user with alignment of the camera image (Cl. 21), machine-readable non-transitory storage medium that includes instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform operations including: maintain an alignment of an image as the camera is moved (Cl. 24), or the machine-readable non- transitory storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause one or more processors to maintain an alignment of an image of the camera in response to an alignment activation signal (Cl. 25). Sherrod discloses an adjustable camera stand (Fig. 1) which includes a base (see flat bottom near A1, Fig. 1), a vertical support (see vertical support which includes A2, A3, Fig. 1) which is rotatable with respect to the base (see Fig. 1, about A1), an arm (see Fig. 1, where A4 is located), and a camera (122, Fig. 1) attached to the arm (see Fig. 1). Sherrod further discloses movement of the stand capable of causing the pole to rotate (see Fig. 1 about A1); movement of the stand thereby maintaining an image orientation of an image captured by the camera or manually adjusting a zoom of the camera by adjustment of the stand (see Fig. 1, by adjusting the position of the camera 122 relative to object 124); pushing or pulling the stand causing the pole to rotate (see Fig. 1, about A1). Sherrod discloses a camera control stand (Fig. 1) which includes machine-readable non-transitory storage medium that includes instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraph 0155, Lines 1-7) including: maintain an alignment of an image as the camera is moved (Paragraph 0141, Lines 1-7); the machine-readable non- transitory storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause one or more processors to maintain an alignment of an image of the camera in response to an alignment activation signal (Paragraph 0141, signals such as times, motion types as listed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kulesia device to enable its vertical pole to be rotatable with respect to the base as disclosed by Sherrod with reasonable expectation of success to provide an additional degree of freedom, thus increasing the usability of the device. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kulesia device to support a camera as disclosed by Sherrod with reasonable expectation of success since Kulesia device discloses that various appliances can be supports to accomplish a task (Col. 3, Lines 56-59) and Sherrod discloses that a camera is a known device used to record and focus on an object (Paragraph 0062, Lines 9-12).
Re. Cl. 21, the combination of Kulesia in view of Sherrod does not disclose wherein the user-graspable portion is cylindrical and further comprising a rectangular housing attached to the user-graspable portion that visually aids the user with alignment of the camera image. Herring discloses a camera attachment mechanism (Fig. 2) which includes a user-graspable portion (40, Fig. 2) which is cylindrical (see Fig. 2) and further comprising a rectangular housing (34, 36, Fig. 4) attached to the user-graspable portion that visually aids the user with alignment of the camera image (see Fig. 2-4, by having 34, 36 attached to 32 and 32 being adjustable within 40, the housing 34, 36 visually aids with alignment of the camera image by enabling the user to align the camera image with the subject being captured by the camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Kulesia in view of Sherrod device to use the camera attachment mechanism of Herring with reasonable expectation of success since Herring states that such a modification enables for a wide array of selectable orientations (Abstract, Lines 6-7). Such a modification would enable for even more adjustment which would enable the user to position the camera in a large variety of orientations, increasing the usability of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-16 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bowman US 2016/0312950, Lynch US 2019/0384143, Oddsen US 2001/0023914, Dyson US 2014/0029248, Guzman US 4140296, Lee US 6764055, and Nicholas US 3627244 disclose other known adjustable stands which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
