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 .
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.
Claims 21-23, 25, 28-36, 38, and 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,675 (hereafter ‘675) in view of Lamb et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0228098 A1; hereafter Lamb).
Regarding claim 21, ‘675 discloses a camera mounting system wherein movement of the positioning device moves an aim point at which the first end of the positioning device housing is directed (see ‘675 claim 1 “a positioning device configured to move… an aim point at which the positioning device is directed”); wherein the device processor is configured to determine, based on the first information, the aim point at which the first end of the positioning device housing is directed (see ‘675 claim 1 “wherein the camera mount comprises a processor configured to determine, based on the gyroscope information received from the positioning device, a position of a target at which the aim point of the positioning device is directed and cause the motor to orient the camera platform to face the determined position.” ‘675 does not specifically recite that the processor is the positioning device processor, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that either processor, or both, could provide the necessary calculation, as there are only two processors with which to calculate the value, and redundant processing may be desirable in case of malfunction or communication error.); [claim 22] wherein the one or more positioning device spatial sensors comprise a compass (see ‘675 claim 7 “wherein the positioning device includes a compass and is configured to send compass information to the camera mount via the communication link”); [claim 25] wherein the camera mount processor is configured to cause the camera mount motor to orient the camera mount platform to face the camera mounted thereto toward the determined aim point of the positioning device (see ‘675 claim 1 “wherein the camera mount… is directed and cause the motor to orient the camera platform to face the determined position.”); [claim 28] wherein the positioning device processor is configured to: determine a movement direction based on the first information from the one or more positioning device spatial sensors; and adjust the determined aim point based on the determined movement direction (see ‘675 claim 15 “wherein the camera mount is configured to use one or both of the movement direction and the speed of the target received from the positioning device to orient the camera platform to face the target.”); [claim 29] wherein the positioning device processor is configured to: determine a movement speed based on the first information from the one or more positioning device spatial sensors; and adjust the determined aim point based on the determined movement speed (see ‘675 claim 14 “wherein the positioning device is configured to send one or both of the movement direction and the speed of the target to the camera mount.”); [claim 31] wherein the camera mount processor is configured to: determine a movement speed based on the second information from the positioning device; and adjust the determined aim point based on the determined movement speed (see ‘675 claim 13 “wherein the positioning device is configured to receive the light that is reflected or scattered by the target and determine one or both of a movement direction and a speed of the target.”); [claim 32] wherein the positioning device comprises a weapon mount configured to mount the positioning device to a weapon (see ‘675 claim 4 “wherein the positioning device is configured to be mounted on a weapon”); [claim 33] wherein the positioning device is configured to be operated as a handheld device (see ‘675 claim 5 “wherein the positioning device is configured to be operated as a handheld device.”); [claim 38] Regarding claim 38, the claim recites all of the same limitations as called for in claim 35, and ‘675 further discloses that the system comprises a weapon mount configured to mount the positioning device to a weapon (see ‘675 claim 4 “wherein the positioning device is configured to be mounted on a weapon”).
As for the remaining claim limitations in claim 21, they are well-known features in the art, for example Lamb discloses a mounting system for a camera, the mounting system comprising: a camera mount comprising a camera mount processor, a camera mount motor, a camera mount transceiver, and a camera mount platform to which to mount the camera (see Lamb Figs. 1 and 3, items 302, 117B, 122, and mount platform in which transceiver and microphone 124 are shown embedded in Fig. 1); and a positioning device comprising a positioning device housing having a first end, a positioning device processor, one or more positioning device spatial sensors, and a positioning device transceiver (see Lamb Figs. 1 and 2, items 102, 202, 112, and 108); wherein the one or more positioning device spatial sensors are configured to detect the movement of the position device and provide the positioning device processor with first information about the detected movement (see Lamb Fig. 2, item 112); wherein the positioning device processor is configured to send, via the positioning device transceiver, second information regarding the determined aim point to the camera mount transceiver (see Lamb Fig. 4, item 106, Lamb discloses in paragraph [0018] that “the IR receiver 118 also can be used to receive data transmitted by the remote device IR transmitters 106” and can therefore be construed as part of the transceiver); and wherein the camera mount processor is configured to cause the camera mount motor to orient the camera mount platform based on the second information received via the camera mount transceiver (see Lamb Fig. 4, “Remo Elev” and paragraphs [0027]-[0028] which disclose that “the remote IR transmitter 106 produces an IR signal to act as a beacon to indicate the remote device position.”); [claims 23, 36, 39] wherein the one or more positioning device spatial sensors comprise a gyroscope; [claims 26, 37] wherein: the camera mount comprises a camera mount memory; and the camera mount processor is configured to store historical information about one or more past aim points of the positioning device and adjust the determined aim point based on the historical information stored in camera mount memory (see Lamb Fig. 7, item 702 and paragraph [0049] “module 702 retrieved first new stored sensor data and a previously computed target position (Xp, Yp) from the storage device 310, and module 704 computes a predicted position (Xi, Yi) as a function of these values.” The “previously computed target position” is equivalent to the historical information about past aim points.); [claim, 30] wherein the camera mount processor is configured to: determine a movement direction based on the second information from the positioning device; and adjust the determined aim point based on the determined movement direction (see Lamb Fig. 7, item 706, where the second information is used to adjust the determined aim point); [claim 34] wherein: the positioning device comprises a trigger; and the positioning device is configured to provide the camera mount with the second information in response to actuation of the trigger (see Lamb Fig. 1, item 114 and paragraph [0019] “User interface components 114 such as buttons or switches permit users to manually control the operation of the remote device.” Buttons and switches can be reasonably construed as triggers); claim 35] Regarding claim 35, the claim recites all of the limitations of claim 21 and Lamb further discloses the camera mount platform having a front face; a camera mounted to the camera mount platform such that the camera and the front face of the camera mount platform are directed in a same direction (see Lamb Fig. 1, item 116).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to improve the device of Lamb with object tracking like that in ‘675 in order to enable the user to track objects manually through the positioning device.
Regarding claims 27 and 40, Lamb discloses that the positioning device comprises a positioning device memory (see Lamb Fig. 2, item 210), but does not specifically disclose that the positioning device processor is configured to store historical information about one or more past aim points and adjust the determined aim point based on the historical information stored in positioning device memory.
As discussed with respect to claim 21, above, while ‘675 and Lamb do not specifically disclose that the positioning device processor does the calculations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that either processor, or both, could provide the necessary calculation, as there are only two processors with which to calculate the value, and redundant processing may be desirable in case of malfunction or communication error.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,675 in view of Lamb, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lablans (Pub. No. US 2017/0323458 A1; hereafter Lablans).
Regarding claim 24, ‘675 as modified discloses the mounting system of claim 21, but does not disclose that the one or more positioning device spatial sensors comprise a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device.
Lablans discloses that gyroscopes, compasses, and MEMS devices are all well-known equivalents useful for the same purpose (see Lablans paragraph [0261] “Camera 5402 that is part of a computing/communication device that can determine a pose and coordinates (orientation at a location) with devices like MEMS, gyroscopes, accelerometers, digital compass,”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the gyroscope of Lamb with a MEMS device as a simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 16/203,957 and 17/717,330, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 26, 27, 37, and 40.
Claims 26, 27, 37, and 40 each recite that the “processor is configured to store historical information about one or more past aim points and adjust the determined aim point based on the historical information stored in positioning device memory.” Such a feature is not adequately disclosed in the prior-filed applications.
The specifications of the previously filed applications are identical to the specification of the instant application, and the entirety of the discussion of historical information is found in paragraphs [0021] and [0024], which recite, in their entirety, the following (with emphasis added):
[0021] Some embodiments provide that the processor 120 of the camera mount 105 and/or the processor 160 of the positioning system 110 can compare the information received from the sensor 140 and/or sensor 210 and the information provided by the positioning device 110. Based on the comparison and possibly recent historical information stored in the camera mount 105, the processor 102 and/or processor 160 can select and/or weight information received from the sensor 140 over information received from the positioning device 110, or vice versa. Some embodiments provide that, based on the comparison, the camera mount 105 can adjust or refine the position of the camera platform so that the camera platform more precisely or accurately tracks or follows the target 230.
[0024] Some embodiments provide that the processor 120 of the camera mount 105 and/or the processor 160 of the positioning system 110 can store, in memory 130 and/or memory 170, information received visually via its sensor 140 and digital compass-based information and/or gyroscope-based information from the positioning device 110 from various target locations. The historical information (e.g., recent historical information) can be used to smooth out (e.g., statistically smooth out, algorithmically smooth out, etc.) information being received, for example, from an unsteady hand wielding the positioning device 110. The historical information can also provide a basis from which other target locations can be relatively located.
The specifications do not recite that the historical information is about one or more past aim points or that the determined aim point is adjusted based on the historical information stored in positioning device memory as recited in the claims.
From the simplest reading of the specification, the information “is information received visually via its sensor 140 and digital compass-based information and/or gyroscope-based information” as stated in paragraph [0024] and is not “historical information about one or more past aim points.”
Because the disclosure of paragraph [0021], which broadly states that “possibly recent historical information stored in the camera mount 105, the processor 102 and/or processor 160” reasonably includes “historical information about one or more past aim points,” and because the claims are part of the original disclosure of the instant application, claims 26, 27, 37, and 40 do not have 112(a) support issues for enablement or written description in the instant application. However, with respect to the previous applications, because the specification does not unambiguously recite that the information is historical information about one or more past aim points, the claim limitations do not have proper written description support to provide priority of the limitations to applications 16/203,957 and 17/717,330.
Since the effective filing date of claims 26, 27, 37, and 40 is 6/10/2024, the parent applications and their publications are valid prior art against the child for all that they disclose.
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) 26, 27, 37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peel et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0163038 A1; hereafter Peel) in view of Lamb.
Regarding claims 26, 27, 37, and 40, Peel discloses all of the subject matter of claims 21, 35, and 38 since they have identical specifications, however, Peel does not specifically recite that the camera/positioning device processor is configured to store historical information about one or more past aim points and adjust the determined aim point based on the historical information stored in positioning device memory.
Lamb discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize historical information about one or more past aim points and adjust the determined aim point based on the historical information stored in positioning device memory (see Lamb Fig. 7, item 702 and paragraph [0049] “module 702 retrieved first new stored sensor data and a previously computed target position (Xp, Yp) from the storage device 310, and module 704 computes a predicted position (Xi, Yi) as a function of these values.” The “previously computed target position” is equivalent to the historical information about past aim points.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use historical position data, as taught by Lamb, in order to help adjust the predicted next aim point to increase accuracy of the target tracking.
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 3/2/2026