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 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections made in view of Chen (Pub. No. US 2014/0262854 A1; hereafter Chen), Applicant merely states that Chen does not disclose the limitations “wherein, when in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface, the second segment is configured to rest on the surface, and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle” without any evidence or argument as to why the disclosure of Chen fails to meet the claimed limitations. Applicant’s mere allegation of patentability is not persuasive, and the rejections made in view of Chen are therefore maintained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiencies of Chen, addressed above, and therefore are similarly unpersuasive. The 103 rejections are therefore similarly maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
As noted in the previous Office Action dated February 2, 2026, Applicant has submitted the SEC Annual Report Form 10-K for Credit Acceptance Corp. for the calendar year 2012. The document is 102 pages long and does not have any clear direct tie to Applicant or Applicant’s invention. Pursuant to MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Examiner renews their request that a brief explanation of why this form was submitted (and not, for example, other years’ forms).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, 8, 15, 16, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0262854 A1; hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a camera case comprising: a support stand comprising a first segment (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 127) and a second segment (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 126), wherein the first segment and the second segment are hingedly coupled (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 128); a housing coupled to a first surface of the first segment (see Chen Fig. 1F, items 127 and 135, which are hingedly connected at 131), wherein the housing is configured to hold a camera (see Chen paragraph [0027] “covering the entire mobile device 130 except for the screen side and providing cutout portions to allow for access to certain portions of the mobile device 130 (e.g., a camera lens”); and wherein the support stand is moveable from a closed position to an open position by rotating the first segment relative to the second segment, wherein the rotating is from a first position to a second position (see Chen Figs. 1D-1 and 1E-1, items 126 and 127), wherein, when in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface, the second segment is configured to rest on the surface (see Chen Fig. 1B, which shows the second segment 126 resting on the surface. See also paragraph [0028 “the mobile device 130 is placed in a "portrait-style" orientation, advantageously providing a viewing angle of approximately 60 degrees (e.g., between about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees).” 70 degrees from the surface is 20 degrees from the normal. Given that the claim recites “about 20° to about 22.5°” (emphasis added) and there is no allegation of criticality with the claimed range, Examiner concludes that Chen provides “sufficient specificity” to anticipate the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(II)), and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle (what the camera captures an image of is intended use of the camera, and therefore does not affect any of the structure of the camera case. Apparatus claims are “cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2114(II)). Since the object the camera takes a picture of does not imply any structure, the claim limitations are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Chen Fig. 1A, item 130).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the rotating is from a first position to a second position and the first position is at about 90° away from the line normal to the surface (see Chen Fig. 1E-1, which discloses that the device is flat in the closed position, and therefore can lie flat on the surface, which is perpendicular to the normal direction of the surface).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the camera case of claim 1, what the camera captures an image of is intended use of the camera, and therefore does not affect any of the structure of the camera case. Apparatus claims are “cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2114(II)). Since the object the camera takes a picture of does not imply any structure, the claim limitations are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a method of constructing a camera case comprising: hingedly coupling a first segment of a support stand to a second segment of the support stand (see Chen Fig. 1B, items 126-128), wherein the first segment is configured to rotate relative to the second segment to move between a closed position of the support stand and an open position of the support stand (see Chen Figs. 1D-1 and 1E-1, items 126 and 127), wherein when the support stand is in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface and the second segment rests on the surface (see Chen Fig. 1B items 126 and 127 and arguments made with respect to claim 1, above) and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle (see MPEP 2114(II), arguments regarding intended use made with respect to claim 1, above); and coupling a housing to a first surface of the first segment (see Chen Fig. 1F, items 127 and 135, which are hingedly connected at 131), wherein the housing is configured to hold a camera (see Chen Fig. 1A, items 100 and 130).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Chen Fig. 1A, items 100 and 130).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, P1 discloses the camera case of claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein, when in the closed position, the first segment and the second segment are about 90° away from a line normal to the surface and are about parallel to each other (see P1 Fig. 1E-2, items 126 and 127 are parallel to each other in the closed position, and the device can be placed flat on the surface such that the segments are perpendicular to the line normal to the surface.).
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) 9, 10, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Carolus et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0322546 A1; hereafter Carolus).
Regarding claims 9, 13, and 14, Chen discloses a method for using a camera case comprising: moving a support stand from a closed position to an open position (see Chen Figs. 1E-1 and 1D-1), wherein the support stand comprises: a first segment hingedly coupled to a second segment, wherein the first segment is configured to move relative to the second segment to achieve the open position from the closed position, and wherein, when the support stand is in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface and the second segment rests on the surface (see Chen Fig. 1B items 126 and 127 and arguments made with respect to claim 1, above); placing a camera into a housing (see Chen Fig. 1A, item 130), wherein the housing is coupled to a first surface of the first segment (see Chen Fig. 1F, items 127 and 135, which are hingedly connected at 131).
Chen does not disclose that and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle; capturing the perspective view of an object the vehicle via the camera.
Carolus discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a mobile electronic device to capture images of the undercarriage of a vehicle (see Carolus Figs. 3 and 6, item 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the camera device of Chen to capture images of the underside of a car in order to aid the assessment of the car for buying or selling, especially to remote buyers/sellers, as taught by Carolus (see Carolus paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Chen Fig. 1A,item 130).
Regarding claim 26, P1 as modified discloses the camera case of claim 15, wherein, when in the closed position, the first segment and the second segment are about 90° away from a line normal to the surface and are about parallel to each other (see P1 Fig. 1E-2, items 126 and 127 are parallel to each other in the closed position, and the device can be placed flat on the surface such that the segments are perpendicular to the line normal to the surface.).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, and 15-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran (Pub. No. US 2013/0048514 A1; hereafter Corcoran) in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Corcoran discloses a device case comprising: a support stand comprising a first segment (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 320) and a second segment (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 303), wherein the first segment and the second segment are hingedly coupled (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 332); a housing coupled to a first surface of the first segment (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 320 and 321), wherein the housing is configured to hold a camera (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 315 and paragraph [0042] “a rear panel of a universal case may include one or more holes to accommodate ports, flashes, and/or cameras on a PED”); and wherein the support stand is moveable from a closed position to an open position by rotating the first segment relative to the second segment, wherein the rotating is from a first position to a second position (see Corcoran Figs. 3B and 3D, items 320 and 303), and wherein, when in the open position, the second segment is configured to rest on the surface (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 303), and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle (see MPEP 2114(II), arguments regarding intended use made with respect to claim 1, above).
Corcoran does not disclose that the second position is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface.
Chen discloses a housing for a device wherein the second position is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 126. See also paragraph [0028 “the mobile device 130 is placed in a "portrait-style" orientation, advantageously providing a viewing angle of approximately 60 degrees (e.g., between about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees).” 70 degrees from the surface is 20 degrees from the normal.).
Corcoran discloses placing multiple settable positions of the device through rotation of the first element and second element with respect to each other (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 335-337). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide additional rest positions around the desired angle taught by Chen (i.e. 50-70 degrees), including ones around 50, 60, and 70 degrees, in order to enable the user to select the most desirable and comfortable angle out of the disclosed range. It further would have been obvious to provide the mobile device of Corcoran with a camera to enable the user to take pictures or utilize video call technology.
Regarding claim 2, Corcoran as modified by Chen discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 315).
Regarding claim 3, Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the first segment further comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the second end terminates in a concave flange configured to securely brace the housing (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 332. When in the closed position, the bottom of housing 321 is secured by the curved portion of 322, which can be construed as part of the second end of the first portion).
Regarding claim 5, Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the first position is at about 90° away from the line normal to the surface (see Corcoran Fig. 3D, which discloses that the device is flat, and therefore can lie flat on the surface, which is perpendicular to the normal direction of the surface).
Regarding claim 8, Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claim 1, what the camera captures an image of is intended use of the camera, and therefore does not affect any of the structure of the camera case. Apparatus claims are “cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2114(II)). Since the object the camera takes a picture of does not imply any structure, the claim limitations are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 15, Corcoran discloses a method of constructing a camera case comprising: hingedly coupling a first segment of a support stand to a second segment of the support stand (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 320 and 303), wherein the first segment is configured to rotate relative to the second segment to move between a closed position of the support stand and an open position of the support stand (see Corcoran Figs. 3B and 3D, items 320 and 303); and coupling a housing to a first surface of the first segment (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 320 and 321), wherein the housing is configured to hold a camera (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 321 and 315); and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle (see MPEP 2114(II), arguments regarding intended use made with respect to claim 1, above).
Corcoran does not disclose that wherein when the support stand is in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface and the second segment rests on the surface.
Chen discloses a housing for a device wherein the second position is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 126. See also paragraph [0028 “the mobile device 130 is placed in a "portrait-style" orientation, advantageously providing a viewing angle of approximately 60 degrees (e.g., between about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees).” 70 degrees from the surface is 20 degrees from the normal.).
Corcoran discloses placing multiple settable positions of the device through rotation of the first element and second element with respect to each other (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 335-337). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide additional rest positions around the desired angle taught by Chen (i.e. 50-70 degrees), including ones around 50, 60, and 70 degrees, in order to enable the user to select the most desirable and comfortable angle out of the disclosed range. It further would have been obvious to provide the mobile device of Corcoran with a camera to enable the user to take pictures or utilize video call technology.
Regarding claim 16, Corcoran as modified the method of claim 15, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 315).
Regarding claim 17, Corcoran as modified discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first segment further comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the second end terminates in a concave flange configured to securely brace the housing , Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the first segment further comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the second end terminates in a concave flange configured to securely brace the housing (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 332. When in the closed position, the bottom of housing 321 is secured by the curved portion of 322, which can be construed as part of the second end of the first portion).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran in view of Chen and Carolus.
Regarding claim 9, Corcoran discloses a method for using a camera case comprising: moving a support stand from a closed position to an open position (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, while Corcoran does not explicitly show the device in the closed position with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 3, it would have been obvious to close the device as shown with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 1C in order to protect the camera device when not used), wherein the support stand comprises: a first segment hingedly coupled to a second segment, wherein the first segment is configured to move relative to the second segment to achieve the open position from the closed position (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 320 and 303); placing a camera into a housing (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 315), wherein the housing is coupled to a first surface of the first segment (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 320 and 321).
Corcoran does not disclose that when the support stand is in the open position, the first segment is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface and the second segment rests on the surface or capturing a perspective angle of an object via the camera.
Chen discloses a housing for a device wherein the second position is in a range of about 20° to about 22.5° away from a line normal to a surface (see Chen Fig. 1B, item 126. See also paragraph [0028 “the mobile device 130 is placed in a "portrait-style" orientation, advantageously providing a viewing angle of approximately 60 degrees (e.g., between about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees).” 70 degrees from the surface is 20 degrees from the normal.).
Corcoran discloses placing multiple settable positions of the device through rotation of the first element and second element with respect to each other (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, items 335-337). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide additional rest positions around the desired angle taught by Chen (i.e. 50-70 degrees), including ones around 50, 60, and 70 degrees, in order to enable the user to select the most desirable and comfortable angle out of the disclosed range. It further would have been obvious to provide the mobile device of Corcoran with a camera to enable the user to take pictures or utilize video call technology.
Corcoran in view of Chen does not disclose that and the first segment angles the housing and the camera at a vehicle to capture a perspective view of the vehicle; and capturing a perspective angle of an object via the camera.
Carolus discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a mobile electronic device to capture images of the undercarriage of a vehicle (see Carolus Figs. 3 and 6, item 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the camera device of Corcoran as modified to capture images of the underside of a car in order to aid the assessment of the car for buying or selling, especially to remote buyers/sellers, as taught by Carolus (see Carolus paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the camera comprises a mobile electronic device (see Chen Fig. 1A,item 130).
Regarding claim 11, Corcoran as modified discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first segment further comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the second end terminates in a concave flange configured to securely brace the housing , Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claim 1, wherein the first segment further comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the second end terminates in a concave flange configured to securely brace the housing (see Corcoran Fig. 3B, item 332. When in the closed position, the bottom of housing 321 is secured by the curved portion of 322, which can be construed as part of the second end of the first portion).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran in view of Chen as applied to claims 1 and 15, above, and further in view of Han (Pub. No. US 2011/0290687 A1; hereafter Han).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Corcoran as modified discloses the camera case of claims 1 and 15, respectively, but does not specifically disclose that the second segment further comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end terminates in a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position.
Corcoran discloses that the second end of the second segment comprises an engagement member for holding the device shut (see Corcoran Fig. 1C, item 112), but does not specifically disclose that the device is a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position.
Han discloses a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position (see Han Figs. 1 and 3, item 112).
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 Corcoran in view of Chen with a hook like that in Han in order to enable the device to securely hold itself in the closed position, as shown in Han.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran in view of Chen and Carolus as applied to claims 9, above, and further in view of Han.
Regarding claim 12, Corcoran in view of Chen and Carolus discloses the method of claim 9, but does not specifically disclose that the second segment further comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end terminates in a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position.
Corcoran discloses that the second end of the second segment comprises an engagement member for holding the device shut (see Corcoran Fig. 1C, item 112), but does not specifically disclose that the device is a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position.
Han discloses a hook configured to removably fasten to the first end of the first segment when the support stand is in the closed position (see Han Figs. 1 and 3, item 112).
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 Corcoran in view of Chen with a hook like that in Han in order to enable the device to securely hold itself in the closed position, as shown in Han.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23, and 25 are 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.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 9/24/2026
Prosecution Insights