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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the first kinematic connection coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face about three degrees of freedom and the second kinematic element coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face about two degrees of freedom (claims 2, 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, fig. 12E shows a first kinematic connection 650C and a second kinematic connection 650B. The kinematic connection 650C removes three DOF and the kinematic connection 650B removes two DOF. Claims 2 and 20 state that the kinematic connections couple about three DOF and two DOF respectively. This seems to be the opposite of what the specification describes.
In addition, the fixed continuous faces formed by attaching the first and second polygonal faces (claims 16, 18, 19) which are also coupled at the first and second edge according to claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the only fixed continuous faces described are faces which are NOT connected by a kinematic element. Figs. 13A, 13B, 13C describe a single structure (crown) that includes multiple polygonal faces which are “continuous”. The continuous portions are all part of one integral structure and do not involve any kinematic element. Therefore, these figures do not show what is claimed in claim 18.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: force mechanism (claims 1, 9), holding mechanism (claim 16).
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.
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.
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 1, 10-11, 16, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 1 except for the force mechanism. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by the fig. 3 embodiment of Wallace.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment discloses a force mechanism (Magnetic contact; [0040]) associated with the kinematic connections (352, 354; figs. 3A-3C) to provide nesting forces.
Claim 1 of ‘948 teaches using kinematic elements to couple two polygonal faces. Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment teaches using kinematic elements along with a force mechanism to couple two polygonal faces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve claim 1 of ‘948 by applying the technique of providing a force mechanism (magnetism) between the kinematic coupling elements to achieve the predictable result of keeping the two faces in position with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the shape formed by the first face and second face. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Wallace.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallace discloses wherein the first face and the second face form part of a periphery shaped as a polyhedron, a sphere, a cone, an annulus, a hemisphere or a partial hemisphere (fig. 1A).
Claim 1 of ‘948 teaches a space frame with polygonal faces connected to each other. Wallace teaches a space frame with polygonal faces connected to each other wherein the faces form a polyhedron. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve claim 1 of ‘948 by applying the technique of Wallace to achieve the predictable result of generating wider view image of a scene.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 1 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, it recites similar limitations to claim 1 (holding mechanism is switched for force mechanism). In addition, Applicant has seemed to redefine the term “continuous” to include “interrupted” or “discontinuous” faces (see 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the claimed polygonal faces of claim 1 of ‘948 would form a “fixed continuous face” using this definition.
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, claim 1 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 18. Specifically, as explained above (see claim 16) Applicant has redefined “continuous” and therefore first and second polygonal faces form a continuous face using this definition. In addition, claim 1 of ‘948 states that the edges are coupled together using kinematic elements which reads on “solidly attached”.
Claims 2, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 4 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, claim 1 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 19. Specifically, as explained above (see claim 16) Applicant has redefined “continuous” and therefore first and second polygonal faces form a continuous face using this definition. As multiple kinematic elements are used in claim 4 of ‘948, it can be said that the kinematic elements “can vary” as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, claim 4 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 20.
Claims 4, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 7 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, claim 7 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 21.
Claims 6, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 9 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 9 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 9. Specifically, claim 9 of ‘948 teaches that magnets or springs provide holding forces. Therefore, it is inherent if magnets are springs are providing holding forces that the magnets or springs would restore the kinematic connection to a nominal initial position when the frame is subjected to internal or external dynamic influences.
Claims 8, 12, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 3 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 3 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, claim 3 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 17.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 12 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 14.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,948 in view of Wallace (US 2017/005966 A1).
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of ‘948 and Wallace, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claim 6 of ‘948 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 15.
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 16-21 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.
Regarding claim 16, it recites “…the first edge of the plurality of first edges is attached to another a second edge of the plurality of second edges to form an arrangement of fixed continuous faces…”. This seems to suggest that attaching the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face results in a fixed continuous face. However, according to the specification, this is not the case. Specifically, claim 16 states that the first polygonal face is attached to the second polygonal face by kinematic elements. There is no embodiment in the specification describing two separate polygonal faces which are attached by kinematic elements that form a continuous face. For example, in fig. 13A, the top part 720 which is a single integral structure has continuous faces. However, there is a clear gap between the top part 720 and the rest of the structure which is connected to the top part 720 via kinematic elements 650.
Therefore, it seems that Applicant has redefined what “continuous” means. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “continuous” in claim 18 is used by the claim to mean “interrupted,” while the accepted meaning is “uninterrupted.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Because of the ambiguity around the term “continuous” it is also unclear if the formed arrangement of fixed continuous faces is a result of the first polygonal face and the second polygonal face being connected to each other or is just referring to the first polygonal face by itself.
Regarding claim 18, it recites similar limitations to claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations to claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 16). Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation "all the polygonal faces within the first periphery". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, there has only been one polygonal face mentioned prior to this limitation. Therefore, it is unclear what “all the polygonal faces” is referring to.
Regarding claims 17, 20, 21, they depend from claim 16 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 16).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-10, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2017/0059966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses
A kinematic space frame device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a first face (502; fig. 5) having a plurality of first edges defining a first polygonal periphery;
a second face (504; fig. 5) having a plurality of second edges defining a second polygonal periphery,
a kinematic connection (508, 510; fig. 5) connecting a first edge of the plurality of first edges to a second edge of the plurality of second edges, the kinematic connection supporting at least one degree of freedom between the first edge and the second edge ([0047]); and
.
However, the fig. 5 embodiment of Wallace, fails to explicitly disclose the force mechanism. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by the fig. 3 embodiment of Wallace.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment discloses a force mechanism (Magnetic contact; [0040]) associated with the kinematic connections (352, 354; figs. 3A-3C) to provide nesting forces.
Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment teaches using a ball and socket as the camera retaining elements. Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment teaches using two cylinders as the camera retaining elements. The fig. 3 embodiment provides a nesting force by magnetism between the two cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment by applying the technique of providing magnetism between the movable coupling members to achieve the predictable result of keeping the two faces in position with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 6, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the force mechanism comprises one or more of magnets (Magnetic contact; [0040]; 352, 354; figs. 3A-3C), springs, elastics, and/or adhesives.
Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment teaches using a ball and socket as the camera retaining elements. Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment teaches using two cylinders as the camera retaining elements. The fig. 3 embodiment provides a nesting force by magnetism between the two cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment by applying the technique of providing magnetism between the movable coupling members to achieve the predictable result of keeping the two faces in position with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 8, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, further comprising additional polygonal faces (506; fig. 5) coupled to at least one of the first polygonal face or the second polygonal face, the first polygonal faces, the second polygonal face, and the additional polygonal faces forming a rigid kinematic space frame (figs. 2, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the force mechanism restores the kinematic connection to a nominal initial position when the space frame is subjected to internal or external dynamic influences (The force mechanism is a magnetic mechanism which by definition would restore the connection to a nominal position when pulled apart; [0040], [0042]).
Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment teaches using a ball and socket as the camera retaining elements. Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment teaches using two cylinders as the camera retaining elements. The fig. 3 embodiment provides a nesting force by magnetism between the two cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment by applying the technique of providing magnetism between the movable coupling members to achieve the predictable result of keeping the two faces in position with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 10, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the first face and the second face form part of a periphery shaped as a polyhedron, a sphere, a cone, an annulus, a hemisphere or a partial hemisphere (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 16, Wallace discloses
A space frame comprising:
a first polygonal face (502; fig. 5) having a plurality of first edges defining a first periphery,
a second polygonal face (504; fig. 5) having a plurality of second edges defining a second periphery, wherein a first edge of the plurality of first edges is attached to another a second edge of the plurality of second edges to form an arrangement of fixed continuous faces (Applicant has seemed to redefine the term “continuous” to include “interrupted” or “discontinuous” faces (see 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the faces shown in figs. 1A, 2, and 5 read on “fixed continuous faces”.), defining a frame periphery (Figs. 1A, 2, 5),
a kinematic element (508, 510; fig. 5) coupling the first edge to the second edge; and
.
However, the fig. 5 embodiment of Wallace, fails to explicitly disclose the holding mechanism. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by the fig. 3 embodiment of Wallace.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment discloses a holding mechanism (Magnetic contact; [0040]) associated with the kinematic connection (352, 354; figs. 3A-3C) to provide a nesting force.
Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment teaches using a ball and socket as the camera retaining elements. Wallace’s fig. 3 embodiment teaches using two cylinders as the camera retaining elements. The fig. 3 embodiment provides a nesting force by magnetism between the two cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace’s fig. 5 embodiment by applying the technique of providing magnetism between the movable coupling members to achieve the predictable result of keeping the two faces in position with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 17, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, Wallace discloses, further comprising:
additional polygonal faces (figs. 1A, 2) coupled to at least one of the first polygonal face or the second polygonal face, the addition polygonal faces further defining the frame periphery.
Regarding claim 18, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the first polygonal face has at least one edge solidly attached to at least a second polygonal face (The edge of 502 is connected to the edge of 504 via a ball and socket; fig. 5), forming an arrangement of fixed continuous faces (Applicant has seemed to redefine the term “continuous” to include “interrupted” or “discontinuous” faces (see 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the faces shown in figs. 1A, 2, and 5 read on “fixed continuous faces”.) that provides a frame within the first periphery.
Regarding claim 19, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein all the polygonal faces (The poloygonal faces can include: the large face which is substantially parallel to the page in fig. 5 and a depth face which is substantially perpendicular to the page in fig. 5) within the first periphery are fixed continuous faces that define a frame periphery, and the frame peripheries of the respective first and second peripheries are attached to each other using an arrangement of kinematic elements (Ball and socket; fig. 5; The fig. 3 embodiment may also be used which includes cylinders 352, 354.) and holding mechanisms (Magnets; [0040], [0043]) that can vary amongst the kinematically coupled faces of the first and second peripheries (fig. 5).
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Bai (US 2019/0223597 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the kinematic connection comprises a first kinematic element (508, 510; fig. 5) coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face about three degrees of freedom ([0047]-[0048]; fig. 5) .
However, Wallace, fails to explicitly disclose the second kinematic element coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Bai.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bai discloses a second kinematic element (1010, 1020; fig.1) coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face ([0072]).
Wallace teaches using just one spherical kinematic element per side of each polygonal face. Bai teaches using multiple spherical kinematic elements per side of each polygonal face. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace by applying the technique of providing an additional ball and socket joint per edge of each polygonal face to achieve the predictable result of a more secure shape of the frame when connected. As another of the ball and socket joints of Wallace will be provided, the result would be two ball and socket joints capable of three degrees of freedom per side of each polygonal face. A joint having three degrees of freedom inherently has two degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 20, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the kinematic connection comprises a first kinematic element (508, 510; fig. 5) ([0047]-[0048]; fig. 5) .
However, Wallace, fails to explicitly disclose the second kinematic element coupling the first polygonal face to the second polygonal face. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Bai.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bai discloses the second kinematic element (1010, 1020; fig.1) fixes the second polygonal face to the first polygonal face ([0072]).
Wallace teaches using just one spherical kinematic element per side of each polygonal face. Bai teaches using multiple spherical kinematic elements per side of each polygonal face. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Wallace by applying the technique of providing an additional ball and socket joint per edge of each polygonal face to achieve the predictable result of a more secure shape of the frame when connected. As another of the ball and socket joints of Wallace will be provided, the result would be two ball and socket joints capable of three degrees of freedom per side of each polygonal face. A joint having three degrees of freedom inherently has two degrees of freedom.
Claim(s) 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 4, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the kinematic connection comprises a first portion (510; fig. 5) secured to the first polygonal face (502; [0048]) and a second portion (508; fig. 5) secured to the second polygonal face (504; [0048]), the first portion comprising a ball and the second portion comprising [a socket] contacted by the ball.
However, Wallace fails to explicitly disclose that the second portion comprises a flat, a vee-groove, or a trihedral socket. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Wallace teaches a ball and socket connection. Ball and flats are well-known connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the socket with a flat to achieve the predictable result of limiting an unwanted range of movement.
Regarding claim 21, Wallace discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 16), in addition, Wallace discloses, wherein the kinematic connection comprises a first portion (510; fig. 5) secured to the first polygonal face (502; [0048]) and a second portion (508; fig. 5) secured to the second polygonal face (504; [0048]), the first portion comprising a ball and the second portion comprising [a socket] contacted by the ball.
However, Wallace fails to explicitly disclose that the second portion comprises a flat, a vee-groove, or a trihedral socket. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Wallace teaches a ball and socket connection. Ball and flats are well-known connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the socket with a flat to achieve the predictable result of limiting an unwanted range of movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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 and the double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to disclose the first and second cameras coupled to the first and second faces respectively so that lens sides of their respective lenses contact each other.
Regarding claims 12-15, they depend from claim 11 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights