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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2026 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:
capture device (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. cameras, microphones, sensors, or other such devices capable of acquiring, capturing, and/or transmitting content (page 10)
fine tuning assembly (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. sights (page 6)
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the feature of the site” (bold added for emphasis) in lines 5-6, whereas this had been previously expressed as a “feature at the site”. Claim 6 should be amended to change “of” to --at-- for consistency.
Claim 9 similarly recites “the feature of the site” in line 4 and should be amended accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 5-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “the interior space” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the “ interior portion” and “interior space” will be interpreted as referring to the same element.
Claim 1 recites “the device” in line 10 (two instances). It is not necessarily clear what device this is referring to. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the capture device--.
Claim 5 recites “removing the housing” in step b. and subsequently “replacing the housing” in step d. It is noted that the amendments to claim 1 no longer positively recite the housing, i.e. “the housing base is operably coupleable to a housing”, indicating it is capable of being coupled to a housing and not necessarily actually coupled to one. In view of this, steps b. and c. become indefinite in that it is unclear what housing is being removed and replaced, and what it is being removed from or replaced on.
Claim 5 recites “a feature at the site” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this is refers to the same feature as recited in claim 1 or a different one. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the feature at the site--.
Claim 6 recites “one or more visual sights” in line 5. It is unclear if this is refers to the same one or more visual sights as in line 2 or different ones. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the one or more visual sights--.
Claim 9 recites “a feature at the site” in line 2. It is unclear if this is refers to the same feature as recited in claim 1 or a different one. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the feature at the site--.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaver (U.S. Patent 4,216,589) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and alternatively further in view of Scheich (U.S. PGPub 2022/0066294).
Claim 1: Beaver discloses a method of fine tuning a capture device (a camera C) comprising: b. installing a fine tuning assembly (a sighting device V) by statically affixing said fine tuning assembly a housing base (e.g. case B - column 4, lines 11-18), wherein the housing base is operably coupleable (i.e. able to be coupled) to a housing (the base could be coupled to any hypothetical housing) that partially encloses the capture device (the hypothetical housing could be designed to enclose the camera C among other elements), the housing defining an interior portion, and wherein the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing without disruption of operation of the [capture] device when a cover is installed to enclose the device (e.g. said hypothetical housing could be sized to meet the above limitations, noting that the cover is also non-positively recited); c. installing said capture device with said installed fine tuning assembly at a site (setting the camera and sights, inherently at some site - column 4, lines 24-25); and d. adjusting at least one of a horizontal, vertical, or rotational orientation of the capture device by aligning the fine tuning assembly with a feature at the site (column 4, lines 23-36; Figs 10-11).
Beaver does not explicitly disclose a. completing one or more initial steps during assembly of the capture device in a factory setting. However, Applicant admits (see inadequately traversed Official Notice from the 6/6/2025 rejection and MPEP 2144,03 C.) that most products, including cameras and accessories, are commonly manufactured (e.g. assembled in various steps) in factory settings. Alternatively, Applicant admits that completing one or more initial steps during assembly of a capture device in a factory setting is “well known” or “typical” (see instant specification at page 1, lines 9-11; lines 17-21; page 2, lines 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have completed one or more initial steps during assembly of the device in a factory setting for the purpose of mass manufacture for commercial sale as is exceedingly common.
Alternatively, interpreting the housing as being positively recited (e.g. “operatively coupled to a housing…”) Beaver does not have such a housing. However, Scheich teaches installing a camera assembly (38) inside of a larger housing (44) that partially encloses the capture device (camera), the housing defining an interior portion (evident in Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented such a housing around the Beaver assembly since it would allow for adjustment and replacement of the camera without needing to re-aim, for example (e.g. paragraph 53). Given the relatively large interior volume of the housing relative to the camera, the examiner submits that the fine tuning assembly would have an overall size that would fit within the interior space of the housing without disruption of operation of the [capture] device when a cover (e.g. 32 or 46 of Scheich) is installed to enclose the device.
Claim 2: As further evidenced by AAPA above, the one or more initial steps comprises one or more of: a. assembling; b. aiming; c. wiring; or d. commissioning.
Claim 6: The capture device of Beaver has a device aiming axis (shown by a dotted line in Figs. 10-11) and the fine tuning assembly has one or more visual sights defining a sight aiming axis (windows W, W2 - column 3, lines 10-18) , the fine tuning assembly is affixed to the housing of the capture device (at least via the capture device/base as discussed for claim 1) so that the sight aiming axis is in a known correlation to the device aiming axis (the camera and sights are “aligned”), and the aligning comprises visual alignment of one or more visual sights of the fine tuning assembly with the feature of the site (column 4, lines 23-26).
Claim 7: Each of the one or more visual sights comprises one of an aperture or a notch (windows as apertures).
Claim 8: The feature of the site comprises a fixed location (e.g. a location of a person or human figure standing as in Figs. 10-11) at a venue or site.
Claim 9: The aligning of the one or more visual sights of the fine tuning assembly with [the] feature at the site comprises an installer (“the person aiming and setting the camera” as cited above) looking with an eye (implicitly by sighting) through the one or more visual sights (windows), and focusing on the one or more visual sights (windows and/or the marks thereon - column 3, lines 33-40) and the feature (person/human figure) of the site, all at different distances (the windows and the target are at different distances), and aligning all planes of focus (vertically and horizontally adjusting to align the field of view).
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lammens (U.S. Patent U.S. Patent 8,152,389, previously cited) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and either Nakamura (U.S. Patent 6,431,768) or Ruben (U.S. Patent 5,335,033, previously cited but not relied upon).
Claim 1: Lammens discloses a method of fine tuning a capture device (camera 51) comprising: c. installing said capture device at a site (e.g. at a sporting event site - column 8, lines 2-12); and d. adjusting at least one of a horizontal, vertical, or rotational orientation of the capture device by aligning it with a feature (260) at the site (column 11, line 56-column 12, line 3; column 13, line 56-column 14, line 4).
Lammens does not explicitly disclose a. completing one or more initial steps during assembly of the capture device in a factory setting. However, Applicant admits (see inadequately traversed Official Notice from the 6/6/2025 rejection and MPEP 2144,03 C.) that most products, including cameras and accessories, are commonly manufactured (e.g. assembled in various steps) in factory settings. Alternatively, Applicant admits that completing one or more initial steps during assembly of a capture device in a factory setting is “well known” or “typical” (see instant specification at page 1, lines 9-11; lines 17-21; page 2, lines 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have completed one or more initial steps during assembly of the device in a factory setting for the purpose of mass manufacture for commercial sale as is exceedingly common.
Lammens does not disclose installing a fine tuning assembly by statically affixing said fine tuning assembly to a housing base, wherein the housing base is operably coupleable to a housing that partially encloses the capture device, the housing defining an interior portion, and wherein the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing without disruption of operation of the device when a cover is installed to enclose the device; and adjusting the capture device by aligning the fine tuning assembly with the feature. However, Nakamura teaches installing a fine tuning assembly (e.g. viewfinder window 2a) by statically affixing said fine tuning assembly to a housing base (2), wherein the housing base is operably coupleable (i.e. able to be coupled) to a housing that partially encloses the capture device (the base could be coupled to any hypothetical housing), the housing defining an interior portion, and wherein the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing without disruption of operation of the [capture] device when a cover is installed to enclose the device (e.g. said hypothetical housing could be sized to meet the above limitations, noting that the cover is also non-positively recited); and adjusting the capture device by aligning the fine tuning assembly with the feature (an object - column 4, line 64 - column 5, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed a fine tuning assembly as taught by Nakamura on the device of Lammens, in order to have aided the alignment of the camera with the target object, and to have at least partially obviated the guess-and-check methodology as described by Lammens (column 13, lines 56-66).
Alternatively to Nakamura, and interpreting the housing as being positively recited (e.g. “operatively coupled to a housing…”), Ruben discloses installing a fine tuning assembly (various embodiments of a viewfinder, e.g. 14, 61, 70, 80, 100, 120) by statically affixing said fine tuning assembly to a housing base (e.g. walls 28, 30, 32, 34 or similar supporting structure of the other embodiments), wherein the housing base is operably coupled to a housing (generally camera body 10, 72, etc.) that partially encloses the capture device (i.e. the camera components implicitly within the body), the housing defining an interior portion (implied), and wherein the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing (e.g. in the corner thereof or “elsewhere inside” as - column 3, lines 12-14) without disruption of operation of the [capture] device when a cover is installed to enclose the device (the function of the capture device is implicitly undisrupted with the presence of the integrated viewfinder, even if a cover were installed); and adjusting the capture device by aligning the fine tuning assembly with the feature (e.g. column 5, lines 6-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed a fine tuning assembly as taught by Ruben on the device of Lammens, in order to have aided the alignment of the camera with the target object, and to have at least partially obviated the guess-and-check methodology as described by Lammens (column 13, lines 56-66).
Claim 2: As further evidenced by AAPA above, the one or more initial steps comprises one or more of: a. assembling; b. aiming; c. wiring; or d. commissioning.
Claim 6: The capture device of Lammens has a device aiming axis (255) and the fine tuning assembly has one or more visual sights (various aperture-like sights of Ruben) defining a sight aiming axis (axis as shown in Figs. 2 and 5 of Ruben), the fine tuning assembly is affixed to the housing of the capture device (as discussed for Ruben above) so that the sight aiming axis is in a known correlation to the device aiming axis (as is evident from the sight arrangement of Ruben), and the aligning comprises visual alignment of one or more visual sights of the fine tuning assembly with the feature of the site (as cited above in Ruben).
Claim 7: Each of the one or more visual sights comprises one of an aperture or a notch (various aperture designs in Ruben).
Claim 8: The feature of the site comprises a fixed location at a venue or site (an object in space or a scene - Ruben, column 3, lines 15-17).
Claim 9: The aligning of the one or more visual sights of the fine tuning assembly with a feature at the site comprises an installer (photographer) looking with an eye (Ruben, eye 20) through the one or more visual sights (e.g. Fig. 2), and focusing on the one or more visual sights and the feature (e.g. “object”) of the site, all at different distances (the sights and the target are at different distances), and aligning all planes of focus (implied by looking at the object through the sights).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Under any of the interpretations above, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the method of claim 1, including the housing a described therein, and further including the steps of claim 5. For example, the housing as taught by Scheich is not used such that the capture device with the installed fine tuning assembly is transported to the site, the housing is removed and the capture device with the installed fine tuning assembly is installed on a pole or elevating structure at the site, the fine tuning assembly is adjusted/aimed, and the housing replaced. The camera is installed in the housing prior to its installation and aiming.
Regarding Nakamura, if interpreting the housing as positively recited, this base 2 would not be coupled to a housing (e.g. 1) defining an interior portion, wherein the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Ruben, even though the fine tuning assembly is “statically affixed” to a base coupled to a housing where the fine tuning assembly has an overall size that fits within the interior space of the housing without disruption of operation of the device as required by claim 1, the housing would not be removed and replaced as required by claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant essentially relies on the amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art of record. However, the amended claims have been addressed in various new interpretations and grounds of rejection.
With regard to the term “statically” as recited in claim 1, it is noted that this term is not used in the disclosure. According to page 6, lines 18-19 of the instant specification, “[a] number of apertures 115/116/117 are included in body 114 so to secure fine tuning apparatus 110 in situ (e.g., when fastening devices are used)”. The specific level of immobility not discussed. The examiner will interpret “statically affixed” as being attached in a manner that is not intentionally or substantially mobile or adjustable, as with hinges or other flexible connections.
As noted in the above rejection, the limitation “coupleable to a housing” in claim 1 does not serve to positively require the housing, but rather indicate the ability of the housing base to be coupled to such a housing. The examiner has applied different interpretations to the claim in the above rejections to address both the claim as literally written as well as the likely intent of the claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726