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 .
Detailed Action
Objection to Title
The term "View Camera" in the title is misdescriptive, inaccurate or unclear (MPEP 1503.01.I). The title must be directed to an article of manufacture in which the claimed design is embodied or to which it is applied. 35 USC 171, and should be a name generally known and used by the public. Therefore, it is suggested the title should be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted, to read:
-- Adapter for View Camera--
Objection to the Claim Statement
The claim statement is being objected to buy the examiner for improper format. The applicant neglects to include the title of the claimed design. For proper form (37 CFR 1.153), the claim statement should be amended to read:
--"Claim: The ornamental design for Adapter for View Camera as shown and described.”--
Objection to Drawings
The drawings are objected to for inconsistency. In FIG 1.3 there is a stacked feature shown on the larger circle frame that does not appear in the view of FIG 1.1 even though it is suggested this feature may be seen in the front view. To overcome this objection the drawings must be disclosed consistently. The applicant is directed to the annotated image below.
FIG 1.1 FIG 1.3
PNG
media_image1.png
718
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Refusal - 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraphs (a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
The accordion like bellow elements shown in FIGS 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 cannot be fully understood. The accordion bellow feature shown in extends out past the top and bottom circular frame feature. But in FIG 1.1, 1.2 the accordion bellow feature is not visible. Because this feature is not consistently disclosed the size and positioning of the accordion billow is unclear. Therefore, the accordion bellow is
considered indefinite and nonenabling. To overcome this refusal, it is suggested that applicant submit drawings that better and consistently illustrates the appearance of the features in question.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the image below.
FIG 1.1 FIG 1.3 FIG 1.2
PNG
media_image2.png
696
1428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The large and small circle features of the frame in FIG 1.1 and 1.2 cannot be fully understood, because these areas are shown only in limited views. The circle frames depth and dimensions throughout the disclosure cannot be enabled because applicant did not provide any corresponding views to confirm the spatial relationships.
FIG 1.1 FIG 1.2
PNG
media_image3.png
445
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
515
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The encircled elements (identified below) in Figure 1.5 cannot be fully understood. Because this area is shown only in a single view, the feature cannot be completely viewed. The identified elements depth and exact configuration are not disclosed. Therefore, it is considered indefinite and nonenabling. Applicant’s attention is directed to the image below.
FIG 1.5
PNG
media_image5.png
451
431
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The encircled elements (identified below) located inside of the bellow in Figure 1.1 cannot be fully
understood. Because this area is shown only in a single view, the feature cannot be completely viewed. The identified elements depth and exact configuration are not disclosed. Therefore, it is
considered indefinite and nonenabling. Applicant’s attention is directed to the image below.
FIG 1.1
PNG
media_image6.png
416
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG 1.2
PNG
media_image7.png
394
604
media_image7.png
Greyscale
FIG 1.6
PNG
media_image8.png
453
719
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Since the drawing disclosure constitutes the entire visual disclosure of the claim, it is imperative that the drawings be clear and complete, and that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. See MPEP § 1503.02.
Accordingly, the overall shape, appearance and configuration of the invention cannot be understood. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Such ambiguities in the disclosure fail to enable a designer of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the shape and appearance of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture.
It is suggested that applicant may remove from the claim any areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines, removing any shading within the broken line areas, and amending the specification to include a statement that the broken lines in the drawings are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the View Camera that form no part of the claimed design.
Any amendment to the claim must meet the written disclosure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. See 35 USC § 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter.
Any amended replacement drawing sheets should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being 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 in the Specification. 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 examiner does not accept the changes, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Conclusion
The Claim stands refused under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) for the reasons set forth above.
The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the subject matter of the claimed design.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREANA COPELAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-9716. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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 Primary Examiner, Eric Goodman can be reached at 571-272-4734 or the Supervisor, Michelle Wilson can be reached on (571) 272-7639. 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.
/B.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2926
/ERIC L GOODMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2938 5/6/2025