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 12/5/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TetherBlock product description (https://web.archive.org/web/20230130042658/https://www.designinfo.in/c/photography-camera-accessories/tether-tools/tether-tools-cable-management/tether-tools-cable-management-tetherblock/. Accessed 9/2/2025. Archived 1/30/2023; hereafter TetherBlock) and Jordan (Pub. No. US 20090045010 A1; hereafter Jordan) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TetherBlock, Jordan, and Södergård et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0397357 A1; hereafter Södergård).
TetherBlock in view of Jordan discloses providing a channel on the same side as the side for attaching to the camera device, and therefore does not disclose the newly amended claim limitations “a body having a top and an opposed bottom, wherein the top is configured to be applied to the camera; a channel extending from one side of the body to an other side of the body, wherein the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom” as called for in claim 1.
Södergård discloses that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed to store a cable in a channel on the bottom side of the device, opposite the side to which the camera is attached, the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom (see Södergård Figs. 1 and 7, item 6, which is shown to be opposite to the side the camera 22 is attached, as shown in Fig. 7. That there is another attachment portion 3 which later covers the channel does not preclude the channel 6 from reading on the limitation “wherein the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom,” since the attachment member 3 is a separate element. Applicant’s device similarly in Fig. 7 of Applicant’s drawings shows that the channel can later be covered by an attachment element (in Applicant’s case the dovetail connection) and still qualify as being construed as “open in a first direction to the bottom”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the channel of TetherBlock as being open either to the same side as the camera (as in TetherBlock), or to the opposite side as the camera (as in Södergård) as a simple substitution of one known element for another in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TetherBlock and Södergård.
Similarly as with the arguments with respect to claim 1, above, TetherBlock discloses a threaded post extending upward from the top of the body and configured to couple to the camera, and in view of Södergård it would have been obvious to modify the channel to be on the opposite side of the body, as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TetherBlock and Fella (U.S. Patent No. 10,638,805 B2; hereafter Fella) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TetherBlock in view of Fella and Södergård.
With respect to claim 13, Applicant’s arguments rest on the deficiency of TetherBlock, addressed with respect to claim 7, above, and therefore have been similarly addressed.
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) 7, 8, 10, ,11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TetherBlock product description (https://web.archive.org/web/20230130042658/https://www.designinfo.in/c/photography-camera-accessories/tether-tools/tether-tools-cable-management/tether-tools-cable-management-tetherblock/. Accessed 9/2/2025. Archived 1/30/2023; hereafter TetherBlock) and Södergård et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0397357 A1; hereafter Södergård).
Regarding claim 7, TetherBlock discloses a cable routing device for managing a cable connected to a camera, the cable routing device comprising: a body having a top and an opposed bottom (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2); a threaded post extending upward from the top of the body and configured to couple to the camera (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, the post can be seen extending from the top in the first perspective); a channel extending from one side of the body to an other side of the body (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, below, showing the cable traversing the channel); and a tongue projecting laterally into the channel at the bottom; wherein the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom (see TetherBlock annotate Fig. 2, below, tongue); [claim 8] wherein the channel has a path extending entirely between the one side and the other side of the body, and the channel is open along the entire path (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, below, showing the cable traversing the channel); [claim 10] wherein the channel includes: a first sidewall defining a first projection of the sidewall; and a second sidewall having a second projection of the sidewall; wherein the first and second projections are offset from each other along the channel and project in opposite directions to each other (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, below, first and second projections); [claim 11] wherein the tongue defines a first tongue, and a second tongue projects into the channel at the bottom, and the first and second tongues flank the first and second projections (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, below, first and second tongues).
TetherBlock does not disclose that the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom
Södergård discloses that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed to store a cable in a channel on the bottom side of the device, opposite the side to which the camera is attached, the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom (see Södergård Figs. 1 and 7, item 6, which is shown to be opposite to the side the camera 22 is attached, as shown in Fig. 7. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the channel of TetherBlock as being open either to the same side as the camera (as in TetherBlock), or to the opposite side as the camera (as in Södergård) as a simple substitution of one known element for another in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
TetherBlock Fig. 2, (annotated)
Regarding claim 14, TetherBlock discloses a cable routing device for managing a cable connected to a camera, the cable routing device comprising: a top configured to be applied to an underside of the camera (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, the terms “top” and “bottom” are merely a matter of nomenclature, and the entire device, and thus every side of the device, is applied to an underside of the camera); a channel extending from one side of the cable routing device to an other side (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing the cable traversing the channel); wherein the channel is open in a first direction away from the top; and the channel curves in a second direction which is transverse to the first direction (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing the cable traversing the channel); [claim 15] , wherein the channel is open entirely between the one side and the other side (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing the cable traversing the channel); [claim 17] wherein the channel includes: a first sidewall defining a first projection of the sidewall; and a second sidewall having a second projection of the sidewall; wherein the first and second projections are offset from each other along the channel and project in opposite directions to each other (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, first and second projections); [claim 19] further comprising a tongue projecting into the channel along a bottom of the cable routing device (see TetherBlock annotate Fig. 2, above, first tongue) [claim 20] wherein the tongue defines a first tongue, and a second tongue projects into the channel at the bottom, and the first and second tongues project in opposite directions to each other (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, first and second tongues).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TetherBlock in view of Jordan (Pub. No. US 2009/0045010 A1; hereafter Jordan) and Södergård.
Regarding claim 1, TetherBlock discloses a cable routing device for managing a cable connected to a camera, the cable routing device comprising: a body having a top and an opposed bottom wherein the top is configured to be applied to the camera (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, note attachment post projecting from the top in the first perspective image); a channel extending from one side of the body to an other side of the body, (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing the cable traversing the channel); [claim 2] wherein the channel curves in the second direction (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing curved path of the cable); [claim 3] wherein the channel has a path extending entirely between the one side and the other side of the body, and the channel is open along the entire path (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, showing the cable traversing the channel from one side to the other); [claim 4] wherein the channel includes: a first sidewall including a first projection of the sidewall into the channel; and a second sidewall including a second projection of the sidewall into the channel; wherein the first and second projections are offset from each other along the channel and project into the channel from opposite directions (see TetherBlock annotated Fig. 2, above, first and second projections); [claim 5] further comprising a tongue projecting into the channel at the bottom (see TetherBlock annotate Fig. 2, above, tongue); [claim 6] wherein the tongue defines a first tongue, and a second tongue projects into the channel at the bottom, and the first and second tongues project into the channel from opposite sides of the channel (see TetherBlock annotate Fig. 2, above, second tongue).
TetherBlock does not disclose that the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom, away from the top, and a latch mounted for pivotal movement and biased to move an abutment face of the latch in a second direction transverse to the first direction.
Jordan discloses a latch mounted for pivotal movement and biased to move an abutment face of the latch in a second direction transverse to the first direction (see Jordan Fig. 3, items 34, 42, and 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a latch like that in Jordan to the device of TetherBlock in order to lock the cable into the channel to prevent unintentional removal of the cable until the user decides to remove the cable by depressing the latch.
TetherBlock in view of Jordan does not disclose that the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom.
Södergård discloses that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed to store a cable in a channel on the bottom side of the device, opposite the side to which the camera is attached, the channel is open in a first direction to the bottom (see Södergård Figs. 1 and 7, item 6, which is shown to be opposite to the side the camera 22 is attached, as shown in Fig. 7. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the channel of TetherBlock as being open either to the same side as the camera (as in TetherBlock), or to the opposite side as the camera (as in Södergård) as a simple substitution of one known element for another in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, TetherBlock discloses the cable routing device of claims 7 and 14, respectively, but does not disclose that the device further comprises a trap, wherein the trap is configured to bias a cable applied to the channel in a second direction transverse to the first direction.
Jordan discloses a latch (which can be construed as a trap) mounted for bias a cable applied to the channel in a second direction transverse to the first direction (see Jordan Fig. 3, items 34, 42, and 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a latch like that in Jordan to the device of TetherBlock in order to lock the cable into the channel to prevent unintentional removal of the cable until the user decides to remove the cable by depressing the latch.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, TetherBlock discloses the cable routing device of claims 7 and 14, respectively but does not disclose that the device further comprises a latch mounted for pivotal movement and biased to move an abutment face of the latch in a second direction, transverse to the first direction, against a sidewall of the channel.
Jordan discloses a latch mounted for pivotal movement and biased to move an abutment face of the latch in a second direction transverse to the first direction (see Jordan Fig. 3, items 34, 42, and 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a latch like that in Jordan to the device of TetherBlock in order to lock the cable into the channel to prevent unintentional removal of the cable until the user decides to remove the cable by depressing the latch.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TetherBlock in view of Södergård as applied to claim 7, above and further in view of Fella (U.S. Patent No. 10,638,805 B2; hereafter Fella).
Regarding claim 13, TetherBlock in view of Södergård discloses the cable routing device of claim 7, but does not disclose a bump within the channel projecting downward from a ceiling of the channel toward the bottom.
Fella discloses bump within the channel projecting downward from a ceiling of the channel toward the bottom (see Fella Fig. 13, item 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the channel of TetherBlock with bumps like those in Fella in order to provide better gripping of the inserted cable.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 3/6/2026