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 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 11-12 and Irschick: While the example mounting arms in Irschick are indeed disclosed as being a modular segmented hose as noted by applicant on page 8, the use of a segmented hose is not particularly required by Irschick. Indeed Irschick notes in column 4 lines 39-50 that other types of flexible mounting arms may be used, including arms that are made of flexible material as long as the arms “preserve their shape” once altered. It is for this reason that the arm structures of Li (CN 209839601 U, previously cited) and De La Matta et al (US Patent 8,727,290 B1, newly cited as relevant due to the amended limitations directed towards the diameters of the hose and one-piece nature of the hose) are particularly applicable to Irschick – Irschick indicates that any flexible arm structure capable of holding its shape when loaded with an electronic device may be used, and Lie and De La Matta are each such an arm structure which have a one-piece structure as assembled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to claims 1 and 13 and the arguments related to the racetrack structures: As explained in the rejections in this Action, “keyhole” slots which have the claimed structure are frequently present in mounting devices due to such slots allowing for easier mounting of a bracket to a surface. The fasteners are first driven into place, the heads inserted into the larger portion of the slots, and then the bracket is simply slid into a position where the heads correspond to the narrower slot, removing the need for a user to hold the bracket in place while driving the fasteners and making it possible for a single user to more easily mount a bracket to a fixed object, see for example Dittmer et al (US Patent 9,121,543 B2) column 6 lines 49-62. The prior art which makes use of keyhole mounting slots indicates that the slots may be arranged vertically (with the narrow part at the top) or horizontally (with the narrow portion to the right or left), see Shotey et al (US Patent 6,420,653 B1) Figures 2-3 and column 7 line 64 through column 8 line 18.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al (US PGPub 2023/0383902 A1, previously cited) in view of Irschick et al (US Patent 10,218,965 B2, previously cited), Partridge et al (US Patent 8,950,055 B2, previously cited), and Dittmer et al (US Patent 9,121,543 B2).
With regard to claim 1: Warren discloses a camera bracket (see ¶0009, a bracket for mounting a piece of audio-visual equipment to a structure) characterized in that the camera bracket comprises a bottom plate 400 and a device mounting structure 500 which is attached to the bottom plate. The bottom plate includes two hanging holes which are positioned on both sides of a center of the bottom plate and two first through hole slots 330 which are arranged symmetrically to a centerline of the plate. Mounting holes 316 are provided at six positions on the sides of the plate such that there exist three pairings which are on opposite sides of the center of the plate (the center being where element 500 is positioned), but the pair of two larger central holes positioned along a left-right axis as seen in Figure 4C are most easily distinguished from the other holes and are being used in this rejection to correspond to the claimed holes. Slots 330 are arranged symmetrically around both the up-down axis and the left-right axis in Figure 4C, both of which can be considered to be radial directions emanating from the center point of the plate (defined by the position of the device mounting structure, see ¶0045). The hanging holes are configured such that fasteners can pass through them, and the slots are configured such that a trap can pass through them, see ¶0041. The device mounting structure is removably connected to the center of the base plate, see ¶0045 disclosing use of a threaded hole 318 which receives the device mounting structure.
Warren differs from the claimed configuration in that the bottom plate is not circular when viewed from the front (the plate has a rectangular appearance, as seen in Figure 4C). This different shape means that the hanging holes are not on both sides of the center at the diameter of the bottom plate (as a rectangular plate does not have a diameter). Additionally, Warren does not disclose that the bottom plate is used with a combination of a fixed part and an orientable hose as claimed, although Warren does indicate that the bottom plate is configured to be utilized with a wide variety of device mounting structures and associated device attachment heads connected to the mounting structures, with the selection of a particular type being left up to the user who is expected to be able to select and attach such mounting structures to fixed parts (see ¶0045, noting that the hole is configured to accept “various threaded pins, rod, and other standard A/V mounting gears” [..] “for the specific application” in which the user is employing the bracket, in Warren the “fixed part” is the attachment interface with the A/V equipment being supported).
The prior art teaches that attachment bottom plates with a central mounting point may be made with an overall circular form when viewed from the front for aesthetic reasons, as slight deviations from “upright” orientations are readily noticeable with a circular plate while being very apparent with a rectangular shape, see Partridge column 6 lines 56-64 and column 7 lines 24-33.
The prior art also teaches that orientable hoses which are removably attachable to a supporting plate and which incorporate a fixed part at the other end thereof are useful to support A/V equipment in certain situations where adjustability is needed, see Irschick column 3 lines 10-19, column 4 lines 19-30, and column 4 lines 39-44 discussing the use of flexible modular hoses with a fixed part at the end opposite from the one attached to the plate to allow for the removable attachable of a camera (the fixed part is the “standard camera opening” of the cameras, designed to receive a threaded screw).
Finally, the prior art teaches using hanging holes which comprise a circular hole portion and a racetrack (elongated oval) shaped portion connected to the circular hole portion, the circular hole portion having a larger diameter than the width of the racetrack-shaped portion. Such “keyhole” shaped hanging holes allow for a head portion of an incompletely driven fastener (nail, screw, bolt) to pass through the circular portion yet be retained by the racetrack-shaped portion. The prior art teaches that this allows for a single person to easily mount a bracket to a wall or other structure, see Dittmer column 6 lines 49-62.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have configured the bottom plate of Warren to have an overall circular form when viewed from the front in order to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the plate when it is used in various orientations (as taught by Partridge). This obvious configuration would result in the hanging holes being positioned on both sides of the center at the diameter of the bottom plate, as claimed. Additionally said person would have found it obvious to use a flexible orientable hose with fixed part at one end between the bottom plate as claimed because Warren indicates that the bottom plate may be used with a wide variety of different supporting devices and Irschick teaches that such orientable hoses allow for easy adjustment of the positioning of a camera. Said person would have found it obvious to configure the hanging holes of Warren to have a racetrack shape as claimed in order to make mounting of the bracket on a fixed surface easier.
With regard to claim 2: The attachment point of the bottom plate of Warren (hole 318) to which the orientable hose of Irschick would be attached in the combination is positioned at the center of the bottom plate, and uses a threaded connection to secure the attachment (see ¶0045 of Warren).
With regard to claim 5: The bottom plate of Warren includes two additional “second” through hole slots which are symmetrically set along another radial direction of the bottom plates, such that the first through hole slots are located on both sides of one hanging hole and the second through hole slots are located on both sides of the other hanging hole. See annotated Figure 4C below, A is the “one of the radial directions” of claim 1, B is the “another” radial direction of claim 5, C is the “one of the hanging holes” of claim 5, D is the “another of the hanging hole” of claim 5, E & F are the “First through hole slots” of claim 1 which are positioned symmetrically about A such that they are on both sides of C in the vertical direction, and G & H are the “second through-hole slots” of claim 5 which are positioned symmetrically about B such that they are on both sides of D in the vertical direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6: The end of the orientable hose of the combination which is away from the bottom plate is set with a threaded stud (a threaded screw as noted in Irschick column 4 lines 39-44) and the fixed part is set with a threaded hole for connecting the threaded stud (the “standard camera opening” of Irschick).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, and Dittmer in further view of Sloop (US Patent 4,104,623, previously cited).
With regard to claims 3-4: The combination does include a first extension end on the orientable hose which are configured to have a threaded stud set within (Irschick discloses using elbow-shaped bases 210 which are held in place using example fasteners including screws, see column 4 lines 19-24), but does not teach the inclusion of a spring washer positioned on the threaded stud such that it is elastically held between the plate and hose.
Sloop teaches that including a spring washer between two attached parts of a camera support allows for the parts to be secured relative to each other while also being able to be repositioned by a user applying force in excess of the frictional force supplied by the spring washer (see column 4 lines 17-33).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have placed a spring washer on the threaded connection member between the elbow shaped first extension end of the orientable hose of the combination and the bottom plate, in order to allow for the elbow extension end of the orientable hose to be rotated relative to the base plate by a user applying force to it while still providing sufficient friction to keep it from moving when the user is not actively providing force, allowing the connection to be adjusted without loosening or removing the screw member holding the orientable hose to the bottom plate.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, and Dittmer in further view of Kron (US Patent 2,111,368, previously cited).
With regard to claims 7-8: Warren, Irschick, and Partridge do not provide much detail regarding the structure of the camera (or A/V device) supporting end of the supporting structure (the orientable hose, in the combination), and thus do not teach that the fixed part is a flange plate with a threaded hole positioned in the center of the fixed part or that one end of the hose away from the bottom plate is set with a second extension end with the threaded stud being positioned at the end of the second extension end with the fixed part and second extension end jointly holding a part of the camera component.
Kron teaches a flexible hose camera support arm with particular detail of the ends of the hose member being shown. Kron teaches a configuration in which a fixed part of a camera C (drawn as a threaded socket at the center of a flange plate which mates to the attachment structure of the hose, the raised flange can be best seen in Figure 3) mates which a second extension end of attached to the end of the flexible orientable hose which is opposite to the supporting mount (at point B). The extension end of the orientable hose includes parts 11-17 which act to provide a secure attachment interface between the camera and the hose (see column 2 lines 29-41), with Kron noting that the extension structure includes features to prevent the camera with a fixed part at an end of the camera body from causing the threaded stud and clamping plate to rotate when oriented in a tiled position while still allowing a user to simply rotate the camera when desired, see column 3 (left column on page 2) lines 3-19.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the combination of Warren, Irschick, and Partridge to have the mounting interface structure as taught by Kron, consisting of an extension end with rotation controlling features to connect to a camera structure with threaded hole in the center of a contact flange in order to securely connect the end of the hose to the camera while still allowing a user to reposition the camera when desired.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, and Dittmer in further view of Li (CN 209839601 U, previously cited) and Liu (US PGPub 2020/0220960 A1, previously cited).
With regard to claims 9-10: Irschick does not go into detail regarding the internal arrangement and structure of the orientable hose, and thus does not teach that the hose is set with external and internal tubes with the external tube being tightly enclosed on circumferential side of the internal tube, with the internal tube being a flexible metal tube with a steel core embedded within and the external tube being a rubber tube. Irschick does indicate that the structure of the supporting orientable hose can vary, with column 4 lines 39-50 noting that other types of flexible mounting arms may be used, including arms that are made of flexible material, as long as the arms “preserve their shape” once altered.
Li discloses a structure for a bendable camera support which Li indicates overcomes the limited number of bending cycles of other varieties of bendable camera supports. This bendable support is formed with a core of steel wire 34 & 35 positioned within a metal tube 4 which acts to protect the steel core and enhance the bending effect, see ¶0047. Li further teaches the inclusion of a second protective tubular sleeve 5 which can protect the supporting rod as well as improve the feel of the rod to make it easier to hold (see ¶0050), but does not specifically teach that the external sleeve is a rubber sleeve as claimed.
Liu teaches that using rubber as an outer sleeve material in a photographic support structure both protects the internal components and increases the ability of a user to grip the member (see ¶0033).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have used the steel-core bendable support design taught by Li as the orientable hose in the combination as Li teaches that the design is strong and durable (see ¶0054-0055) and further to have used a rubber sleeve as the outermost layer of the structure as Liu teaches rubber is both protective and improves the grip of components it is provided on (which Li teaches is a function of the outermost layer of the bendable support).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, Dittmer, and Sloop in further view of Li.
Irschick does not go into detail regarding the internal arrangement and structure of the orientable hose, but in the examples as drawn in Irschick (as noted in Applicant’s arguments) the structure used for the hose appears to be a modular structure consisting of a number of parts stacked together. Irschick thus does not teach that the hose is a one-piece structure, with an outer diameter of the first extension end being larger than an outer diameter of the hose and being non-deformable. Irschick does indicate that the structure of the supporting orientable hose can vary, with column 4 lines 39-50 noting that other types of flexible mounting arms may be used, including arms that are made of flexible material, as long as the arms “preserve their shape” once altered.
Li discloses a structure for a bendable camera support which Li indicates overcomes the limited number of bending cycles of other varieties of bendable camera supports. This bendable support has a one-piece hose structure comprising steel wire 34 & 35 embedded within a metal tube 4 which acts to protect the steel core and enhance the bending effect, see ¶0047. Li further includes a pair of non-bendable extensions 1, 2 with threaded bolt members integrated therein on the ends of the one-piece hose structure for connecting the hose structure to the supported camera or supporting structure (see ¶0041). These non-bendable extensions are larger in diameter than the one-piece hose part, as the one-piece hose part is received inside of the extensions to fix the hose in place, see ¶0044.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have used the one-piece bendable support design of Li as the orientable hose in the combination as Li teaches that the design is strong and durable (see ¶0054-0055) and further to have used the extension member structure of Li (with included threaded bolt and larger diameter than the hose section) as Li indicates that the extension parts are capable of fixing the hose ends to the structures used to connect the bendable hose to the supported object and object supporting the bendable hose (in the combination, the bottom plate).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, Dittmer, and Kron in further view of Li.
Irschick does not go into detail regarding the internal arrangement and structure of the orientable hose, but in the examples as drawn in Irschick (as noted in Applicant’s arguments) the structure used for the hose appears to be a modular structure consisting of a number of parts stacked together. Irschick thus does not teach that the hose is a one-piece structure, with an outer diameter of the first extension end being larger than an outer diameter of the hose and being non-deformable. Irschick does indicate that the structure of the supporting orientable hose can vary, with column 4 lines 39-50 noting that other types of flexible mounting arms may be used, including arms that are made of flexible material, as long as the arms “preserve their shape” once altered.
Li discloses a structure for a bendable camera support which Li indicates overcomes the limited number of bending cycles of other varieties of bendable camera supports. This bendable support has a one-piece hose structure comprising steel wire 34 & 35 embedded within a metal tube 4 which acts to protect the steel core and enhance the bending effect, see ¶0047. Li further includes a pair of non-bendable extensions 1, 2 with threaded bolt members integrated therein on the ends of the one-piece hose structure for connecting the hose structure to the supported camera or supporting structure (see ¶0041). These non-bendable extensions are larger in diameter than the one-piece hose part, as the one-piece hose part is received inside of the extensions to fix the hose in place, see ¶0044.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have used the one-piece bendable support design of Li as the orientable hose in the combination as Li teaches that the design is strong and durable (see ¶0054-0055) and further to have used the extension member structure of Li (with included threaded bolt and larger diameter than the hose section) as Li indicates that the extension parts are capable of fixing the hose ends to the structures used to connect the bendable hose to the supported object and object supporting the bendable hose (in the combination, the bottom plate of Warren).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren, Irschick, Partridge, and Dittmer in further view of Shotey et al (US Patent 6,420,653 B1).
With regard to claim 13: Warren discloses that the through-hole slots are parallel, as can be best seen in Figure 3B, but since Warren does not disclose the inclusion of racetrack features for the hanging holes Warren does not disclose the orientation of such racetrack features relative to the through-hole slots.
Shotey provides an indication that the orientation of keyhole slots can be made to be vertical (shown in Figure 2) or horizontal (shown in Figure 3). The holes are kept parallel (apparently to allow for movement of the bracket relative to the support to cause both holes to engage with the holes in the same manner simultaneously). In the discussion of Figures 2-3 in column 7 line 64 through column 8 line 18 there is not a mention of a particular advantage of one orientation over another, indicating that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is expected to be able to choose between the two configurations without any further guidance.
Shotey thus indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the claimed arrangement of the racetrack shaped hole portions obvious as a matter of routine rearrangement of parts, allowing the person to choose which direction the bracket needs to be moved to cause the fastener heads to engage with the racetrack portions of the slots.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De La Matta et al (US Patent 8,727,290 B1) discloses a one-piece orientable hose structure with connectors at each end.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights