Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/609,072

Support Device for Close-Up Photography with Adjustable Lighting and Fixed Focus Distance

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Examiner
PHAN, MINH Q
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
626 granted / 827 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 827 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, the election/restriction requirement has been made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the image capturing device of the support device apparatus is configured to work in conjunction with the artificial intelligence models to optimize the photographic settings and does not reasonably provide enablement for the support device, a purely mechanical device, to work in conjunction with the artificial intelligence models to optimize the photographic settings. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14 covers the support device, without the camera and/or electronic device, to work in conjunction with the artificial intelligence models to optimize the photographic settings. The specification does not disclose enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a support device having such capability without any of the electronic components. At the time of filing, the state of art was such that a camera/mobile device having a CPU was capable of working in conjunction with the artificial intelligence models to optimize the photographic settings. Thus, the disclosed example does not bear reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written specification, as originally filed, does not specifically teach or disclose enough information on the artificial intelligence models include classifiers for image-quality assessment, deep learning models for assisting in the optimal positioning of the device, and deep learning-based pixel-level image fusion models to produce the final image. Applicant mentioned of these AI models without going into specific details nor providing examples of such AI models showing how they operate does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. 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 14-15 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 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 15 is also rejected because of its dependency on claim 14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reff (US Patent No. 5,950,017). Regarding claims 1-2, 7 and 10-13, Reff teaches a support device for facilitating close-up photography, comprising: a hollow body (Fig. 1A, item 22) having one or more side walls extending between a top portion (16) and a base portion (24), wherein the hollow body defines an interior space; the top portion including a structure (30, 32) configured to retain an image capture device in a fixed orientation, such that a camera lens of the image capture device, when installed, aligns with a first viewing opening defined by the top portion to direct towards a second viewing opening defined by the base portion; the base portion including a bottom edge (24) surrounding the second viewing opening, wherein the second viewing opening is positioned at a predetermined distance from the first viewing opening to establish a fixed field of view for the image capture device; wherein the hollow body is configurable between a flat state for storage and a three-dimensional state for use, facilitated by foldable regions located along the one or more side walls(Fig. 1E) [claim 2]; the structure is configured to retain the image capture device comprises a frame or platform with adjustable grip element to accommodate different sizes and models of image capture devices (col. 9, ll. 1-4) [claim 7]; wherein the hollow body is made from a material selected from the group consisting of paper, plastic, wood, metal, fabric, biodegradable materials, and silicone, with the material being selected to provide a desired level of transparency or opacity (col. 7, ll. 31-40) [claim 10]; a base surface structure attached to the bottom edge of the base portion, the base surface including measurement marking to assist in the evaluation of dimensions of the subject being photograph (Fig. 6, the makers 44 are provided on the base portion 24) [claim 11]; the base surface is further configured with mechanisms to prevent small objects from getting too close to the camera lens of the image capture device, thereby maintaining a fixed focus distance (the base portion 24 is connected to the support members 22 which configured to maintain a fixed focus distance and preventing small objects getting too close to the camera lens) [claim 12]; and wherein the hollow body is formed into a geometric shape, selected from the group consisting of: polygonal, circular, cylindrical, or elliptical, to accommodate different photograph requirements (Figs. 1B, 1E, 1G) [claim 13]. Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parnell (US Pub. No. 2009/0297139). Regarding claims 1, Parnell teaches a support device for facilitating close-up photography, comprising: a hollow body (Fig. 2, item 20) having one or more side walls extending between a top portion and a base portion (30), wherein the hollow body defines an interior space; the top portion including a structure (80) configured to retain an image capture device in a fixed orientation, such that a camera lens of the image capture device, when installed, aligns with a first viewing opening defined by the top portion to direct towards a second viewing opening defined by the base portion; the base portion including a bottom edge surrounding the second viewing opening, wherein the second viewing opening is positioned at a predetermined distance from the first viewing opening to establish a fixed field of view for the image capture device; adjustable side covers located on the one or more side walls, wherein the side covers are operable to modulate the light entering the interior space of the hollow body (para. 51-52, each panels 22-28 are configured to be interchangeable, thus capable of modulating the light inside the interior space of the hollow body) [claim 3]; and wherein the one or more side walls include transparent or translucent materials, capable of filtering light to adjust the lighting conditions within the hollow body (para. 51) [claim 4]. Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (KR 20200118463 and its English Translation). Regarding claims 1 and 8, Miyamoto teaches a support device for facilitating close-up photography, comprising: a hollow body (Fig. 1, item 20) having one or more side walls extending between a top portion (16) and a base portion (18), wherein the hollow body defines an interior space; the top portion including a structure configured to retain an image capture device in a fixed orientation, such that a camera lens of the image capture device, when installed, aligns with a first viewing opening defined by the top portion to direct towards a second viewing opening defined by the base portion; the base portion including a bottom edge surrounding the second viewing opening, wherein the second viewing opening is positioned at a predetermined distance from the first viewing opening to establish a fixed field of view for the image capture device (Fig. 1); adhesive parts located on the structure for securing the image capture device, wherein the adhesive parts are configured to prevent movement of the image capture device once installed (pg. 5, 3rd para) [claim 8]. Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shirotani (US Pub. No. 2024/0184184). Regarding claims 1 and 5, Shirotani teaches a support device for facilitating close-up photography, comprising: a hollow body (Fig. 2, item 14) having one or more side walls extending between a top portion (13) and a base portion (12), wherein the hollow body defines an interior space; the top portion including a structure (15a) configured to retain an image capture device in a fixed orientation, such that a camera lens of the image capture device, when installed, aligns with a first viewing opening defined by the top portion to direct towards a second viewing opening (12a) defined by the base portion; the base portion including a bottom edge (12) surrounding the second viewing opening, wherein the second viewing opening is positioned at a predetermined distance from the first viewing opening to establish a fixed field of view for the image capture device; wherein the one or more side walls include at least one opening (15b) equipped with a filter element, said filter element being interchangeable to provide different lighting effects within the interior space (para. 56-57) [claim 5]. 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirotani in view of An (US Pub. No. 2019/0175973). Regarding claim 6, Shirotani teaches all the claimed limitations except for the bottom edge of the base portion includes indentations, protrusions or a combination thereof, to enhance grip on the surface upon which the support device is placed. An teaches a bottom edge of the base portion includes indentations, protrusions or a combination thereof, to enhance grip on the surface upon which the device is placed (para. 39). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate protrusions/indentations as taught within the bottom surface of Shirotani’s base portion in order to improve tracking and prevent easy movement of the support device. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reff in view of Jung et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0174056). Regarding claim 14, Reff teaches all the claimed limitations except for the device configured to work in conjunction with artificial intelligence (AI) models to optimize settings such as stability, lighting, distance, and zoom, thereby enhancing the quality of the captured images. Jung teaches an electronic apparatus configured to work in conjunction with artificial intelligence models to optimize settings such as stability, lighting, distance, and zoom, thereby enhancing the quality of the captured images (para. 103). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate AI models as taught within said image capturing device in order to obtain better image quality for the captured subject. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, applicant has sufficiently defined and claimed a support device, whereby the prior art does not teach or suggest the hollow body includes a foldable box-like structure at the top portion to facilitate the insertion and securing of the image capture device, with foldable flaps to adjust to the size of the image capturing device, in combination with all other limitations set forth in the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm. 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. MINH Q. PHAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2852 /MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601955
DRIVING DEVICE, OPTICAL ELEMENT DRIVING DEVICE, CAMERA MODULE, AND CAMERA-EQUIPPED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595876
SIX-AXIS AGILE SHOOTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591176
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TREATING A RELIEF PRECURSOR WITH LIQUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585083
LENS APPARATUS, IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS, METHOD OF CONTROLLING LENS APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578365
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING A VOLTAGE DROP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (-5.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 827 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month