Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/735,644

SUPPORT DEVICE FOR VIDEO-PHOTOGRAPHIC APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Examiner
FULLER, RODNEY EVAN
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
VIDENDUM MEDIA SOLUTIONS S.P.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1105 granted / 1319 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1343
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1319 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following item(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): (Claim 14): “a fourth tubular section” No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “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 of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dal Ben, et al. (US 2021/0190262). Regarding claim 1, Dal Ben discloses “at least one telescopic leg (Fig. 1, ref.# 2) displaceable between an extended configuration (Fig. 4c) and a retracted configuration (Fig. 4a), said telescopic leg comprising:- a first tubular section (Fig 1, ref.# 10), a second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11)) and a third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.#12) which are connected in telescopic engagement one after another,- a locking mechanism (Fig. 3, ref.# 18), configured to lock and to allow the relative sliding between said first tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 10), said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) and said third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 12),wherein:- said first tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) is partially housed inside said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) and is engaged with said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) so as to slide axially away from and towards an inside of said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.#11) through a first end of said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.#11) (See Fig. 5); and- said third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 12) is partially housed inside said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) and is engaged with said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) so as to slide axially away from and towards the inside of said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) through a second end of said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) (Fig. 5), said second end being located longitudinally opposite to said first end (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 2, Dal Ben discloses “wherein, when said telescopic leg is in the retracted configuration (Fig. 4a), said third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.#12) is housed inside the first tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) (paragraphs 0020 – 0022).” Regarding claim 4, Dal Ben discloses “wherein said locking mechanism comprises: a first brake (Fig. 3, ref.# 18: 1st locking element), displaceable between a locking position in which the first brake locks the axial sliding of said first tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) with respect to said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) and a release position in which the first brake does not prevent the axial sliding of said first tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) with respect to said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11),a second brake (Fig. 3, ref.# 20: 2nd locking element), displaceable between a locking position in which the second brake locks the axial sliding of said third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 12) with respect to said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11) and a release position in which the second brake does not prevent the axial sliding of said third tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 12) with respect to said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11);and an operating member (Fig. 3, ref.# 17: ring) connected to said first brake and to said second brake so as to displace simultaneously said first brake and said second brake into the respective locking positions or into the respective release positions (paragraphs 0039; 0061 – 0066).” Regarding claim 9, Dal Ben discloses “wherein said operating member (Fig. 3, ref.# 17) is mounted on said second tubular section (Fig. 1, ref.# 11). (paragraphs 0061 – 0063) 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) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal Ben, et al. (US 2021/0190262) in view of Palik (US 2011/0079686_. Regarding claim 3, Dal Ben discloses all the structure set forth in the claims except “wherein said first tubular section, said second tubular section and said third tubular section have a non-circular cross-section.” However, telescoping rods that make a tripod or monopod that have a non-circular cross section was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Palik (See Figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dal Ben such that “wherein said first tubular section, said second tubular section and said third tubular section have a non-circular cross-section” in order to help the user grip the stand and avoid rotation in the user’s hand. Regarding claim 14, Dal Ben discloses all the structure set forth in the claim except “wherein said telescopic leg comprises a fourth tubular section partially housed inside said third tubular section and engaged with said third tubular section so as to slide axially away from and towards an inside of said third tubular section on an opposite side to said second tubular section.” However, a fourth telescoping section in a tripod / monopod was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Palik (See Figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional tubular section(s) such that “wherein said telescopic leg comprises a fourth tubular section partially housed inside said third tubular section and engaged with said third tubular section so as to slide axially away from and towards an inside of said third tubular section on an opposite side to said second tubular section” in order to provide a taller tripod / monopod and allow a higher elevation of the camera location. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8 and 10-13 are 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: O’Brien, et al. (US 10,663,839) teaches a telescopic pole with multiple sections. Li, et al. (CN 106840126), Uhl (DE 19619081), Micheli (EP 2143330) and Burger, et al. (US 5,275,364) teach a telescopic pole with sections extended from a middle section. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday. 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. /RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585312
Meta-Optics Camera Assembly for Use With Information Handling Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584984
AI-POWERED HISTOLOGICAL FINGERPRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585171
IN-VEHICLE CAMERA REAR CASE AND IN-VEHICLE CAMERA CASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578292
SENSOR ELEMENT FOR TESTING A DATA CARRIER HAVING A SPIN RESONANCE FEATURE, DIVIDING METHOD, MOUNTING METHOD AND TESTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572054
A CAMERA MODULE WITH A LENS DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
84%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1319 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month