Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/312,366

AUGMENTED REALITY MOOD BOARD

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 04, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, CHAU T
Art Unit
2145
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Snap Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
372 granted / 549 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
580
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 549 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 . Amendment filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17 and 20. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. 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. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lukas, US Patent No. 12,289,433 B2. As to independent claim 1, Lukas discloses a system comprising: a head-worn device (col. 1, line 40 – col. 2, line 7: head-mounted display); a portable device (col. 1, line 40 – col. 2, line 7: mobile handset; and at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions (col. 2, lines 8-21: one or more processors and memory configured to store data); wherein the instructions stored by the at least one memory, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the system to perform operations for transferring a media item from a portable device to a head-worn device (col. 1, line 40 – col. 2, line 7: sending second content from mobile handset to the head-mounted apparatus), the operations comprising: receiving user input at the portable device to transfer the media item from the portable device to the head-worn device (col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line 7: the mobile handset causes the second content to be displayed by a second display of the head-mounted apparatus at least in part by sending the second content to the head-mounted apparatus); transmitting, via a short-range data transmission, a low-resolution representation of the media item, from the portable device to the head-worn device (col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line 7: the mobile handset generates first content to be displayed using a first display of the mobile handset, and generates second content that is based on the first content, and the mobile handset causes the second content to be displayed by a second display of the head-mounted apparatus at least in part by sending the second content to the head-mounted apparatus; col. 13, lines 8-46: the first content may have a first level of detail, a first resolution, and/or a first size, and the second content may have a second level of detail, a second resolution and/or a second size; col. 24: lines 49-56: the apparatus 510 can instead be a head-mounted device (HMD), and the head-mounted device apparatus 520 can instead be a mobile handset; col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13: the second content may be more detailed than the depiction of the selected media asset in the first content, for instance in terms of size, resolution, texture resolution); receiving, by the head-worn device, the low-resolution representation of the media item (col. 13, lines 8-46: the first content may have a first level of detail, a first resolution, and/or a first size, and the second content may have a second level of detail, a second resolution and/or a second size; col. 24: lines 49-56: the apparatus 510 can instead be a head-mounted device (HMD), and the head-mounted device apparatus 520 can instead be a mobile handset; col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13: the second content may be more detailed than the depiction of the selected media asset in the first content, for instance in terms of size, resolution, texture resolution); and displaying, by the head-worn device, animated movement of the media item from the portable device towards an augmented reality media gallery using the low-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, lines 27-37: the user can change their view of the environment interactively; col. 19, line 37 – col. 20, line 14: the output images (e.g., of the first content, the second content, and/or the processed second content) can be based on the images captured by the first camera and the second camera, for example with the virtual content overlaid, which is considered as animated movement). As to dependent claim 2, Lukas discloses wherein the user input comprises a gesture performed on the portable device, the transmission of the low-resolution representation of the media item commencing when initiation of the gesture is detected by the portable device (col. 13, lines 8-46, col. 24, lines 49-56 and col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13). As to dependent claim 3, Lukas discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by the head-worn device, a higher-resolution representation of the media item (col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13); and replacing the low-resolution representation of the media item with the higher-resolution representation of the media item in the display of the movement the media item from the portable device to the media gallery (col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13). As to dependent claim 4, Lukas discloses wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, by the head-worn device, arrival of the media item in the media gallery using the low-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, line 27 – col. 6, line 7); receiving, by the head-worn device, a higher-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, line 27 – col. 6, line 7); and displaying, by the head-worn device, the media item in the media gallery using the higher-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, line 27 – col. 6, line 7). As to dependent claim 6, Lukas discloses wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, to the head-worn device by the portable device and via short-range data transmission, a higher-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, line 27 – col. 6, line 7). As to dependent claim 7, Lukas discloses wherein the user input at the portable device comprises a swipe gesture toward a top side of the portable device, and wherein an initial speed of movement of the media item in the animated movement of the media item is dependent on a speed of the swipe gesture towards the top side of the portable device (col. 12, lines 10-33; col. 19, line 37 – col. 20, line 14). Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are method claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-7, respectively. Therefore, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 15-16, 17, and 19-20 are medium claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7, respectively. Therefore, claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Kee et al. (Kee), NPL “Method of the mobile terminal and controlling the mobile terminal”, Document ID CN-102467343-B, published on 2018-05-22. As to dependent claim 5, Lukas does not discloses wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, to the head-worn device by the portable device and via short-range data transmission, a link to a higher-resolution representation of the media item; and requesting, by the head-worn device, the higher-resolution representation of the media item using the link. In the same field of endeavor, Kee discloses a mobile terminal of a mobile terminal and a control method, for controlling the mobile terminal comprising: using augmented reality (AR) mode displaying a preview image input by a camera, displaying information corresponding to at least one object in the preview image of the AR data, and providing a user interface for editing comprises AR data of the preview image mode so as to generate editing at least a portion of the preview image (Abstract). Kee further discloses enlarge or reduce the preview image to the preview image editing is magnified or reduced image and storing the preview mage magnified or reduced in the memory (page 3). Kee further discloses the user interface provides a function for linking the information to the preview image and further comprises the linked preview image stored in a memory, the information associated with the preview image (page 4). Kee further discloses in Figures 15A and 15B, which show the operation of the preview image by the enlarged preview image and editing the AR mode (page 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lukas to include wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, to the head-worn device by the portable device and via short-range data transmission, a link to a higher-resolution representation of the media item; and requesting, by the head-worn device, the higher-resolution representation of the media item using the link, as taught by Kee for the purpose of displaying the preview image in different modes such as enlarged preview image and/or reduced preview image. Claims 12 and 18 are method and medium claims, respectively. Claims 12 and 18 contain similar limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale. Response to Arguments In the Remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Lukas does not disclose or suggest at least “receiving user input at the portable device to transfer the media item from the portable device to the head-worn device; transmitting, via a short range data transmission, a low-resolution representation of the media item, from the portable device to the head-worn device, receiving, by the head-worn device, the low-resolution representation oof the media item; and displaying, by the head-worn device, animated movement of the media item from the portable device towards an augmented reality media gallery using the low-resolution representation of the media item”. In reply to this argument, Lukas discloses receiving user input at the portable device to transfer the media item from the portable device to the head-worn device (col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line 7: the mobile handset causes the second content to be displayed by a second display of the head-mounted apparatus at least in part by sending the second content to the head-mounted apparatus); transmitting, via a short-range data transmission, a low-resolution representation of the media item, from the portable device to the head-worn device (col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line 7: the mobile handset generates first content to be displayed using a first display of the mobile handset, and generates second content that is based on the first content, and the mobile handset causes the second content to be displayed by a second display of the head-mounted apparatus at least in part by sending the second content to the head-mounted apparatus; col. 13, lines 8-46: the first content may have a first level of detail, a first resolution, and/or a first size, and the second content may have a second level of detail, a second resolution and/or a second size; col. 24: lines 49-56: the apparatus 510 can instead be a head-mounted device (HMD), and the head-mounted device apparatus 520 can instead be a mobile handset; col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13: the second content may be more detailed than the depiction of the selected media asset in the first content, for instance in terms of size, resolution, texture resolution); receiving, by the head-worn device, the low-resolution representation of the media item (col. 13, lines 8-46: the first content may have a first level of detail, a first resolution, and/or a first size, and the second content may have a second level of detail, a second resolution and/or a second size; col. 24: lines 49-56: the apparatus 510 can instead be a head-mounted device (HMD), and the head-mounted device apparatus 520 can instead be a mobile handset; col. 25, line 54 – col. 6, line 13: the second content may be more detailed than the depiction of the selected media asset in the first content, for instance in terms of size, resolution, texture resolution); and displaying, by the head-worn device, animated movement of the media item from the portable device towards an augmented reality media gallery using the low-resolution representation of the media item (col. 5, lines 27-37: the user can change their view of the environment interactively; col. 19, line 37 – col. 20, line 14: the output images (e.g., of the first content, the second content, and/or the processed second content) can be based on the images captured by the first camera and the second camera, for example with the virtual content overlaid, which is considered as animated movement). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37CFR 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 extension fee 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 CHAU T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596765
GENERATION AND USE OF CONTENT BRIEFS FOR NETWORK CONTENT AUTHORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591795
METHOD FOR PROVIDING EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585722
IMAGE GENERATION SYSTEM, COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, METHODS OF OPERATING IMAGE GENERATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579356
MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS WITH NUMERICAL INDICATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12547825
WHITELISTING REDACTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.8%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 549 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