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 Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 09/21/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are presently amended. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are presently canceled. Claims 21-23 are presently added. As a result, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-23 remain pending in this application.
The objection to the claims 1, 8, and 15 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “For example, paragraph [0022] describes the recited collection of candidate configuration options and its association with object features: "the AR system associates collections of media objects with object attributes, such that one or more attributes of an identified object (e.g., shape, size, color, text, location, position) may be used to reference and retrieve a media object (e.g., a first media object}" Paragraph [0053] describes the same structure at the operational level: "the AR system 124 may maintain a database of media objects, wherein each media object is associated with one or more object attributes."” (Remarks, p. 10).
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusion.
Paragraph [0022] recites "the AR system associates collections of media objects with object attributes, such that one or more attributes of an identified object (e.g., shape, size, color, text, location, position) may be used to reference and retrieve a media object (e.g., a first media object}". The recited associations are between collections of media objects and object attributes. In addition, paragraph [0026] recites “the AR system may present a set of configuration options to the user that enable the user to design and configure a media object”. The originally filed specification does not disclose associations between collection of candidate configuration options and object attributes. Therefore, the amended limitations “accessing a collection of candidate configuration options. each candidate configuration option comprising respective augmented-reality (AR) content; filtering the collection based on the object feature and the detected one or more contextual attributes to identify a subset of configuration options available for assignment to the object feature;” are regarded as new matter.
Applicant argues that “Stukalov does not describe filtering a collection of candidate configuration options based on an object feature and a contextual attribute to identify a subset of configuration options presented for selection.” (Remarks, p. 11).
The originally filed specification does not disclose filtering a collection of candidate configuration options based on an object feature and a contextual attribute to identify a subset of configuration options presented for selection. Therefore, the amendments are regarded as including new matter.
Applicant argues that “Stukalov presents the digital graphic options without regard to any object feature or contextual attribute.” (Remarks, p. 12).
Stukalov is not relied on to reject the limitation “to identify the first display of the object selected by the input, based on the object feature and one or more objects stored within a database”. Instead, Black teaches teaches receiving an input that selects displayed object and identifying the selected object, and recites “In step 210, a user selection of a real-world object in a scene viewed by a camera of a first user device is received. The scene viewed by a camera of a user device may be an image captured in real-time or an image that was captured with a time delay. In some embodiments, a user selects an object by selecting a region of the image corresponding to the object. The system may use the image of the selected region for object recognition.” Further ¶29 recites “The real-world object may be identified based on the shape, color, relative size, and other attributes of the object identifiable from an image of the real-world object. For example, the system may identify the car 121 as a car based on its shape and color. In some embodiments, the system my further identify other attributes of the object. For example, the system may identify the make, model, and model year of the car 121 based comparing the captured image to images in a known objects database.”
Applicant’s arguments directed to amended limitation “determining a rendering location of the AR content based on the position of the object within the image data;” have been addressed in the detailed rejection below with reference by Black et al.
Applicant’s arguments directed to new claims 21-23 have been addressed in the detailed rejection below.
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-23 are 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “accessing a collection of candidate configuration options. each candidate configuration option comprising respective augmented-reality (AR) content; filtering the collection based on the object feature and the detected one or more contextual attributes to identify a subset of configuration options available for assignment to the object feature; presenting, at the client device, the subset of configuration options as selectable configuration options for the object;”
Specification, paragraph [0022] recites "the AR system associates collections of media objects with object attributes, such that one or more attributes of an identified object (e.g., shape, size, color, text, location, position) may be used to reference and retrieve a media object (e.g., a first media object}". The recited associations are between collections of media objects and object attributes. In addition, paragraph [0026] recites “the AR system may present a set of configuration options to the user that enable the user to design and configure a media object”. The originally filed specification does not disclose associations between collection of candidate configuration options and object attributes, or filtering to identify a subset of configuration options. Therefore, the above amended limitations are regarded as new matter.
Dependent Claims are rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons cited in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stukalov (US 20190096113 A1), in view of Black (US 20160093106 A1), and further in view of Stroila (US 20130147837 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stukalov discloses A system (ABST reciting “methods, computer-readable media, and systems that animate a digital graphic associated with a video or other visual media item based on a detected dynamic attribute.” Fig. 8 showing a computing device 800.) comprising:
a memory; (Fig. 8 showing memory 804. ¶133 reciting “the computing device 800 can comprise . . . a memory 804”) and
at least one hardware processor (Fig. 8 showing Processor 802) coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations comprising: (¶134 reciting “the processor 802 includes hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program. As an example and not by way of limitation, to execute instructions, the processor 802 may retrieve (or fetch) the instructions from . . . the memory 804 . . . and decode and execute them.”)
causing display of a presentation of image data at a client device, the image data including a first display of an object within the image data, the object comprising an object feature; (Fig. 2A showing the object 208 being displayed at a position within the image data. Further, ¶61 reciting “Whereas the video shown within the GUI 204 includes a first object 208”.)
detecting one or more contextual attributes comprising at least one of a temporal attribute, or a geolocation attribute that indicates a geographic location of the client device (¶54 disclosing detecting a geographic location of the client device as a geolocation attribute, and reciting “the digital communications system may, for example, present a digital graphic as an overlay with an animation effect based on a change in light detected by the light sensor or a change in location detected the GPS receiver.”)
receiving a selection of AR content; (¶62 reciting “As depicted by FIG. 2A, the client device 200 receives user input from the user to overlay the digital graphic 210 on the video within the GUI 204. Upon receiving an indication of a user selection of the digital graphic 210 on the touch screen 202 (e.g., from a menu of digital graphics), the digital communications system identifies metadata associated with the digital graphic 210. In the embodiment depicted by FIG. 2A, the identified metadata indicates an animation effect for the digital graphic 210 and a dynamic attribute that triggers the animation effect.”)
assigning the AR content to the object feature of the object based on the selection and the one or more contextual attributes; (¶54 reciting “the digital communications system may, for example, present a digital graphic as an overlay with an animation effect based on a change in light detected by the light sensor or a change in location detected the GPS receiver.” ¶62 reciting “In the embodiment depicted by FIG. 2A, the identified metadata indicates an animation effect for the digital graphic 210 and a dynamic attribute that triggers the animation effect.” Further, ¶63 reciting “the metadata indicates a motion of an object within the video as a dynamic attribute that triggers the animation effect. In some embodiments, the metadata specifies the motion of a moving object closest to a center or focal point of the video, a fastest moving object within the video, or a biggest moving object within the video as the dynamic attribute that triggers an animation effect. ”)
detecting a second display of the object at a position within the image data; and
causing display of the AR content at the client device.
(¶65 reciting “ Per the metadata associated with the digital graphic 210, the digital communications system detects a motion of the first object 208 and determines that the first object 208 is the closest moving object to the center 209. After detecting the first object 208—and per the digital communications system's instructions—the client device 200 presents the digital graphic 210 as an overlay within the GUI 204 with the animation effect. As specified by the metadata, the animation effect represents a beating heart.”)
However, Stukalov does not explicitly disclose
receiving an input that selects the first display of the object at the client device; responsive to the input, to identify the first display of the object selected by the input, based on the object feature and one or more object features stored within a database;
presenting, at the client device, the
receiving a selection of at least a configuration option from among the selectable configuration options, the selected configuration option comprising AR content;
determining a rendering location of the AR content based on the position of the object within the image data; and
causing display of the AR content at the client device based on the rendering location.
Black teaches “A method includes identifying a real-world object in a scene viewed by a camera of a user device, matching the real-world object with a tagged object based at least in part on image recognition and a sharing setting of the tagged object, the tagged object having been tagged with a content item” (ABST). More specifically, Black teaches receiving an input that selects displayed object and identifying the selected object, and recites “In step 210, a user selection of a real-world object in a scene viewed by a camera of a first user device is received. The scene viewed by a camera of a user device may be an image captured in real-time or an image that was captured with a time delay. In some embodiments, a user selects an object by selecting a region of the image corresponding to the object. The system may use the image of the selected region for object recognition.” Further ¶29 recites “The real-world object may be identified based on the shape, color, relative size, and other attributes of the object identifiable from an image of the real-world object. For example, the system may identify the car 121 as a car based on its shape and color. In some embodiments, the system my further identify other attributes of the object. For example, the system may identify the make, model, and model year of the car 121 based comparing the captured image to images in a known objects database.”
Furthermore, Black teaches presenting, at the client device, the receiving a selection of at least a configuration option from among the selectable configuration options, the selected configuration option comprising AR content; and recites “[0034] . . . the system may perform image recognition and/or location analysis on the selected real-world object and present the user with a list of identified attributes for selection. . . ., the system may generate a list of attributes such as:
[0035] Object type: automobile
[0036] Color: gray
[0037] Make: DeLorean
[0038] Model: DMC-12
[0039] Model year: 1981
[0040] Location: Hill Valley, Calif.
The user may then select one or more of the identified attributes to configure the matching attributes in the sharing setting.” (¶34-40). In addition, ¶33 recites “For example, the user may configure the bench 124 to match with any bench in the same park, any bench in the same city, any bench in a municipal park, any bench above a certain altitude, etc. Location attribute information of the real-world object may be determined based on the devices' GPS information and/or the location metadata information of the captured image of the real-world object.”
In addition, ¶55 recites “icon 512 indicates that the lamppost has been tagged with a text comment, icon 514 indicates that the bench has been tagged with an audio clip, and icon 516 indicates that the car has also been tagged with a text comment. In some embodiments, other types of graphical indicators are used to indicate that an object has a viewable content item. For example, a bracket similar to the bracket 414 in FIG. 4, an arrow, a blinking icon, an icon containing the profile image of the author of the content item, a thumbnail of the content item, etc. may be used. In some embodiments, the object or the surrounding's color and/or shading may be changed to distinguish a tagged object from its surrounding. For example, FIG. 6 shows a car 610 that is highlighted against the shaded background 620.” In other words, the AR content Is displayed at the client device at the rendering location based on the position of the object within the image data.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Stukalov) to receive an input indicating a selection of a displayed object in an image, to identify the object and to present user-selectable options responsive to the identifying the object and detected one or more contextual attributes, and to display the AR content at the rendering location based on the position of the object within the image data (taught by Black). The suggestions/motivations would have been to better match to another image based on the selected attributes, and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, Stukalov in view of Black does not explicitly disclose applying template matching to the image data to identify the first display of the object selected by the input.
Object recognition using template matching is well known in the art. In addition, Stroila teaches “One or more algorithms are applied to the view. . . ., template matching, correlation, or other processes are used to distinguish a face from other objects.” (¶27). Further, ¶29 recites “An algorithm identifies features or other aspects of the face and compares with a database of features associated with known individuals.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Stukalov in view of Black) to apply template matching to identify an object (taught by Stroila). The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a trigger stimulus at the client device; (Stukalov, ¶112 reciting “As further shown in FIG. 6, the acts 600 include an act 620 of detecting a dynamic attribute from the client device.”) and
causing the AR content to perform an animation based on the trigger stimulus. (Stukalov, ¶114 reciting “the act 630 includes presenting the digital graphic as an overlay on the visual media item with an animation effect based on the dynamic attribute.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 3, wherein the detecting the trigger stimulus further comprises:
detecting a movement of the object; (Stukalov, ¶113 reciting “detecting the dynamic attribute from the client device comprises detecting a motion of an object within the visual media item.”) and
causing the AR content to perform an animation based on the movement. (Stukalov, ¶121 reciting “determining the animation effect for the digital graphic based on the dynamic attribute comprises determining that the dynamic attribute corresponds to: a scaling animation that scales the digital graphic based on a motion of an object within the visual media item detected by the client device or sensor data received by the client device;”)
Regarding Claim 6, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 3, wherein the detecting the trigger stimulus further comprises:
detecting movement based on the image data, the movement comprising a directional attribute and a magnitude; (Stukalov, ¶113 reciting “detecting the dynamic attribute from the client device comprises detecting a motion of an object within the visual media item. . . detecting the motion of the object within the visual media item comprises detecting one or more of: a speed of the object as the object moves within the visual media item; . . .; or a change in orientation of the object within the visual media item.”) and
causing the AR content to perform an animation based on the directional attribute and the magnitude. (Stukalov, ¶121 reciting “determining the animation effect for the digital graphic based on the dynamic attribute” In addition, ¶113 discloses the dynamic attribute including a speed (magnitude) and an orientation.)
Regarding Claim 23, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the AR content contains anthropomorphic features, including at least a part of a human face. (Stukalov, Fig. 1B showing an AR content 112 contains anthropomorphic features, including at least a part of a human face.)
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 10, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
Claim 12, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 5.
Claim 13, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 6.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 5.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila, and in view of Hofmann et al. (US 20150040074 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 3.
However, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila does not explicitly disclose wherein the detecting the trigger stimulus further comprises:
detecting an ambient noise, the ambient noise comprising a property; and
causing display of the AR content based on the property of the ambient noise.
Hofmann teaches “Methods and systems for enabling creation of augmented reality content on a user device” (ABS). More specifically, Hofmann recites “User input is received from the user to either flip, attach or detach the object. The user input may include any suitable user input such as motion gesture, clicking, tapping, voice command, etc.... a third user input is received, preferably by a user input event listener, to flip the two- dimensional image. The two-dimensional image is animated on the display output by showing an effect of flipping over the two-dimensional image and displaying content associated with the target object” (30-31). In other words, Hofmann teaches starting an animation based on a voice command (corresponding to an ambient noise).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila) to detect a voice command and animating the media object based on the voice command (taught by Hofmann). The suggestions/motivations would have been voice command is a known user input, and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 7.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila, and in view of Bradski et al. (US 20160026253 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the object is a first object and the AR content on the first object is a first AR media object.
However, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila does not explicitly diclose the operations further comprising:
causing display of a second AR media object on a second object within the presentation of the image data; and
causing the first AR media object to perform an animation directed toward the second AR media object.
Bradski teaches “ presenting virtual reality and augmented reality experiences to users” (ABST). ¶862 recites “The virtual objects may also be dynamic and change with time, change in accordance with various relationships (e.g., location, distance, etc.) between the user or other users, physical objects, and other virtual objects, . . ., other virtual objects (e.g., a first virtual creature reacts when it sees a second virtual creature)”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila) to display a second AR media object and to cause the first AR media object to perform an animation directed toward the second AR media object, e.g. a first virtual creature reacts when it sees a second virtual creature (taught by Bradski). The suggestions/motivations would have been “to provide a realistic and enjoyable virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) experience” (¶168), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 22, Stukalov in view of Black, Stroila and Bradski discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the second AR media object to perform an animation in response to the animation performed by the first AR media object directed back toward the first AR media object. (Bradski, ¶888 reciting “Dynamic updating may be utilized to allow the first person to visualize progress of the second person's avatar 2 as the avatar 2 flies through the world local to the first person.” Fig. 60. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 21 rejections.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
