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 02/05/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are presently amended. Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been canceled. No claims are presently added. As a result, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 remain pending in this application.
The objection to the claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “First, the amended claims recite limitations that include "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." Stroila does not teach or suggest detecting temporal attributes or using geolocation attributes for AR content selection.” (Remarks, p. 10).
The Examiner notes that the amended claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “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”; and “assigning the AR content to the object feature of the object based on the selection and the one or more contextual attributes;”. Stroila indeed teaches detecting one or more contextual attributes comprising a geolocation attribute and assigning the AR content based on the one or more contextual attributes, and recites “In act 15 of FIG. 2, a location of the mobile device is determined. “ (¶33); “The mobile device correlates spread spectrum signals form satellites to determine location, such as using the global positioning system (GPS).”; and “The database is populated to be queried by the personal characteristics and the geographic location. The points of interest and corresponding augmented reality information for each point of interest are linked with the geographic location in a mapping or other database. If the database is a mapping database, the points of interest and augmented reality information may be linked to a node or specific location.” (¶46).
In addition, Stukalov also discloses the abovementioned limitations, and recites “ 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. ” (¶54).
Applicant argues that “Stroila provides no teaching or suggestion that configuration options would vary based on temporal attributes or geolocation attributes as required by the amended claims.” (Remarks, p. 10).
The Examiner notes that Black teaches the amended limitations “presenting, at the client device, a set of configuration options based on . . . and the one or more contextual attributes”. ¶34-40 teaches presenting configuration options based on location attribute. 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.”
Applicant argues that “The amended claims, by contrast, require that AR content assignment depend on contextual attributes, meaning the same object could receive different AR content based on temporal or geolocation factors, independent of who is viewing it.” (Remarks, p. 11).
In response, the Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the same object could receive different AR content based on temporal or geolocation factors, independent of who is viewing it.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Stukalov discloses the amended limitations (i.e., assigning the AR content to the object feature of the object based on the selection and the one or more contextual attributes;), and recites “ 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. ” (¶54).
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the amended limitation “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” misses an ending punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 19-20 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 at least a configuration option from among the set of configuration options, the configuration option comprising 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 based on the position of the second display of the object 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, a set of configuration options based on the object feature of the object and the one or more contextual attributes responsive to the identifying the object within the presentation of the image data.
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, a set of configuration options based on the object feature of the object and the one or more contextual attributes responsive to the identifying the object within the presentation of the image data, 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.”
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 received 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 (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 2, Stukalov in view of Black and Stroila discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the causing display of the AR content includes:
accessing the AR content from within a repository responsive to the detecting the object feature. (Stukalov, ¶44 reciting “the digital communications system uses the animation-effect database to map a detected dynamic attribute to an animation-effect option.”)
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.)
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 9, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
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 16, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights