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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Request for Reconsideration, filed on 02/04/2026. This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. No claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4. 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (claim 1) Archer fails to disclose web browser executing instructions for determining a native sharing application available on the client device and invoking the native sharing application.
In response, Archer discloses (Para 30) features and functions of an external resource (e.g., an application installed on the client device 102 or a web view application executing in the web view in the messaging client 104) are made available to a user via an interface of the messaging client 104. Archer further discloses (Para 31), in response to receiving a user selection of the option to launch or access features of the external resource, the messaging client 104 determines whether the selected external resource is a web-based external resource. Archer discloses (Para 31) when the application is locally installed on the client device, the application can be launched independently of and separately from the messaging client 104. Accordingly and inherently, when the external resource is a web based resource, the web based resource is launched independently of and separately from the messaging client. Additionally, Archer discloses (Para 32), in response to determining that the external resource is a web-based resource, the messaging client 104 communicates with the third-party servers 110 (for example) to obtain a markup-language document corresponding to the selected external resource. Thus, in communicating with the third-party server to access an application, Archer teaches the web based resource determining the native sharing application. Additionally, Archer discloses (Para 33) the external resource can provide participants in a conversation, each using respective messaging clients 104, with the ability to share an item, status, state, or location in an external resource with one or more members of a group of users into a chat session. Additionally, in disclosing the third-party server application executing a task (such as obtaining or sharing information, e.g. a document) Archer teaches invoking the native sharing application. Therefore, Archer discloses the web browser executing instructions for determining a native sharing application available on the client device and invoking the native sharing application.
Applicant argues (claim 1) Archer fails to disclose querying and identifying a plurality of applications.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., querying and identifying a plurality of applications) 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).
Notwithstanding, Archer discloses (Para 34) The messaging client 104 can present a list of the available external resources to a user to launch or access a given external resource. This list can be presented in a context-sensitive menu. For example, the icons representing different ones of the web view apps can vary based on how the menu is launched by the user (e.g., from a conversation interface or from a non-conversation interface). Therefore, Archer teaches querying and identifying a plurality of applications.
To the extent that the response to the applicant's arguments may have mentioned new portions of the prior art references which were not used in the prior office action, this does not constitute a new ground of rejection. It is clear that the prior art reference is of record and has been considered entirely by applicant. See In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966) and In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
The mere fact that additional portions of the same reference may have been mentioned or relied upon does not constitute new ground of rejection. In re Meinhardt, 392, F.2d 273, 280, 157 USPQ 270, 275 (CCPA 1968).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Virgil Archer et al., US 2022/0414969.
Independent claim 1, Archer discloses a computing device comprising: a processor (i.e. client device – Fig. 1);
a memory (i.e. client device – Fig. 1) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
displaying, by a web browser application executing on the computing device, a web page provided by a server, the web page including a selection of special effects (i.e. messaging client includes an embedded web browser – Para 2; the augmentation system enables editing of media content – Para 41; 59);
receiving, by the web browser, a user selection of a special effect from the selection of special effects (i.e. messaging client includes an embedded web browser – Para 2; the augmentation system enables editing of media content – Para 41; 59);
in response to the user selection, the web browser executing a script provided by the server (i.e. messaging client communicates with servers – Para 46) to:
access a camera of the computing device (i.e. rear cameras – Para 104);
apply the selected special effect to a video stream received from the camera (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data – Para 59);
render the video stream with the applied special effect in a display window within the displayed web page, thereby providing a live view of the special effect (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data; a preview feature shows modifications – Para 59);
receiving, by the web browser, a user capture input while providing the live view of the special effect (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data – Para 59);
in response to receiving the user capture input, capturing image data or video data from the live view of the special effect (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data – Para 59);
displaying, within the web page, a sharing option for sharing the captured image data or video data (i.e. messaging client interface makes available functions of an external resource, e.g. web view application, are accessed via selection of options – Para 30-32);
receiving, by the web browser, a user selection of the sharing option; and in response to receiving the user selection of the sharing option, the web browser executing instructions for determining a native sharing application available on the client computing device and programmatically invoking the native sharing application to share the captured image data or video data (i.e. functions of an external resource, e.g. web view application, are accessed via selection of options – Para 30-32).
Claim 2, the computing device of claim 1, wherein the selection of special effects comprises a plurality of selectable special effects, and wherein the operations further comprise: displaying a user interface element within the web page that, when selected, causes the web page to be refreshed to display a different special effect than the selected special effect (i.e. a media overlay provided to the messaging client based on a geolocation of the client device – Para 41).
Claim 3, Archer discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the sharing option comprises a plurality of selectable sharing options (i.e. web view application installed on the client device, e.g. native application, - Para 30 – enables content sharing with other computing devices – abstract), and wherein programmatically invoking the native sharing application comprises: determining a type of the captured image data or video data (i.e. permit access to content and perform data validation – Para 16); determining a native sharing application associated with the type of the captured image data or video data (i.e. validate parameters to determine access to content – Para 19); and programmatically invoking the determined native sharing application to share the captured image data or video data (i.e. communicate shared content to messaging system users – Para 93).
Claim 5, Archer discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, within the web page, a preview option for previewing the captured image data or video data; receiving, by the web browser, a user selection of the preview option; in response to receiving the user selection of the preview option, displaying a preview of the captured image data or video data within the web page (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data; a preview feature shows modifications – Para 59).
Claim 6, Archer discloses the computing device of claim 5, wherein displaying the preview comprises displaying the captured image data or video data with the special effect applied (i.e. real time video capture is used with an illustrated modification to show how current captured video would modify captured data; a preview feature shows modifications – Para 59).
Claim 7, Archer discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the script is JavaScript code configured to access the camera of the client computing device through a getUserMedia API call to a browser of the client computing device (i.e. applications may be programmed in Java Script enabling use of APIs with functions used in a web based application – Para 46).
Independent claim 8, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claims 9-10, 12-14 and 16-20, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 2-3 and 5-7 apply herein.
Independent claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claims 4 and 11 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
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 CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615