Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/638,020

Persistent Call Control User Interface Element in an Artificial Reality Environment

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Examiner
COX, NATISHA D
Art Unit
2458
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
323 granted / 445 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
456
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 445 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended. No claims have been added and/or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks et al (US Pub. No. 2023/0344662 herein after “Banks”) and further in view of Chang et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0365739 herein after “Chang”). As per claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 19, Banks discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a process for orchestrating calls and user interactions in an artificial reality environment, the process comprising: rendering a first artificial reality experience for a user on an artificial reality device (Banks, para[0124] the AR video chat system 224 can divide the user interface 800 of the video chat session into different regions each associated with the AR experience that is launched or activated by a particular client device 102), wherein the artificial reality device provides a call, between the user and one or more other users on respective other artificial reality devices, wherein the call is provided while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0128-0129] the AR video chat system 224 receives, from a first client device of a plurality of client devices, a request to establish a video call with a second client device of the plurality of client devices), and wherein at least one of the one or more other users is accessing, via at least one respective other artificial reality device of the respective other artificial reality devices, a different artificial reality experience than the first artificial reality experience, while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0124] different regions each associated with the AR experience that is launched or activated by a particular client device 102); rendering, while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience, a set of controls for the call between the user and the one or more other users; and transitioning the user to a second artificial reality experience, wherein the set of controls persist during the transitioning to the second artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0115] the user interface 600 includes a list of AR experiences 630, the first user can join the video chat with the second and third client devices 102. The first user can launch a second shared AR experience in which a different type of modification is applied to the video than the modifications being applied to the videos of the second and third users). Banks does not disclose, however, Chang discloses rendering a set of controls for the call between the user and the one or more other users, wherein the set of controls include controls that can be actuated by the user to modify aspects of the call and wherein the set of controls that persist maintain their functionality, while the user is in the second artificial reality experience, to be actuated by the user to modify aspects of the call (Chang, para[0279-0280,0772] control region 6015A…includes selectable options for controlling operations, parameters, and/or settings of the active shared-content session; the shared-content session object is persistently displayed over any of the plurality of application interface regions displayed in the user interface (see FIG. 6C & FIG. 14B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chang’s teaching of a control region into Banks’ teaching of Shared Augment Reality Experience in Video Chat because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the number of inputs at the computer system by quickly and easily providing additional controls for managing functions associated with the shared-content session. As per claims 2 and 12, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the set of controls includes at least one of A) controls that identify of the one or more other users, B) controls that share a view displayed on the artificial reality device with the at least one of the one or more other users via the at least one respective other artificial reality device, C) controls that mute or unmute a microphone on the artificial reality device for the call, D) controls that adjust volume of the call on the artificial reality device, E) controls that end the call on the artificial reality device, or F) any combination thereof (Banks, para[0124-0125] see also FIG. 8). As per claims 3 and 13, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the process further comprises: generating an invitation to join the first artificial reality experience, the invitation being transmitted, via the at least one respective other artificial reality device, to at least one other user of the one or more other users (Banks, para[0125] see also FIG. 8). As per claims 4 and 14, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the at least one other user is accessing a third artificial reality experience while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience and accepts the invitation; and wherein, in response to the acceptance, the at least one other user travels to the first artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0126]). As per claims 5 and 15, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein at least one other user, of the one or more other users, is accessing the first artificial reality experience while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience; and wherein the other user automatically transitions to the second artificial reality experience A) in response to the user accessing the second artificial reality experience and b) based on an association between the user and the other user (Banks, para[0108,0120]). As per claims 6 and 16, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the user and the one or more other users each transition to the second artificial reality experience based on A) being in the call together and B) input, provided on respective other artificial reality devices corresponding to the one or more other users, to travel to the second artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0108,0120]). As per claims 7, 17 and 20, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein at least one other user, of the one or more other users, is accessing the second artificial reality experience while the user is accessing the first artificial reality experience, and wherein the transitioning the user to a second artificial reality experience is in response to a selection, by the user, of an option to join the second artificial reality experience (Banks, para[0125-0126]). As per claims 8 and 18, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the rendering includes rendering avatars with automatic face animation that corresponds to speaking by respective users, of the one or more other users, in the call (Banks, para[0058,0076-0077] well within the scope of the invention as video calls include audio animation). As per claims 9 and 11, Banks discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the process further comprises: balancing audio output from the second artificial reality experience and the call, while the user is accessing the second artificial reality experience, wherein the balancing is based on input received via the set of controls (While not explicitly disclosed it is well known and would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art and thus cannot be considered an inventive concept, see also US 20160335140). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natisha Cox whose telephone number is (571) 270-7167. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10am - 6:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571)270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8000. 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://pairdirect.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NATISHA D COX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603946
IN-BAND SERVICE CHAINING IN A DISTRIBUTED SERVICES ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592888
HIGH-ACCESS-RATE DATA OBJECT TRANSFER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587591
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587458
Autospan Network Traffic Based on Monitored Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580820
LINK TRAINING THROUGH HANDSHAKE ON HIGH-SPEED INTERCONNECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
73%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+21.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 445 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