DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 3/31/2026 is considered.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
In regard to claims 1-15, claim 1 has been amended to recite “in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range, generating, by the computing system, user interface data, the user interface data including directions from the first user device to the first AR experience area, the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area, the user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area”. Applicants have failed to indicate where support is found for this subject matter and the Examiner is unable to locate a teaching or suggestion of this subject matter in the specification.
The specification recites “…For a new user who is within the range of the shared AR instance, but outside of the visually scanned region, the location-based shared AR experience system is configured to guide the user on how to get into the previously scanned region…” in paragraph 16, “The map system 210 provides various geographic location functions, and supports the presentation of map-based media content and messages by the messaging client 104… For example, a message posted by a user to the messaging system 100 from a specific geographic location may be displayed within the context of a map at that particular location to “friends” of a specific user on a map interface of the messaging client 104…In some embodiments, the map system 210 is used by the location-based shared AR experience system 202 to determine or to obtain geographic location information of a user device” in paragraph 37, and “…a previously-defined AR experience area encompassing the GPS location…Using this definition an AR experience area it's easy to determine if… the user should be guided to the center of the radius to get to the scanned area and increase probability of meeting other players.”, in paragraph 54.
The cited portions recite similar subject matter as identified above but fail to teach or suggest all of the subject matter. For example, the cited portions appear to teach/suggest determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range. Further, the cited portions appear to teach/suggest guiding a user to a previously scanned region or to the center of a radius of an AR experience area. Further, the cited portions appear to teach/suggest a map. However, the cited portions do not teach or suggest “in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range, generating, by the computing system, user interface data, the user interface data including directions from the first user device to the first AR experience area, the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area, the user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area”. The cited portions and the entire specification are silent with respect to generating user interface data, the user interface data including directions from the first user device to the first AR experience area, and the user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area, as required by the claims. Further, cited portions and the entire specification are silent with respect to the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area, as required by the claims. Further, cited portions and the entire specification are silent with respect to user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area, as required by the claims. Further, cited portions and the entire specification are silent with respect to generating user interface data, the user interface data including directions from the first user device to the first AR experience area, the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area, and the user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area, in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range, as required by the claims.
Accordingly, the claims contain 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.
In regard to claims 16-19, claims 16-19 recite similar subject matter as identified above with respect to claims 1-15 and are rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 recites similar subject matter as identified above with respect to claims 1-15 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Priority
5. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17725319, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 17725319 fails to provide adequate support for the subject matter identified above with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20, as Application No. 17725319’s originally filed specification is substantially similar to the specification in the instant application and therefore fails to adequately describe the claimed subject matter for similar reasons.
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
6. Prior art rejections have not been provided for claims 1-20 as these claims include subject matter not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, the claims stand rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and therefore are not allowable.
In regard to claims 1-15, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the recited “in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range, generating, by the computing system, user interface data, the user interface data including directions from the first user device to the first AR experience area, the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area, the user interface data providing directions on a map to the first user device toward the first AR experience area” in combination with the other elements recited.
Previously cited prior art reference, Rafkind et al. (US 2022/0124143 A1), teaches providing guidance in the form of a map providing direction to a location for an AR experience, see at least Paragraph 0051. However, Rafkind is silent with respect to the recited in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range and the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area.
Newly cited prior art reference, Yi et al. (US 2021/0407211 A1), teaches providing guidance to a shared object in an augmented reality environment, see at least Fig. 5 and Paragraphs 0091-0095. However, Yi is silent with respect to the recited in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range and the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area.
Newly cited prior art reference, Dubach et al. (US 2018/0293796 A1), teaches providing guidance to a virtual object in an augmented reality environment, see at least the abstract and Paragraph 0002. However, Dubach is silent with respect to the recited in response to determining that the location of the second user device is within the predefined distance and outside of the range and the user interface data being displayed prior to the second user device joining the first AR experience area.
In regard to claims 16-19, claims 16-19 recite similar subject matter as identified above with respect claims 1-15 and the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims for similar reasons.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 recites similar subject matter as identified above with respect claims 1-15 and the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of this claims for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
7. The Terminal Disclaimer filed 7/1/2026 is sufficient to overcome the Double Patenting rejections of claims 1-20. Accordingly, the Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer.
8. The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1-20. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
9. The arguments that the applied prior art references Cardenas, Rathod, and Hall, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the amended claims are found persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights