Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/708,169

VIRTUAL PROP PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 07, 2024
Examiner
LETT, THOMAS J
Art Unit
2611
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BEIJING BYTEDANCE NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
47%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
599 granted / 719 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -36% lift
Without
With
+-36.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
745
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§103
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§102
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 719 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because the term “pop” should be changed to read “prop” in figure 14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said Abstract is lengthy (approx. 170 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venshtain (US 11,069,094 B1). Regarding claim 1, Venshtain discloses a method for processing a virtual prop (AR makeup system 102 can add eyelashes, piercings, or other accessories to a user's face in a video stream by adding a textured accessory mesh to the face-tracking mesh, col. 9, lines 46-49), comprising: on the basis of three-dimensional face vertex data, acquiring target positions of a first type of position vertexes of the virtual prop (AR makeup system 102 can pin one or more corners or edges to the face mesh 500 by connecting vertices of the accessory mesh 502 to vertices of the face mesh 500, col. 16, line 67 – col. 17, line 2); on the basis of a posture change of a target object corresponding to the virtual prop, attribute information of the virtual prop, and a morphological parameter of the virtual prop in an initial frame (AR makeup system 102 generates the accessory mesh 502 to have a shape that approximates the shape of the accessory, col. 16, lines 49-52), determining target positions of a second type of position vertexes of the virtual prop (allow the AR makeup system 102 to pose or deform the accessory mesh 502 based on the movement of the root nodes, col. 17, lines 33-35); on the basis of the target positions of the first type of position vertexes, the target positions of the second type of position vertexes, and position information of the vertexes of the virtual prop in a historical frame (Examiner articulates that this is implied via track movement and deformation, i.e., pose or deform based on movement, col. 17, lines 34-35), acquiring target positions of the vertexes of the virtual prop in a current frame (per-frame update and animation is implied via tracked movement); and displaying the virtual prop in the current frame, on the basis of the target positions of the vertexes of the virtual prop in the current frame (the AR makeup system 102 renders the accessory in the augmented reality environment by assigning an accessory texture 504 to the accessory mesh 502, col. 17, lines 6-9). Regarding claim 2, Venshtain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, on the basis of the target positions of the first type of position vertexes, the target positions of the second type of position vertexes, and position information of the vertexes of the virtual prop in a historical frame, acquiring target positions of the vertexes of the virtual prop in a current frame (in response to receiving a request to add an eyelash accessory to the user's face, the AR makeup system generates an accessory mesh 502 corresponding to the eyelash accessory. Col. 16, lines 55-62), comprises: on the basis of the target positions of the first type of position vertexes, the target positions of the second type of position vertexes, position information of vertexes in an initial mesh, and position information of vertexes in a previous frame mesh (pin one or more corners or edges to the face mesh 500 by connecting vertices, col. 17, lines 2-5), acquiring the target positions of the vertexes of the virtual prop in the current frame (movable joints 506a-506c allow the AR makeup system 102 to pose or deform the accessory mesh 502 based on the movement of the root nodes, col. 17, lines 33-35), wherein the initial mesh is a mesh composed of vertexes of the virtual prop in an initial frame, and the previous frame mesh is a mesh composed of vertexes in the virtual prop in a previous frame (the AR makeup system 102 generates the accessory mesh 502 to have a shape that approximates the shape of the accessory (e.g., a strip-like mesh for eyelashes), col. 16, lines 49-52). Regarding claim 10, Venshtain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, the virtual prop is eyelashes, and the target object is an eye (the AR makeup system 102 tracks a user's face within a field of view of an image capture device based on identifying facial features (e.g., eyes, nose, mouth), face edges, etc., col. 7, lines 25-28). Claim 12, a device claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 13, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 15, a device claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 2. Claim 19, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-9, 16-18, and 20-22 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J LETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6 ET. 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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. /THOMAS J LETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602714
LIGHTING AND INTERNET OF THINGS DESIGN USING AUGMENTED REALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12570401
Robot and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Systems for Cell Sites and Towers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567217
SMART CONTENT RENDERING ON AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561867
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY ADDING TEXT CONTENT TO GENERATED IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555276
Image Generation Method and Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
47%
With Interview (-36.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 719 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