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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
The action is in response to claims dated 12/3/2025.
Claims pending in the case: 1-20.
Applicant has filed a terminal disclosure in this application to address the double patenting rejection in the prior office action. The e-terminal disclaimer is hereby acknowledged.
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 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido (US 20190342240) in view of Kakumanu (WO 2023095164 - please refer to the attached for the mapping) and Bellegarda (US 20180336184).
Regarding claim 1, Garrido teaches, A method comprising:
displaying an image (Garrido: [32, 34, 44, 49-50]: images in a messaging application);
detecting a communication session between a first user and a second user (Garrido: [32, 34, 44]: send and receive images in a messaging application – detect communication session);
determining, based on the communication session, that the first user is viewing a content item comprising an individual image captured by a device of the second user (Garrido: [50]: view received image in a messaging application; [32, 44]: user captured image);
….
.. a message generation interface in which … determining a .. a plurality of augmented reality content items based on an event … that is associated with one of the first and second users (Garrido: [34, 36, 98]: in a detected communication session, based on an image viewing even by the user, supplemental content displayed; [31, 58, 72-73]: supplemental content items corresponding to augmented reality experiences).
However, Garrido does not specifically teach,
detecting selection of a reply interface element presented in response to determining that the first user is viewing the content item comprising the individual image captured by the device of the second user; and
in response to detecting the selection of a reply interface element when the first user is viewing the content item comprising the individual image captured by the device of the second user, generating a message generation interface in which the second user is preselected as a recipient and determining a ranking for a plurality of augmented reality content items based on a predefined event associated with one of the first and second users;
Kakumanu teaches, detecting selection of a reply interface element presented in response to determining that the first user is viewing the content item comprising the individual image captured by the device of the second user (Kakumanu Fig. 19, Pg. 8 [5], PG. 11 [6], PG. 12 [4]: user may select option to message privately the sender by selecting option on message being viewed; Pg. 2 [1]: chat interface as whatsapp - can share image content); and
in response to detecting the selection of a reply interface element when the first user is viewing the content item comprising the individual image captured by the device of the second user, generating a message generation interface in which the second user is preselected as a recipient (Kakumanu Fig. 19, Pg. 8 [5], PG. 11 [6], Pg. 12 [4]: generate private chat window with the sender of content as recipient; Pg. 2 [1]: “chat privately” option in whatsapp while viewing content, which may be an image);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Garrido and Kakumanu because the combination would enable responding directly to the sender of a message in a group chat interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would make the system more flexible by enabling an option to message a single participant in a chat environment. The combination enables incorporating the commonly known chat functions in the art.
Bellegarda, further teaches, and determining a ranking for a plurality of augmented reality content items based on a predefined event associated with one of the first and second sender (Bellegarda: [24, 32]: emoji suggestions may be based on context which may be an event such as an upcoming birthday; [185, 212-213]: “Based on the likelihood scores, the plurality of candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be ranked and the n-best candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be presented for display”); It is noted here that as per specification [55], augmented reality content item may include graphical elements – such as emoji;
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Garido, Kakumanu and Bellegarda because the combination would enable suggesting content based on an upcoming event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would improve the process of providing relevant content by taking into consideration upcoming event.
Claim 2-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido (US 20190342240), Kakumanu (WO 2023095164 - please refer to the attached for the mapping) and Bellegarda (US 20180336184) in further view of Patel (US 20160127763) and Baumeister (KR 20050091066 - please refer to the attached English translation for the mapping).
Regarding claim 2, Garido, Kakumanu and Bellegarda teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, comprising: determining, based on the ranking, a highest-ranked augmented reality content item from among the plurality of augmented reality content items (Bellegarda: [185, 212-213]: ranking suggestions; [185]:“Based on the likelihood scores, the plurality of candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be ranked and the n-best candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be presented for display”); It is noted here that as per specification [55], augmented reality content item may include graphical elements – such as emoji;
displaying, based on the ranking, a carousel interface comprising multiple icons, each icon being user-selectable to display a respective one of the plurality of augmented reality content items (Garrido: [28, 33, 39]: modify image with supplemental content; [42]: adaptive content (ranked by context of the image); Fig. 2, [46]: provide supplemental content in a scrollable ribbon (carousel) as illustrated in Fig. 2) (Bellegarda: [24, 32, 42]: display emoji suggestions based on ranking by context), …;
…; and
generating a message for transmission to the second user via the message generation interface, the message comprising the individual image modified by the highest-ranked augmented reality content item (Garrido: [28, 33]: send modified image);
However, Garido, Kakumanu and Bellegarda do not specifically teach,
the respective icon for the highest-ranked augmented reality content item being preselected and displayed in a different manner relative to remaining icons of the multiple icons within the carousel interface;
in response to determining the ranking, automatically selecting the respective icon for the highest-ranked augmented reality content item to automatically launch, to display the highest-ranked augmented reality content item with the individual image;
Patel further teaches,
the respective icon for the highest-ranked content item being preselected and displayed in a different manner relative to remaining icons of the multiple icons within the interface (Patel: [21-22, 24]: [24]: “display of the highest ranked preferred content item 101a is more prominent relative to other content items (e.g., largest size, easiest viewed position, etc.));
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda and Patel because the combination would enable displaying the highest ranked content among a set of content items in a prominent manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable the user to easily select the most appropriate content item based on the ranking. The combination enables using the commonly known functions in the art in an augmented reality environment.
Baumeister further teaches,
in response to determining the ranking, automatically selecting the respective icon for the highest-ranked augmented reality content item to automatically launch, to display the highest-ranked content item (Baumeister: Pg. 14 [2]: the contents may be ranked and the highest rated application may be automatically launched);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister because the combination would enable automatically launching the highest ranked content among a set of content items. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable the user to easily view the highest rated content item without providing an input. The combination makes the system more user friendly by display the most desired content to the user saving time and additional user input.
Regarding claim 3, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, further comprising: receiving, by a messaging application, a request from the first user to compose a message for sending to the second user (Garrido: [32, 34, 44]: exchange of messages with attachments of user capture image and supplementary content), the message being configured to include the image, the first user and the second user corresponding to contacts in the messaging application (Garrido: [35-36]: in camera mode, supplemental content displayed with image.; [31, 58, 72]: augmented reality environment –content items corresponding to augmented reality experiences).
Regarding claim 4, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein each of the augmented reality content items is configured to be displayed with the image (Garrido: [35-36]: in camera mode, supplemental content displayed with image), and wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that relates the first and second users (Patel: [21-22, 24]: content most preferred by plurality of users).
Regarding claim 5, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, further comprising: applying a machine learning model to the plurality of augmented reality content items to rank the plurality of augmented reality content items (Bellegarda: [32, 183, 186]: analysis using learning models).
Regarding claim 6, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, further comprising: sending, to a server, a request to rank the plurality of augmented reality content items; and receiving, from the server and in response to sending the request, an indication of the ranking for the plurality of augmented reality content items (Patel: [27, 38] user device communicates with management server to receive ranked content) (Garrido: [35-36]: in camera mode, supplemental content displayed with image.; [31, 58, 72]: augmented reality environment –content items corresponding to augmented reality experiences).
Regarding claim 7, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 5 above and, further comprising: training the machine learning model to rank the plurality of augmented reality content items based on user input selecting augmented reality content items displayed in a ranked order (Bellegarda: [32, 183, 186]: analysis using learning models to present content for a user) (Baumeister: Pg. 11, [2], Pg. 14 [2]: the contents may be ranked as per preference (selection preference)).
Regarding claim 8, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 5 above and, further comprising: training the machine learning model to rank the plurality of augmented reality content items on a single user basis (Bellegarda: [32, 183, 186]: analysis using learning models to present content for a user).
Regarding claim 9, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein the respective icon for the highest-ranked augmented reality content item is displayed larger than the remaining icons of the multiple icons within the carousel interface (Patel: [21-22, 24]: [24]: “display of the highest ranked preferred content item 101a is more prominent relative to other content items (e.g., largest size, easiest viewed position, etc. . . . ).”).
Regarding claim 10, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that indicates a frequency of messages exchanged between the first and second users (Pascal: [8, 35]: content suggested based on “frequency of communication”).
Regarding claim 12, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that indicates a user-specified strength of a relationship between the first and second users (Pascal: [38, 55-56]: relationship and tone used to identify relevant content; [43]: user may specify rules defining inferences based on relationship with specific users (strength)).
Regarding claim 13, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that indicates a subset of the plurality of augmented reality content items previously displayed with respect to messaging between the first and second users (Pascal: [33, 57]: previously sent content to or between the same parties; [24, 39, 43, 58-59]: inference based on predefined events and rules) (Garrido: [35-36]: in camera mode, supplemental content displayed with image.; [31, 58, 72]: augmented reality environment –content items corresponding to augmented reality experiences).
Regarding claim 14, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and, wherein the ranking of the plurality of augmented reality content items is based on an anniversary associated with at least one of the first and second users, the predefined event being based on a current date (Bellegarda: [24, 32]: emoji suggestions may be based on context which may be an event such as an upcoming birthday of the user in the current chat event; [185, 212-213]: “Based on the likelihood scores, the plurality of candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be ranked and the n-best candidate predicted words/emoji characters can be presented for display”).
Regarding Claim(s) 15-19, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1, 3-4, 14, 6 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido (US 20190342240), Kakumanu (WO 2023095164 - please refer to the attached for the mapping), Bellegarda (US 20180336184), Patel (US 20160127763) and Baumeister (KR 20050091066 - please refer to the attached English translation for the mapping) in further view of Reimer (CA 2867786 – refer to the attached FOR patent) .
Regarding claim 11, Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel and Baumeister teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above but not, wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that indicates a recency of messages exchanged between the first and second users;
Reimer teaches, wherein the ranking is based on at least one signal that indicates a recency of messages exchanged between first and second users (Reimer: Fig. 14, [2, 19, 22, 110]: relevant content as per recency in chat application).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Garido, Kakumanu, Bellegarda, Patel, Baumeister and Reimer because the combination would enable using relevancy, recency and relationship as criteria to determine relevant content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would provide the most relevant content for the user to select from based on commonly used criteria for ranking know in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments have been fully considered and overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the claims. Prior art rejection based on the amended claim have been presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached on 571 272 4241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176