Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/778,952

Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail, Text Messages and Websites

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Jul 20, 2024
Examiner
LI, GRACE Q
Art Unit
2618
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
270 granted / 351 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
386
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
63.9%
+23.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 351 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim(s) 24-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se (see MPEP § 2106, subsection I). Claim(s) 24 recites “A web page”. The PG-PUB US 20250054465 A1 corresponding to the instant application recites “[0051] The transmission of file 116 may be in conjunction with, for example but not limited to, an email message or the downloading of a web page. [0052] In the following example, the claimed subject matter is described with respect to an electronic mail message, or email, (not shown), text messages or a web page (not shown) transmitted from computer 102 to computer 122 via Internet 120. [0074] The transmission of file 116 may be in conjunction with, for example but not limited to, an email message or the downloading of a web page”. According to Wikipedia, a web page is a web document that is accessed in a web browser. Since Applicant’s disclosure does not further limit the definition of “a web page”, it could be transitory data signals. Claim(s) 29 recites “A website, the website comprising: a web page”. The PG-PUB US 20250054465 A1 corresponding to the instant application recites “[0031] The modified key photo is then transmitted in conjunction with a web-enabled electronic communication such as an email, text message or website. When received, i.e. the email or text message is opened or the website is downloaded, the key photo is displayed. [0072] It should be noted that a web-enabled file generated in accordance with the disclosed techniques would be particularly useful in conjunction with online stores, internet auction sites and e-commerce sites such as, but not limited to, Craig's List and Ebay”. According to Wikipedia, a website is any web page whose content is identified by a common domain name and is published on at least one web server. Since Applicant’s disclosure does not further limit the definition of “a website”, it could be transitory data signals. As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim(s) 24-37 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-20 of patent US 12051391. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are an obvious variation of the patented claims, or entirely covered by the patented claims. For example, claim 24 of the instant application discloses a first image of a scene displaying a particular location; and identified portions of a plurality of images that follow the first image captured in a sequential order from the particular location, that differ from the first image, wherein the identified portions are removed and pasted into the first image such that each identified portion is pasted into the first image in a position corresponding to the position of the corresponding cut portion in the corresponding sequential image; wherein the first image and the identified portions are stored as a single web enabled graphic file; and wherein the identified portions are identified by comparing the plurality of images to the first image with respect to motion of a selected element. These limitations are all disclosed by the claim 1 of the patent US 12051391. Therefore, claim 24 of the instant application is covered by the claim 1 of the patent US 12051391, and is/are not patently distinct from the mentioned patent claim. The following table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 24 of the instant application and the mapping claim 1 of patent US 12051391. Claim 24 of the Instant Application 18778952 Claim 1 of the Patent 12051391 A web page, the web page comprising: A graphic file stored on a memory, the file comprising: a first image of a scene displaying a particular location; and a first image of a scene displaying a particular location; and identified portions of a plurality of images that follow the first image captured in a sequential order from the particular location, that differ from the first image, identified portions of a plurality of images that follow the first image captured in a sequential order from the particular location, that differ from the first image, wherein the identified portions are removed and pasted into the first image such that each identified portion is pasted into the first image in a position corresponding to the position of the corresponding cut portion in the corresponding sequential image; wherein the identified portions are removed and pasted into the first image such that each identified portion is pasted into the first image in a position corresponding to the position of the corresponding cut portion in the corresponding sequential image; wherein the first image and the identified portions are stored as a single web enabled graphic file; and wherein the first image and the identified portions are stored as a single web enabled graphic file; and wherein the identified portions are identified by comparing the plurality of images to the first image with respect to motion of a selected element. wherein the identified portions are identified by comparing the plurality of images to the first image with respect to motion of a user selected element. Similarly, the instant application is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patent US 11263998, US 11893965, and US 11232768. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claim of the instant application and the patents: Claims of the Instant Application 18778952 24, 29 25, 30 26, 31 27, 32 28 33 34 35 36 37 Claims of the Patent 12051391 1 2 3 5 6 16 17 18 19 20 Claims of the Instant Application 18778952 24, 29 25, 30 26, 31 28 33 34 35 37 Claims of the Patent 11263998 1 2 3 6 15 16 17 14 Claims of the Instant Application 18778952 24, 29 28 33 37 Claims of the Patent 11893965 1 9 10 18 Claims of the Instant Application 18778952 24, 29 27, 32 33 36 Claims of the Patent 11232768 1 4 1 4 Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 24-37 is/are allowed over prior art. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art found is Garoutte (US 7650058). Garoutte discloses “FIG. 2 shows the background of the video scene of FIG. 1, in which a segment of pixel data representing the image of the subject has been extracted. FIG. 3 shows the subject of the video scene of FIG. 1, in which a block of pixel data representing the walking subject has been less heavily compressed… The compressed images of FIGS. 2 and 3 may be saved as by writing them to video recordation media. Then only the segment associated with the subject(s) will be compressed and stored, and can be assembled onto the already-stored background” (col.14, lines 7-9, 16-18, 25-26, 34-36). However, this is different from the instant application. Especially, regarding independent claim 24, it recites, inter alia, wherein the identified portions are removed and pasted into the first image such that each identified portion is pasted into the first image in a position corresponding to the position of the corresponding cut portion in the corresponding sequential image; wherein the first image and the identified portions are stored as a single web enabled graphic file; and wherein the identified portions are identified by comparing the plurality of images to the first image with respect to motion of a selected element. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole. Claim(s) 29 and 33 are interpreted and allowed under similar rationale as claim 24. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm. 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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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. /GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 1/23/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Feb 13, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 20, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602880
Controlling Augmented Reality Content Via Selection of Real-World Locations or Objects
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602942
MODEL FINE-TUNING FOR AUTOMATED AUGMENTED REALITY DESCRIPTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597217
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUGMENTED REALITY IN AUTOMOTIVE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579762
OVERLAY ADAPTATION FOR VISUAL DISCRIMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561922
CAPTURE AND DISPLAY OF POINT CLOUDS USING AUGMENTED REALITY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 351 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month