DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/3/2024 and 9/29/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1: Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USPN 10,114,532 B2 Krishnaswamy et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 19.
3: As for Claim 2, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 13, Lines 41-67 further comprising determining a modifier context (based on object selected by the user) based at least in part on the one or more actions (different modifying options are displayed based on the modifier context (selected region by the user).
4: As for Claim 3, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 13, Lines 41-67 further comprising determining a modifier context (based on object selected by the user) based at least in part on data indicative of a user's intent (different modifying options are displayed based on the modifier context (selected region by the user).
5: As for Claim 4, Krishnaswamy et al depicts in Figure 5, wherein each image modifier (listed editing option) of the one or more image modifiers (all editing options depicted in lists 532, 538 and 544) is associated with a modifier icon (the displayed name of the editing option is viewed as the modifier icon).
6: As for Claim 10, Krishnaswamy et al depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Column 17, Lines 5-27, wherein the modifier icon (the displayed name of the editing option is viewed as the modifier icon) is presented in an order (532, 538 and 544 have a displayed order of editing options that are different) based on the modifier context (the displayed order is different based on the selected region by the user which is viewed as the modifier context).
7: As for Claim 11, Krishnaswamy et al depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Column 17, Lines 5-27 further comprising determining an order of the one or more image modifiers (the list of editing options are listed in different orders as depicted in (532, 538 and 544 of Figure 5) based on one or more related modifier categories (determination of the image content such as a sky).
8: As for Claim 13, Krishnaswamy et al depicts in Figure 5 wherein causing display includes causing presentation, within a user interface, of the content augmentations associated with the image modifiers.
9: As for Claim 14, Krishnaswamy et al depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Column 6, Lines 32-49 and Column 13, Lines 41-51 wherein the one or more actions includes a user's input on a touch screen of a user device to take a selfie.
10: As for Claim 15, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 13, Lines 41-67 and depicts in Figure 5 wherein the one or more actions (selectable editing options depicted in Figure 5) includes content within a field of view of a camera feed for the user device (the menu options (532, 538 and 544) are overlayed on the captured video data as depicted in Figure 5).
11: As for Claim 16, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 13, Lines 41-67 wherein identifying the one or more image modifiers (editing options) includes identifying image modifiers (editing options) that share a characteristic of the user's intent (different editing options are displayed based on the different image locations selected by the user).
12: As for Claim 18, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 13, Lines 52-67 wherein the content augmentations (edit to the image that is based on the selected editing option) are selectable user interface elements (selected by the user via the touch screen see Figure 5.
13: As for Claim 19, Krishnaswamy et al teaches in Column 19, Lines 7-20 A device comprising: one or more processors (602 depicted in Figure 6); and a processor-readable storage device (memory 604 depicted in Figure 6) coupled to the one or more processors (602), the processor-readable storage device (604) storing processor executable instructions (608 and 610) that, when executed by the one or more processors (602), cause the one or more processors (602) to perform operations comprising:
identifying one or more actions of a user (user touching a touchscreen as taught on Column 13, Lines 41-51) of a user device (camera including touch screen); deriving an intent of the user based on the identified one or more actions of the user (the intent of the user is determined by determining the location on the touch screen that was touched by the user); identifying one or more image modifiers (editing options for the image are displayed based on the location indicated by the user) based on the derived intent of the user (Column 13, Lines 52-67); and causing display of a live camera feed of the user device that includes one or more content augmentations overlaid onto the live camera feed (depicted in Figure 5 and discussed in column 5, Lines 40-45 and Column 18, Lines 24-40 performing the operation in real-time when a participant is in a live video) based on the identified one or more image modifiers (image is edited with chosen editing options).
14: As for Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 17 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 JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 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 http://pair-direct.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).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights