Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 19/207,184

DYNAMIC AUGMENTED REALITY EXPERIENCE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 13, 2025
Priority
May 10, 2022 — continuation of 11/922,587 +1 more
Examiner
ZHENG, XUEMEI
Art Unit
2629
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Snap Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
600 granted / 709 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 709 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of this application Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 1. A method comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience. 1a. A method comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR object associated with the AR experience; identifying a hand gesture from a user of the computer device; and in response to identifying the hand gesture, modifying the second AR object. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates each limitation of claim 1 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of this application Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 1. A method comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience. A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a selection from a computer device, the selection comprising initiation of an augmented reality (AR) experience on an application running on the computer device; in response to receiving the selection, causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR object associated with the AR experience. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates each limitation of claim 1 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 9 of this application Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 9. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience; 9. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR object associated with the AR experience; identifying a hand gesture from a user of the computer device; and in response to identifying the hand gesture, modifying the second AR object. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates each limitation of claim 9 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 9 of this application Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 9. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience. 9. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to: receive a selection from a computer device, the selection comprising initiation of an augmented reality (AR) experience on an application run on the computer device; in response to receiving the selection, cause display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receive a first set of image data and a first set of audio data corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generate a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; cause display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receive a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generate a second AR object associated with the AR experience. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates each limitation of claim 9 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 17 of this application Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 17. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience. 17. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR object associated with the AR experience; identifying a hand gesture from a user of the computer device; and in response to identifying the hand gesture, modifying the second AR object. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates each limitation of claim 17 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 17 of this application Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 17. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising: causing display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with an augmented reality (AR) experience; receiving a first set of image data and a first set of audio data, corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generating a first AR effect associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; causing display of the first AR effect on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receiving a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generating a second AR effect associated with the AR experience. 9. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to: receive a selection from a computer device, the selection comprising initiation of an augmented reality (AR) experience on an application run on the computer device; in response to receiving the selection, cause display of a first set of textual cues on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the computer device, the first set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receive a first set of image data and a first set of audio data corresponding to the first set of textual cues; generate a first AR object associated with the AR experience based on the first set of image data and an analysis of keywords in the first set of audio data, the keywords identified using a voice machine learning model; cause display of the first AR object on the GUI of the computer device and a second set of textual cues associated with the AR experience; receive a second set of image data corresponding to the second set of textual cues; and in response to receiving the second set of image data, generate a second AR object associated with the AR experience. As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates each limitation of claim 17 of this instant application (Note that “a first AR object” in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a first AR effect” in the instant claim and “a second AR object” in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 anticipates “a second AR effect”). Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,056 (resulting from App. No. 18/594,733). Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,587 (resulting from App. No. 17/740,598). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2024/0386675 by Healey et al., discloses a related technique (not eligible as prior art) in Fig. 2 capturing image data using a camera, capturing spatial information using one or more sensors,; receiving voice data using a microphone, analyzing the voice data to identify a keyword, analyzing the image data and the spatial information to identify an object corresponding to the keyword; generating text based on the voice data and the keyword. US Patent No. 11,721,333 by Lee et al. teaches in Figs. 24-25 displaying an image including at least one object, receiving a voice, identifying an object associated with the voice among at least one object included in the image, by inputting the voice to an artificial intelligent (AI) model trained by an AI algorithm (for obtaining keywords) and obtaining tag information for the identified object, and providing the obtained tag information. The prior art, however, does not teach about textual cues associated with an AR experience. US 2022/0254120 by Berliner et al. discloses in [0128] “movement of a keyboard relative to a virtual object may cause some change with respect to the virtual object. (e.g., the virtual object may move with the keyboard”, i.e., an AR effect associated a virtual object is generated. US 2021/0034870 by Ha teaches in [0175] “the position of a virtual object of a 3D virtual image assigned to the corresponding physical object of actual image information is automatically adjusted so that a separation distance from the physical object is maintained and so displayed on the augmented reality glasses 100”, i.e. an AR effect associated a virtual object is generated. US 2019/0278621 by Thomas et al. teaches in [0051] use of audio data to interact with a virtual object (“the voice recognition engine 216 is configured to receive a voice signal to authenticate a user and/or to identify a virtual objects and/or actions indicated by the user”). US 2019/0358527 by Nozaki teaches in a virtual reality game using a sound recognition technique to recognizes sound that is input as the sound input information, which includes a conformity determination portion that determines a degree of conformity between (a) the sound input information that is recognized and (b) reference information and includes an action controller that changes an action effect according to the degree of conformity. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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. /XUEMEI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 21, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12614522
SHIFT REGISTER UNIT, GATE DRIVING CIRCUIT, AND GATE DRIVING METHOD
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613555
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613574
Head-Mounted Device With Tension Adjustment
1y 6m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12596441
Chinese Character Input Method, System and Keyboard
4y 9m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12572318
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY SHARING MEDIA BASED ON CONTACT PROXIMITY, GROUP PARTICIPATION, OR EVENT
1y 6m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+13.9%)
1y 11m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 709 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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