This decision concerns a European patent application relating to techniques for providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks based on geographic location. The application was refused by the Examining Division. The applicant filed an appeal but was not successful. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1066/22 dated October 28, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.
Key takeaways
Being able to use features/applications offline is a desire that can be assumed.
The invention
The application relates to techniques for providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks and content creation for posting on such networks. Machine learning models based on geographic location are used to recognize objects in the users’ camera view and recommend, or apply, appropriate overlays. When the user changes location, the machine learning models are replaced accordingly.
Fig. 1 of EP3343441
Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:
-
Claim 1 (main request)
Is it patentable?
D4 (MIN WEIQING ET AL: “A survey on context-aware mobile visual recognition”) was considered as the closest prior art. The Examining Division refused the application for inter alia lack of inventive step over D4. The Board of Appeal in charge arrived at the same conclusion:
Firstly, the Board concluded that D4 does not disclose the following features:
“based on the location information, machine learning models are downloaded such that object recognition is performed locally on the user’s mobile device using the downloaded machine learning models,
wherein as the location changes, machine learning models associated with previous location information are removed and replaced with machine learning models associated with the current location”.
On the contrary, in D4, the location-based classifiers reside on the server (i.e., instead of being downloaded).
According to the Board, those distinguishing features have a technical effect and solve a technical problem, but the solution is obvious:
3. According to the Examining Division (point 4.2 in the decision) the objective technical problem is to allow an offline use of the recognition methods. This requires the download of the location-based object classifiers (point 4.2, see also point 6). The replacing of the older ones is then, in the Examining Division’s view, “standard housekeeping”.
…
5. The Board finds the analysis of the Examining Division to be convincing.
5.1 Being able to use features/applications offline is a desire that users can be assumed (actually, are known) to have had at the relevant priority date. Accordingly, it is a reasonable objective technical problem for the skilled person to address, whether D4 mentions it or not. This requires, necessarily, the download of the location based object classifiers to the device.
5.2 Removing data which is no longer needed appears then as an obvious option, for instance in order to save storage space on the device.
6. Regarding the argument of the Appellant that this analysis overlooks the synergy between the distinguishing features, the Board remarks the following.
6.1 Article 56 EPC states that an invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
6.2 As argued above and in agreement with the Examining Division, the Board considers that the invention is the obvious solution of a technical problem that the skilled person would have considered in view of the prior art. The mere fact that the considered technical problem does not reflect all effects achieved by the invention cannot disprove the conclusion that the invention was obvious over the prior art.
Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
More information
You can read the whole decision here: T 1066/22 dated October 28, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.