Detecting Relative Movement Between A User's Face And An Augmented Reality Element: Non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for controlling an augmented reality (AR) user interface by detecting a user's face and its movement relative to AR elements displayed on a device screen. The key features at issue were the detection of relative movement between a facial reference feature and a first AR element, and the subsequent modification of the AR element's presentation along with the display of a further AR element. The Board of Appeal considered these distinguishing features to be non-technical, as they relate to the presentation of information as such.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) of 5 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The application relates to an augmented reality system for controlling a user interface with an object depicted within the user interface. The system initiates an augmented reality mode on a device, such as a smartphone, configured to present AR elements within a graphical user interface. A face of the user is detected within the field of view of a camera coupled to the device. In response to detecting the face, a set of AR elements is sequentially presented within the GUI, with a subset of AR elements and the face depicted contemporaneously. Movement of a reference feature of the face is detected by tracking landmark points across video frames. The movement is detected relative to a first AR element, which itself changes positions across successively captured frames. In response to detecting this relative movement, the system modifies the presentation of the first AR element and presents at least one second AR element. A practical example described in the application is a game where AR objects fly toward the user's face, and the user dodges or catches them by moving their face or the device.

• Main request, claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division's position

The Examining Division refused the application on the basis that, among other grounds, the claims lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC and certain auxiliary requests contained added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. With respect to inventive step, the Examining Division relied on document D1 (EP 2759909 A2), which likewise discloses a method relating to augmented reality where movement of parts of an image is detected and the presentation of a virtual object is modified. The Examining Division found that D1 disclosed all features of claim 1 except the detection of relative movement between the face and the AR element (feature (e)) and the resulting modification and presentation of a further AR element (feature (h)). The Examining Division considered these distinguishing features to relate to presentation of information as such and held that in both D1 and the present invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or a video of real objects. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Examining Division found that the combination of features relating to detecting relative movement (feature (e)) and determining a proximity threshold (feature (j)) constituted an impermissible combination of separately disclosed embodiments, violating Article 123(2) EPC.

The Appellant's arguments

The Appellant argued that the distinguishing features provided several technical effects, namely facilitating interactions between a user and an AR object, enabling real-time control of AR objects through real physical movements, enabling control of functions of a device through real physical movements, and providing an improved method of control for a computer device. The Appellant submitted that the objective technical problem should be formulated as "how to facilitate control of a device or GUI with a captured real world object." With respect to obviousness, the Appellant argued that D1 taught away from the distinguishing features because D1 detected simply the movement of two real objects, functioning as a mirror without any interaction between the user and the objects. The Appellant also relied on a number of Board of Appeal decisions in support of its position that the distinguishing features provided a technical effect. Regarding added subject-matter, the Appellant argued that paragraphs [0053], [0061], and [0062] and Figure 7 of the application as filed provided a clear basis for combining operation 340 of method 300 (Figure 3) with the steps of method 700 (Figure 7), pointing to paragraph [0053] which stated that "certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300." The Appellant further argued that the combination was based on the "intention of the invention," was "intuitive for the skilled person," and constituted "a very natural and intuitive pairing of features."

The Board's analysis

Main request (inventive step)

The Board held that the distinguishing features (e) and (h) did not lead to any technical effect. In particular:

1. It was not apparent which interactions would actually be facilitated. When the user's face does not move and the AR object moves, the presentation of the AR object is modified without any input by the user's face.
2. "Real physical movements" do not lead to a control of AR objects. According to feature (e), it is the relative movement that is detected, which may equally result from movement of the AR element alone.
3. Controlling the presentation of AR objects on a GUI is not per se a "technical task" performed on a device within the meaning of T 336/14 (catchword) and T 1802/13 (Reasons 2.1.5). Claim 1 does not refer to any device functions beyond the modification of the presentation of an AR object and the presentation of a further AR object.
4. The relevant features concern the presentation of information as such and are non-technical (citing T 1143/06, T 1741/08, and T 336/14).
5. The reference to paragraph [0025] of the application made by the Appellant did not relate to the distinguishing features.

Since the distinguishing features have no technical effect, the Board reformulated the objective technical problem using the COMVIK approach (T 641/00): to modify the method of D1 such that when relative movement between the face and the AR element is detected, the presentation thereof is modified and a further AR element is displayed. The Board found that the skilled person would have effortlessly solved this problem, as the detection referred to does not pose any difficulties to a skilled person in GUI design and the claimed subject-matter does not provide any additional information regarding technical implementation. The Board was not persuaded by the teaching-away argument, agreeing with the Examining Division that in both D1 and the invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or real objects.

First auxiliary request (inventive step)

The added features (i) and (b1) relate to depicting the first AR element as passing behind a portion of the user and specifying the face as that of a user. The Board held that these features concern a mere presentation of information, in particular the manner how information is presented (cf. T 1802/13), and thus cannot contribute to inventive step either. The first auxiliary request was rejected for the same reasons as the main request.

Second to fourth auxiliary requests (added subject-matter)

The Board endorsed the Examining Division's finding that these requests violated Article 123(2) EPC. The combination of feature (e) (detecting relative movement) with feature (j) (determining a proximity threshold) extended beyond the original disclosure because these features relate to separate embodiments (Figures 3-6 vs. Figures 7-10). The Board found that paragraphs [0061] and [0062] and Figure 7 do not actually disclose "detecting a movement of a reference feature of the face relative to the first augmented reality element." Although paragraph [0053] states that "certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300," the description does not disclose which operations may be combined, and the result of detecting relative movement plays no particular role in these auxiliary request claims. The Board also rejected the Appellant's criteria of "intention of the invention," "intuitive for the skilled person," and "a very natural and intuitive pairing of features" as unsuitable standards under Article 123(2) EPC, which requires that the combination be derivable directly and unambiguously from the application as originally filed.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. For the main request and the first auxiliary request, the Board found that the distinguishing features over D1 relate to the presentation of information as such and do not produce any technical effect. Including these non-technical features in the formulation of the objective technical problem under the COMVIK approach, the Board concluded that the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed subject-matter without inventive effort. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Board confirmed that the specific combination of features from different embodiments was not originally disclosed, constituting added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. The application was therefore refused.