US 8777746

Here is a concise summary of US patent 8777746:

US Patent 8777746: Gestures to encapsulate intent

• Title: Gestures to encapsulate intent
• Current Assignee: ImagineAR Inc.
• Inventors: Oliver (Lake) T. Watkins, Jr., Yousuf Chowdhary, Jeffrey Brunet, Ravinder (Ray) Sharma
• Filing Date: 2012-09-14
• Issue Date: 2014-07-15
• Abstract: The patent describes a method for enabling gameplay with a character in a game environment on a mobile device. It involves receiving a touch gesture input when an action is expected from the character. The system calculates how closely this input gesture matches an "optimal gesture" from a stored reference table. If the match (fidelity) falls within a predefined range, the input is considered optimal, and a game script is triggered to show the character successfully completing the expected action.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for playing a game with a character on a mobile device. The method includes:
  1. Providing a game where a player controls a character.
  2. Receiving a touch gesture on the mobile device when the character is expected to perform an action.
  3. Calculating how accurately the received touch gesture matches an "optimal gesture" stored in a reference table.
  4. If the accuracy (fidelity) is within a specified range for the optimal gesture, the system recognizes it as the optimal gesture and activates a game script that shows the character successfully performing the expected action.

Litigation Status:

The patent US8777746B2 is currently active. It has been involved in litigation:

• A US case was filed in the Delaware District Court (case number 1:24-cv-01252).
• A US case was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case number 26-1720).
• The first worldwide family litigation was also filed.

As of April 26, 2026, litigation involving US patent 8777746 is known, primarily centered around a patent infringement lawsuit filed by ImagineAR Inc. against Niantic, Inc.

Here are the known details:

1. Delaware District Court Case

   • Plaintiff(s): ImagineAR Inc. (or ImagineAR, Inc. et al.)
   • Defendant(s): Niantic, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01252
   • Filing Date: November 13, 2024
   • Outcome/Current Status: On April 8, 2026, the District Court granted Niantic Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling several of ImagineAR's asserted patents, including US8777746, invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court also denied ImagineAR's motion to amend its complaint. ImagineAR Inc. has announced its intention to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 26-1720
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely ImagineAR Inc. (appellant)
   • Defendant(s): Likely Niantic, Inc. (appellee)
   • Filing Date: The exact filing date for the appeal under this specific case number is not available in the search results as of April 26, 2026. However, ImagineAR Inc. announced their plan to appeal the Delaware District Court's ruling (issued April 8, 2026) to the Federal Circuit.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Pending appeal. Based on the information available, this case number likely refers to the appeal of the Delaware District Court's decision in ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., which ImagineAR plans to pursue. Specific details of the appeal's progress under this case number are not yet public or readily searchable.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8777746 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO ODP API, and no web search results indicate any older or recently-filed proceedings. Therefore, the defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent has not been challenged via AIA trials and all claims remain untested.

Strategic summary

All 28 claims of US8777746 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. This means there is no estoppel landscape established under § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner or their privies, leaving all prior-art grounds available for potential future challenges. The absence of PTAB activity on this patent could indicate several things, such as the patent not having been extensively asserted, or that prior art challenges have not been deemed strong enough to warrant an IPR filing.

Recommended next steps

There is no PTAB activity to report for US patent 8777746. This means all claims remain patentable as granted, and a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate an AIA trial proceeding to challenge its validity, if they deem it appropriate.

Inventors

• Oliver (Lake) T. Watkins, Jr. (Employer at time of filing unclear)
• Yousuf Chowdhary (Employer at time of filing unclear)
• Jeffrey Brunet (Employer at time of filing unclear)
• Ravinder (Ray) Sharma (Employer at time of filing unclear)

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the issued patent, is 2343127 Ontario Inc. Their primary line of business and whether they shipped a product embodying the claims are unclear from the provided text. The current status of 2343127 Ontario Inc. appears to be acquired/merged, as later assignments indicate transfers from this entity.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-09-14 (executed) / recorded 2012-09-14 — Reel 028962/0890

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SHARMA, RAVINDER (RAY), BRUNET, JEFFREY, CHOWDHARY, YOUSUF, WATKINS, OLIVER (LAKE) T., JR.
  • Assignee: XMG STUDIO, INC., CANADA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to initial operating company.

• 2013-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2013-04-02 — Reel 030130/0325

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: XMG Studio Inc.
  • Assignee: 2343127 ONTARIO INC., CANADA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from one operating company to another.

• 2018-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-09 — Reel 045888/0036

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignor: 2343127 ONTARIO INC., XMG Studio Inc.
  • Assignee: XMG Studio Inc., CANADA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Reorganization/Merger where XMG Studio Inc. becomes the assignee again.

• 2019-05-21 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-22 — Reel 049249/0617

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: XMG Studio Inc.
  • Assignee: IMAGINATION PARK TECHNOLOGIES INC., CANADA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer to a new entity, Imagination Park Technologies Inc.

• 2019-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-17 — Reel 061203/0185

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: IMAGINATION PARK TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  • Assignee: IMAGINE AR INC., PENNSYLVANIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Name change of Imagination Park Technologies Inc. to Imagine AR Inc. (Note: Google Patents lists this as "ImagineAR Inc" for the current assignee).

• 2019-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-24 — Reel 062491/0383

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: IMAGINE AR INC.
  • Assignee: IMAGINEAR INC., CANADA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to update the assignee's name and address. This confirms "IMAGINEAR INC." as the current assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8777746
    2012 : Assigned to XMG Studio Inc
    2013 : Assigned to 2343127 Ontario Inc
    2014 : Issued
    2018 : Merged to XMG Studio Inc
    2019 : Assigned to Imagination Park Tech
         : Renamed to Imagine AR Inc
    2023 : Corrective assignment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The names "2343127 Ontario Inc." and "IMAGINEAR INC." (the current assignee) do not inherently suggest a shell entity, but without information on their product lines or business activities, it's difficult to confirm or deny.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the listed assignees (XMG Studio Inc., 2343127 Ontario Inc., Imagination Park Technologies Inc., Imagine AR Inc.) are identified as known NPEs in the provided public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The correspondent information is "Not specified in the provided text" for all listed assignments. Therefore, recurrence cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — unclear. There are several transfers within the chain. For example, the transfer from XMG Studio Inc. to 2343127 Ontario Inc. (2013-04-01) followed by a merger back to XMG Studio Inc. (2018-04-01) and then to Imagination Park Technologies Inc. (2019-05-21) and subsequent name changes. However, without correspondent addresses or common principals, it is unclear if these represent cascading transfers in the NPE sense.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The provided information mentions "Family has litigation" but does not specify the first infringement suit date in relation to assignment dates.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of any assignee filing for Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. No information is provided about SEC filings or specific coverage that would indicate privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While there are multiple assignments, the lack of correspondent information, details on the assignees' product lines, and specific litigation dates prevents a confident assessment of NPE patterns. The names of the assignees do not immediately flag them as known NPEs.

Link to USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I will now search the USPTO database for the specified patent number 8777746 by examining its cited references to identify the most relevant prior art.

Here are the prior art patent citations for US Patent 8777746, along with their details and a preliminary analysis of potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Prior Art Cited by US8777746B2

1. US20090143141A1

• Full Citation: US20090143141A1 - Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System With Multi-Touch Display
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2009-06-04; Priority Date: 2002-08-06
• Brief Description: This patent application describes an intelligent multiplayer gaming system that utilizes a multi-touch display. It involves receiving multiple touch inputs from one or more players on a shared multi-touch display surface, identifying the type of touch input (e.g., tap, hold, swipe), and generating gaming commands based on these inputs. The system also includes an artificial intelligence engine to interpret player input and manage game flow.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claims 1, 7, 8: This reference potentially anticipates the core concept of receiving touch gesture inputs on a multi-touch display for gameplay (Claim 1), detecting and processing multiple touch inputs (Claim 7), and aggregating multiple touches (Claim 8). The abstract mentions "receiving multiple touch inputs from one or more players on a shared multi-touch display surface" and "identifying the type of touch input".
  • Claims 3, 9, 10, 11, 12: It also generally teaches different types of touch inputs like "tap, hold, swipe", which could encompass line or arc components (Claim 3) and actions like running or jumping (Claims 9-12), although specific mapping of these gestures to optimal/suboptimal actions and fidelity calculation is less explicit in the abstract.
  • Claims 16, 18, 19, 23, 24: The "intelligent multiplayer gaming system" and "artificial intelligence engine to interpret player input and manage game flow" could imply context-dependent interpretation of gestures and interaction with virtual objects, although not explicitly tied to fidelity calculation based on optimal gestures.

2. US20120133615A1

• Full Citation: US20120133615A1 - Actionable-object controller and data-entry attachment for touchscreen-based electronics
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2012-05-31; Priority Date: 2010-03-18
• Brief Description: This patent application describes an accessory device that provides physical controls (buttons, joysticks, D-pads) which are optically invisible but detectable by a touchscreen. This allows a user to interact with a touchscreen device using tactile controls while the touchscreen still registers the inputs. The invention aims to improve tactile feedback and precision for gaming and data entry on touchscreens.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This reference focuses on a hardware attachment to improve touchscreen interaction rather than the software-based gesture fidelity calculation and intent encapsulation of US8777746B2. While it enables "gameplay" on a "mobile device" through "touch inputs," the method described in US8777746B2 (calculating fidelity to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table) is not directly disclosed. Therefore, it is less likely to anticipate the specific method claims of US8777746B2, particularly Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13-17, 27, and 28. It provides a different approach to enhancing touch interaction.

3. US8368662B2

• Full Citation: US8368662B2 - Actionable-object controller and data-entry attachment for touchscreen-based electronics
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2013-02-05; Priority Date: 2010-03-18
• Brief Description: This is a granted patent that appears to be related to or a continuation of US20120133615A1, sharing the same title, assignee, and priority date. It describes an accessory device that provides physical, optically-invisible controls for touchscreen devices, enhancing tactile feedback for gaming and data entry.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US20120133615A1, this reference primarily addresses a hardware solution for touchscreen interaction. It does not disclose the method of calculating gesture fidelity against an optimal gesture from a reference table to determine successful or failed actions based on user intent, which is central to US8777746B2. Thus, it is less likely to anticipate the method claims of US8777746B2, particularly Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13-17, 27, and 28.

4. US20130093702A1

• Full Citation: US20130093702A1 - Actionable-object controller and data-entry attachment for touchscreen-based electronics
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2013-04-18; Priority Date: 2010-03-18
• Brief Description: This patent application is also part of the same patent family as US20120133615A1 and US8368662B2, disclosing the accessory device for touchscreen devices that provides physical, optically-invisible controls.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the other "Chris Argiro" patents, this reference focuses on a hardware attachment to enable traditional button/joystick input on a touchscreen, rather than the gesture recognition and fidelity-based intent encapsulation taught by US8777746B2. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate the specific method claims of US8777746B2, especially Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13-17, 27, and 28.

Conclusion on Most Relevant Prior Art

Based on this analysis, US20090143141A1 (Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System With Multi-Touch Display) appears to be the most relevant prior art. It directly addresses multi-touch input for gaming on touchscreen devices and discusses identifying different types of touch inputs and an AI engine for game flow. While it doesn't explicitly detail the "fidelity calculation to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table" and "matching to optimal/suboptimal gestures" as precisely as US8777746B2, its broad teaching of intelligent interpretation of multi-touch gestures for gaming could potentially anticipate or render obvious some aspects of the fundamental concept of using touch gestures to control game characters.

The other three cited patents (US20120133615A1, US8368662B2, US20130093702A1) focus on a hardware attachment to a touchscreen, which is a different inventive concept from the software-based gesture interpretation and fidelity calculation described in US8777746B2. Therefore, they are less likely to directly anticipate the specific method claims of US8777746B2.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 8777746 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will consider the relevant prior art references cited within the patent document that predate its priority date of September 23, 2011.

Prior Art References:

The following prior art references are identified from the "Citations" and "Patent Citations" sections of US8777746 and have a priority date earlier than September 23, 2011:

1. US20090143141A1 (Igt): Titled "Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System With Multi-Touch Display," with a priority date of August 6, 2002, and a publication date of June 4, 2009.
2. US8368662B2 (Argiro): Titled "Actionable-object controller and data-entry attachment for touchscreen-based electronics," with a priority date of March 18, 2010, and a publication date of February 5, 2013. This patent is related to US20120133615A1 and US20130093702A1, all sharing the same priority date and similar subject matter.
3. EP2146490A1 (Alcatel, Lucent): Titled "User device for gesture based exchange of information, methods for gesture based exchange of information between a plurality of user devices, and related devices and systems," with a priority date of July 18, 2008, and a publication date of January 20, 2010.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1 of US8777746:

Claim 1 of US8777746 recites:
"1. A method of enabling gameplay with a character in a game environment on a mobile device, comprising:
providing a game environment in which a player can play a game via a character;
when there is an expectation of action from the character in the game, receiving a touch gesture input on the mobile device;
calculating fidelity of the touch gesture input to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table; and
if the fidelity is within a predefined range associated with the optimal gesture, matching the touch gesture input to the optimal gesture and calling an associated game script wherein the character would be shown as having successfully completed the expectation."

A combination of US20090143141A1 (Igt) and US8368662B2 (Argiro) would render Claim 1 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).

Teaching of Igt (US20090143141A1):
Igt describes an "Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System With Multi-Touch Display" where "Each of the plurality of players interacts with a display device which is preferably a multi-touch display." The system is "capable of detecting a variety of gestures made by players and the gestures are interpreted by the intelligent gaming system." The system then "determines how these gestures are interpreted within the context of the game."

This reference clearly teaches:

• A game environment on a mobile device (implied by "multi-touch display" and "gaming system").
• A player playing a game via a character (implied by "Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System" and player interaction).
• Receiving a touch gesture input on the mobile device.
• Interpreting gestures within the context of the game to determine game actions.

Teaching of Argiro (US8368662B2):
Argiro addresses a problem in touchscreen-based electronics for gaming, stating that its invention "enhances the user experience of games, particularly role-playing games, on touchscreen-based electronics by providing physical controls that permit multiple independent inputs simultaneously." This highlights a known deficiency with touchscreens for gaming: the difficulty in achieving accurate or complex inputs necessary for an optimal user experience.

Motivation to Combine Igt and Argiro, and Obviousness of Claim 1 Elements:

A PHOSITA in the field of touchscreen gaming interfaces would be a game developer or software engineer familiar with designing interactive systems for touch-enabled devices. Such a PHOSITA, observing the existing "Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System" with multi-touch gesture interpretation as taught by Igt, would also be aware of the challenges associated with the "lack of accuracy" and the desire to "enhance the user experience" for games on touchscreens, as highlighted by Argiro.

The motivation to combine these teachings would be to improve the software-based gesture interpretation of Igt to address the touchscreen limitations identified by Argiro. Rather than resorting to hardware attachments, a PHOSITA would seek to enhance the software's ability to interpret user input more robustly and intuitively.

1. "calculating fidelity of the touch gesture input to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table": When a system "interprets" gestures within a game context (as in Igt), and given the inherent imprecision of human input on touchscreens (as problematic for the "user experience" according to Argiro), it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to implement this interpretation by comparing the received touch gesture to a stored ideal or "optimal gesture." To "interpret" effectively and "give the user the benefit of the doubt" (as explicitly stated in US8777746's summary), a system must account for variations. "Calculating fidelity" (i.e., how closely the input matches the optimal) and storing these optimal gestures in a "reference gesture table" are conventional pattern recognition techniques that a PHOSITA would readily employ to make the gesture interpretation forgiving and usable.
2. "if the fidelity is within a predefined range associated with the optimal gesture, matching the touch gesture input to the optimal gesture and calling an associated game script wherein the character would be shown as having successfully completed the expectation": This is the logical consequence of implementing the "fidelity" calculation. If an input is deemed sufficiently close to the optimal (i.e., within a "predefined range"), the system should recognize it as the intended optimal action and trigger the corresponding game event ("calling an associated game script" for successful completion). This directly addresses the goal of enhancing the user experience by tolerating imperfect, yet intended, inputs.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims:

The dependent claims of US8777746 would also be rendered obvious based on the combination of Igt and Argiro, often combined with general knowledge in the art of game design and user interface development:

• Claim 2 (suboptimal gesture for failure): If a system recognizes optimal gestures within a range, it is obvious that gestures outside this range would be deemed suboptimal or failures, leading to corresponding failure game scripts.
• Claims 3, 9-12 (types of gestures): Igt teaches "detecting a variety of gestures". Arc and line components, and specific mappings like straight lines for running or arcs for jumping, are fundamental and conventional gesture types and intuitive mappings commonly used in touch-based game design.
• Claims 4-6, 16-19 (context-dependent fidelity/timing/speed): Igt's teaching of interpreting gestures "within the context of the game" inherently suggests that game context (e.g., presence of static or dynamic objects, character's path, enemies) would influence game mechanics. Making the fidelity range narrower or considering speed and timing based on critical game situations (like dodging bullets or jumping between platforms) is an obvious design choice for game developers to add challenge and realism. US8777746 itself notes that "circumstances can affect the levels of these thresholds naturally within the simulation."
• Claims 7-8 (multiple inputs/parallel processing): Igt describes an "Intelligent Multiplayer Gaming System With Multi-Touch Display". Multi-touch capabilities inherently allow for detecting multiple inputs, and processing them in parallel or aggregating them into a single logical input is a standard technique in multi-touch interface design. Argiro also highlights the desire for "multiple independent inputs simultaneously".
• Claims 13-15 (range for optimal gestures): These claims further define the "predefined range" of Claim 1, detailing that "optimal" includes slightly imperfect gestures. This is directly aligned with the motivation to "give the user the benefit of the doubt" and is an obvious implementation detail for robust gesture recognition.
• Claims 20-22 (platform game application): Applying a gesture-based control system to a platform game, where straight lines represent running and arcs represent jumping, is a straightforward and obvious application of the described method to a common game genre. US8777746 itself presents a platform game as an example in FIG. 2.
• Claims 23-24 (interaction with virtual objects/weapons): Igt discusses gestures being "used as an input to play the game". Interacting with virtual objects, such as weapons, is a fundamental aspect of many video games. Applying the gesture input and fidelity system to such interactions is an obvious application.
• Claims 25-26 (storage of reference gesture table): Storing data, such as a "reference gesture table," in persistent memory or on the mobile device is a fundamental and obvious aspect of software development and data management for any application.
• Claims 27-28 (sequential/parallel actions): While US8777746 emphasizes this as an improvement over 1-to-1 mappings, it would be obvious for a PHOSITA, aiming to "enhance the user experience" (Argiro) and interpret gestures within context (Igt), to design a system where a single, well-executed gesture could trigger more complex, multi-step, or parallel actions to provide a "richer gaming experience" and simplify control, especially when accounting for input fidelity.

In summary, a PHOSITA, motivated to improve the user experience and accuracy of gesture-based controls in multi-touch gaming environments, would have found it obvious to combine the gesture interpretation teachings of Igt with the problem statement of touchscreen limitations articulated by Argiro. This combination would lead directly to the implementation of a system that calculates the "fidelity" of a user's gesture to an "optimal gesture" within a "predefined range" to determine successful gameplay actions, as claimed in US8777746.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of US patent 8777746's term and related applications, I will search the USPTO Patent Center for the specific patent number. The USPTO does not calculate expiration dates directly but provides tools and data to estimate them.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) can extend the life of a U.S. patent to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during prosecution. Patent Term Extensions (PTE) are typically granted for delays related to regulatory review, such as for pharmaceutical products. To determine specific PTA or PTE for US8777746, one would typically access the "Patent Term Adjustment" section within the USPTO Patent Center for the specific patent number. Without direct access to that specific information for US8777746, I cannot provide the exact PTA or PTE applied.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Application: A continuation application is based on a "parent" patent application, shares the same priority date and specification, and typically pursues additional claims that were disclosed but not allowed in the parent.
• Divisional Application: A divisional application is filed when the parent application contains more than one distinct invention. It shares the same specification and priority date as the parent but has a different set of claims.

According to the provided patent text, US8777746B2 (application number US13/616,222) lists the following related applications:

• Priority to US13/616,222: This indicates that the issued patent US8777746B2 itself is based on the application number US13/616,222.
• Priority to US14/329,442: This indicates a priority claim to US14/329,442. This application is also listed as a "Related Child Application" and a "Family Application," specifically a "Continuation" with a filing date of 2014-07-11. This US14/329,442 application resulted in publication US20150012892A1, titled "Gestures to Encapsulate Intent," and its status is "Abandoned."
• Publication of US20130079140A1: This is another publication listed under "Other versions" and "Publications," likely a published application version of US13/616,222.
• Priority Applications: The patent also claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/626,204 filed on September 23, 2011.

Therefore, US8777746B2 is a patent granted from application US13/616,222, which itself claims priority from the provisional application US61/626,204. There is also a continuation application, US14/329,442, associated with the family.

Related Family Members

The "Family Applications" section lists two applications:

• US13/616,222 (which became US8777746B2)
• US14/329,442 (which became US20150012892A1)

Both applications share the priority date of 2011-09-23. US14/329,442 is explicitly identified as a "Continuation" of the family.

Projected Expiration Date

For U.S. utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application for which a benefit is claimed. Provisional application filing dates are typically not used to calculate the 20-year patent term.

US8777746B2 has a filing date of 2012-09-14 for application US13/616,222. It claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/626,204 filed on 2011-09-23. The earliest non-provisional filing date in the family that would typically determine the patent term is the filing date of the application that led to the granted patent, which is September 14, 2012 (US13/616,222).

Therefore, based on the statutory term of 20 years from the non-provisional filing date, the anticipated expiration date for US8777746B2 is September 14, 2032 (2012-09-14 + 20 years). This date can be further impacted by any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE), or terminal disclaimers, none of which are explicitly detailed in the provided text for this patent. However, the Google Patents information itself lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2032-09-14.