Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/086,987

METHODS, SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND DEVICES FOR FACILITATING PROVISIONING OF A VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Examiner
MUSSELMAN, TIMOTHY A
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Red Six Aerospace Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
542 granted / 936 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
965
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 936 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims In response to applicant’s amendment filed 1/2/2026, claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowadski et al. (US 2014/0080099) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2020/0294414). Regarding claim 1, Sowadski discloses a mixed simulation system with a geospatial virtual environment and both real and virtual assets with defined locations in the environment. See paragraphs 0082 and 0089. Sowadski discloses wherein the locations of the real and virtual vehicles are updated, and wherein the virtual vehicle can be visible to the real vehicle via various displays (e.g. radar, etc.). See paragraphs 0098-0099 and 0107. Sowadski does disclose a head-mounted AR device to view both the physical and virtual space, as described in paragraph 0125, but it is not entirely clear to what extent it is utilized. However, HUD configurations are established, as is disclosed in the simulation system of Sharma in paragraph 0019. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Sowadski system, so as to provide a realistic simulation setting. Regarding claims 2-3, Sowadski discloses wherein the real vehicle is an airplane with a pilot engaged in a training task. See paragraphs 0081-0082. Regarding claim 4, Sowadski discloses multiple real vehicles. See paragraph 0111. Regarding claims 5-6, Sowadski discloses wherein weapons can be deployed both by the real or virtual assets. See paragraphs 0110 and 0119. Regarding claims 7-8, Sowadski discloses countermeasures in paragraph 0115. Regarding claim 10, Sowadski discloses wherein the real vehicle can be a ground transportation vehicle. See paragraph 0245. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowadski et al. (US 2014/0080099) with Sharma et al. (US 2020/0294414) and Norbury (US 2004/0266540). Regarding claim 9, Sowadski discloses wherein the simulation concepts can be used with various settings in paragraph 0245, but roller-coasters are not specifically disclosed. However, simulation of such is established, as is disclosed by the system of Norbury in paragraph 0002. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider this with the Sowadski system in order to provide various simulation scenarios. Arguments/Remarks Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 1/2/2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM. 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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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. /TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599535
EXTERNAL COUNTERPULSATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576005
Cameras for Emergency Rescue
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573315
TRAINING LESSON AUTHORING AND EXECUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548463
ELECTRONIC COUPLING OF CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12530981
MONITORING COMMUNICATIONS IN AN OBSERVATION PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+26.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 936 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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