Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/155,706

Systems & Methods To Enhance The Event Experience With Augmented Reality

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2023
Examiner
D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
864 granted / 1181 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1220
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1181 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant has amended the claims of 1/17/2023 on 9/15/2025 and then amended those claims and filed a new set on 12/2/2025. To advance prosecution, the claims submitted on 12/2/2025 will be examined. Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 4 to clarify the means aspects of the claims. Thus, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 are withdrawn. Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 is not anticipates by Muendel. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s amendment is rejected for written description support (below) which can be resolved when Applicant provides necessary citations to the specification. However, even if support can be provided Applicant has amended the claim to include that the display element can be positioned on a digital surface but argues (Remarks 4 filed 12/2/2025) that the claim overcomes Muendel but Muendel can be positioned at a venue on a digital surface. Thus, the claims as amended fails to show that Muendel does not anticipate. Claim Objections 5. Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Line 2: Change “Immersive” to – immersive --. Claim 1, Line 3: Change “A digital” to – a digital --. Claim 1, Line 5: Change “A display” to – a display --. Claim 2, Line 3: Change “a modular” to -- said modular --. Claim 3, Line 3: Change “a modular” to – said modular --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “[a] display element configured to present said digital icon, wherein the display element is modular and positioned within a venue, proximate to a venue, or on a physical or digital surface.” However, support cannot be found for “configured to present”, “modular”, “positioned within a venue”, “proximate to a venue”, “physical or digital surface.” Examiner requests Applicant provide citations to the specification establishing written possession. To advance prosecution, the amended language is construed as “a display element”. 8. Claims 2, 3, and 4 recite but support cannot be found for “modular”. To advance prosecution the Claim 2 is construed as said immersive media comprises an augmented reality-based video game configured to be accessed via said digital icon. Claim 3 is construed as wherein said digital icon comprises a QR code configured to initiate access to said immersive media. Claim 4 is construed as system configured to collect user interaction data initiate via the digital icon. Appropriate attention is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0150773 to Muendel. In Reference to Claim 1 Meundel discloses an entertainment system for generating an augmented reality experience (Titl., [0005]), comprising: immersive media relating to an event (Examiner construes immersive as non-functional descriptive matter as Applicant has not defined immersive, described how immersive limits or modifies media, and the balance of the claim does not appear to operate any differently whether the media is immersive or not but for a vague and intended use of enhancing the experience of the event as opposed to media alone. Meundel discloses interactive {immersive} media from a media library of a Dallas Cowboys event [0046 - 0048] Figs. 2 and 3A-3F, where a user can “Take A Photo With Us!” [0046] to immerse the user in a photo where “the user 306 to get ready to take a picture (or video) with the players that were selected.” Fig. 2 230 [0049] to create “aggregated content looks as realistic as possible, e.g., in a way that looks like the user 306 and the players are actually together at the same location.” Fig. 2 240 [0050] and the image is stored for distribution or later access by the user [0056, 0057]), a digital icon for providing an electronic device the ability to access said immersive media (a user approaches a kiosk and scans a QR code to access the stored image Fig. 6A [0060]), and a display element (kiosk 540 displays QR code [0060] where the user is able to fulfill the intended use of enhancing the experience of being at the Dallas Cowboys event, See also Figs. 6A-D and 7A-7G). In Reference to Claim 2 Meundel discloses wherein said immersive media involves an augmented reality-based video game (Examiner construes the claim with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification which does not define a video game. Meundel discloses a video game of “Pose with the PROS’, Figs. 7A-7G) configured to accessed via said digital icon (Fig. 6A Step 1 QR code). In Reference to Claim 3 Meundel discloses wherein said digital icon comprises a QR code configured to initiate access to the immersive data (Fig. 7 D [0060] initiates access to the media). In Reference to Claim 4 Meundel discloses wherein the system configured to collect user interaction data initiate via the digital icon (user 306 accesses the content via scanning or providing input thereby interacting with the QR code on the kiosk display screen [0061]). Conclusion 11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992. 13. 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. 14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992. /PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 09, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602817
System and Methods for Providing a User Key Performance Indicators for Basketball
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589301
VIDEO FRAME RENDERING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12562025
SELECTIVE STORAGE OF HISTORIC EVENT DATA IN A GAME STREAMING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562030
Random Trigger for Computer-Implemented Game
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555442
ELECTRONIC GAMING SYSTEM EMPLOYING FOUR BASE GAMES AND A RANDOMLY ACTIVATED FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
73%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1181 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month