Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/819,259

METHOD AND SERVER FOR PROVIDING A RULED AUGMENTED REALITY SPACE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 29, 2024
Examiner
BRIER, JEFFERY A
Art Unit
2613
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Araura Augmented Reality Fashion Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
650 granted / 849 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
865
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§103
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 849 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 8 has reference numeral 180 which is not in paragraph [00230]; and FIG. 17 has reference numerals 505 and 520 which are not in the specification, refer to paragraph [00241]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [00158] describes “(negative) digital 3D mapping 180” and paragraph [00230] describes “(negative) digital 3D mapping 120” while FIG. 8 has reference numeral 180. In paragraph [00230] 120 should be 180. Appropriate correction is required. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Claims 1-18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation. Claim Objections Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 at line 4 has an unexpected space between “storing” and “:”. Claim 18 inherits and does not correct this issue. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-6: Claim 1 claims at lines 2 and 3, at lines 6-8, and at lines 11 and 12: “providing an audience class with a first audience class member having first audience class data; … providing a display class with a first display class member having first display class data, the first display class member being located in a physical space; providing rules applicable within the physical space; … combining the first ruled virtual space with the physical space to generate a first ruled augmented reality space perceivable by the first audience class member.”. Claim 1 at line 7 is unclear as to “the first display class member being located in a physical space” since before this claim limitation “first display class member” is an entity in the “display class” rather than in the physical space and as claimed cannot be both as claimed. Claim 1 at lines 11 and 12 is unclear as to what “the physical space” covers with regard to the virtual space and the audience class member since the previously claimed “the first display class member being located in a physical space” and “providing rules applicable within the physical space” do not assist in determining the scope of the claimed “combining the first ruled virtual space with the physical space”. Dependent claims 2-6 inherit and do not correct these indefinite issues. Method claims 1-6 lack an actor performing the method steps while the specification describes a server such as server 510 as performing the method steps. The lack of claiming an actor leads to unclearly claiming the metes and bounds of the claimed method steps. Claims 7-16: Claim 7 claims at lines 1 and 2, at lines 3 and 4, and at lines 16-19: “providing a ruled augmented reality space for a plurality of users in a physical space, … providing a first register of audience class members, each audience class member being one of the plurality of users, the first register having audience rules; … combining each one of the plurality of virtual spaces with the physical space to produce a plurality of ruled augmented reality spaces, each one of the plurality of ruled augmented reality spaces being specifically generated to be displayed to a corresponding one audience class member.”. Claim 7 at lines 16-19 is unclear as to what “the physical space” covers with regard to the virtual space and the audience class member since the previously claimed “a plurality of users in a physical space” and “the first register having audience rules” do not assist in determining the scope of the claimed “combining each one of the plurality of virtual spaces with the physical space”. Dependent claims 8-16 inherit and do not correct these indefinite issues. Method claims 7-16 lack an actor performing the method steps while the specification describes a server such as server 510 as performing the method steps. The lack of claiming an actor leads to unclearly claiming the metes and bounds of the claimed method steps. Claims 17 and 18: Claim 17 claims at line 1 and at lines 21-25: “A server for providing augmented reality spaces to a plurality of users,” … “for transmitting one of the plurality of virtual spaces to each of the augmented reality viewer devices for the augmented reality viewer devices to provide to the user one of the augmented reality spaces, wherein each one of the augmented reality spaces is specific to each one of the plurality of users.”. Claim 17 at lines 21-25 is unclear as to what “the augmented reality spaces” covers with regard to the “server” and to the “augmented reality viewer devices” and to the “virtual space” and to the “user” since previously in the claim the “augmented reality spaces” were not generated in order for the “the augmented reality viewer devices to provide to the user one of the augmented reality spaces”. Dependent claim 18 inherits and does not correct these indefinite issues. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lal et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0139909, describes for a policy for controlling virtual display zones for virtual displays in extended reality (XR), refer to FIGs. 12A-12B and paragraphs [0095]-[0107]. Jonker et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0071013, describes build or modify a rule or policy for defining and modifying behavior in an extended reality environment, refer to paragraphs [0144], [0162], and [0164]. Gupta et al., US Patent No. 11,776,206, describes a XR system that is governed by rules, refer to column 10 lines 55-59, column 11 lines 24-32, column 26 lines 54-63, and column 45 line 47 to column 46 line 48. Choi, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0067984, describes augmented reality utilizing rules and policies, refer to paragraph [0040]. Oetting et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0028122, describes defining for and utilizing policies in extended reality environment, refer to FIGs. 2 and 3, the abstract, and paragraphs [0009]-[0011] and [0029]-[0056]. Coulmeau et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0103579, describes in augmented reality environment utilizing rules for display and location, refer to paragraph [0138]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-6: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the utilization of the particularly claimed rules utilized in the claimed processing and combining steps. Claims 7-16: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the utilization of the particularly claimed rules utilized in the claimed generating and combining steps. Claims 17 and 18: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the utilization of the particularly claimed rules utilized in the claimed processor processing and communication interface receiving and transmitting steps. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. JEFFERY A. BRIER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2613 /JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602883
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROSPECTIVE ACTION DISPLAY AND EXECUTION THROUGH AUGMENTED REALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602885
SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD FOR SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594834
TEMPERATURE BASED RESISTIVE BRAKING CAPACITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586315
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586324
SPINE LEVEL DETERMINATION USING AUGMENTED REALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 849 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