Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/103,524

USING EXTRA SPACE ON ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION DISPLAY PRESENTING HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Examiner
LEE, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Saturn Licensing LLC
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
8-9
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1038 granted / 1310 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1348
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1310 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 19-26, 30-33, 35-36, 39-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,709. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Claim 19 is met by patented claims 1 and 5. Claim 20 is met by patented claim 6. Claim 21 is met by patented claim 7. Claim 22 is met by patented claim 8. Claim 23 is met by patented claim 9. Claim 24 is met by patented claim 9. Claim 25 is met by patented claim 5. Claim 26 is met by patented claim 5. Regarding claim 30, the terrestrial TV broadcast signal in patented claim 6 inherently discloses that the ancillary information is embedded in the non-UHD video that is carried in an ATSC stream. Regarding claim 31, the terrestrial TV broadcast signal in patented claim 6 inherently discloses that the ancillary information is embedded in the non-UHD video that is carried an MPEG stream. Claim 32 is met by patented claim 9. Claim 33 is met by patented claim 2. Claim 35 is met by patented claims 4. Claim 36 is inherently met by patented claims 1 and 5 since the non-UHD video is intend to have 1920 lines or more. Regarding claims 39 and 40, the presentation arrangements as claimed are considered obvious design choice and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 43 is met by patented claims 1 and 5. Claim 44 is met by patented claims 1 and 5. Regarding claims 41 and 42, the ancillary information in patented claims 1 and 5 are intended to carried all kinds of data. The claimed contents are considered intended used of the patented claims 1 and 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 12, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 06, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Sep 09, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599295
CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597276
DRIVING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581215
DARK CURRENT PATTERN ESTIMATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574472
Information Processing System And Information Processing Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573195
METHOD FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1310 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