Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/234,820

SYSTEM AND METHOD OF STREAMING COMPRESSED MULTIVIEW VIDEO

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Leia Inc.
OA Round
3 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 237 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
245
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Applicant(s) Response to Official Action [1] The response filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Response to Arguments [2] Presented arguments have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Summary of Arguments: Chen, alone or combined with Tourapis, does not teach or suggest: capturing an interlaced video rendered on a multiview display of the sender client device separate views being concatenated to generate a tiled frame of a tiled video, or transmitting the tiled video to a receiver client device, the tiled video being compressed Office action has not established sufficient motivation to combine Tourapis and Chen. Examiner’s Response: Tourapis combined with Chen teaches: Capturing an interlaced video rendered on a multiview display of the sender client device because the claim language does not require capturing an actively displayed content (i.e. screen capture) or the capturing and rendering to happen simultaneously. Also, capturing an interlaced video as defined in the applicant's specification encompasses retrieving video data for items displayed or about to be displayed. See specification para. 0039 which states “[i]nterlaced frames 211 may be stored in graphics memory (e.g., texture memory, memory accessible to a graphic processor, memory that stores an output that is rendered). Interlaced frames 211 may be captured by copying or otherwise accessing texture data that represents rendered frames (e.g., frames that are rendered or about to be rendered).” Therefore, the claim language only requires retrieving video data and displaying the video data. Capturing an interlaced video is taught by Tourapis because the video data is being received in fig. 4. But, Tourapis does not disclose the data being rendered on a multiview display of the sender client device. However, Chen discloses this feature in paras. 0030 and 0035. Please see allowable subject matter section below for examiner’s suggestion on how to overcome the prior art in accordance to applicant’s arguments. Chen discloses separate views being concatenated to generate a tiled frame of a tiled video (i.e. side by side) in 184 of Fig. 4. Chen discloses transmitting the tiled video (i.e. 184) to a receiver client device (i.e. 14), the tiled video being compressed (i.e. processed by encoder 20) in figs. 1 and 4. There is sufficient motivation to combine Tourapis and Chen because the both inventions are related to stereoscopic video distribution. Chen discloses the advantage of being scalable by allowing various devices to display stereoscopic video data in para. 0039. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 [3] All 103 rejections made in the prior office action dated October 24, 2025 as applicable to currently pending claims are incorporated herein by reference. Allowable Subject Matter [4] All allowable subject matter indication made in the prior office action dated October 24, 2025 as applicable to currently pending claims are incorporated herein by reference. [5] Examiner suggest the following amendments to overcome the prior art applied. However, further search and consideration is needed to confirm allowability in the future actions. A method of streaming multiview video by a sender client device, the method comprising: rendering an interlaced frame of an interlaced video on a multiview display of the sender client device, the interlaced frame being formatted as spatially multiplexed views defined by a multiview configuration having a first number of views; capturing the interlaced frame in real time with the rendering of the interlaced frame on the multiview display,the capturing including an instruction sent to a graphics pipeline to access texture data stored in a graphics memory that represents the interlaced frame; deinterlacing the spatially multiplexed views of the interlaced frame into separate views, the separate views being concatenated to generate a tiled frame of a tiled video; and transmitting the tiled video, in real time with the rendering of the interlaced frame on the multiview display, to a receiver client device, the tiled video being compressed. Conclusion [6] 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 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 SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 pm. 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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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. /SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602761
IMAGE ANALYSIS APPARATUS, IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599357
ULTRASOUND AUTOMATED DETECTION AND DISPLAY METHOD OF CRANIAL ABNORMAL REGIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12518345
ACTIVITY DETECTION USING VIDEO ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12519925
Method of Visualizing Calibration State of Camera, System, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium Storing Computer Program
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12457328
Video Compression Using Template-Based Determination of Intra Prediction Mode
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 237 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