Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/239,605

INTERACTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENT PLATFORM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
CHOKSHI, PINKAL R
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Roku Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 505 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
534
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 505 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Lempel being used in the current rejection. See the new rejection below. 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2012/0309511 to Chung (“Chung”) in view of US PG Pub 2002/0036655 to Yulevich (“Yulevich”) and US PG Pub 2015/0045110 to Lempel (“Lempel”). Regarding claim 1, “A computer-implemented method for providing interactive supplemental content” reads on the system/method for providing advertisement to a player based on an action of the player in an interactive video gaming environment (¶0009) disclosed by Chung and represented in Fig. 4. As to “receiving, by at least one computer processor, a selection of an indicator, wherein the indicator is displayed within a…application executing on a media device” Chung discloses (¶0086, ¶0067) that the user equipment accesses a website online using a web browser application where the video content is streamed through the portal to a server transmitting the content using the web browser application; (¶0088-¶0090) while the video is streaming on the web browser application, a widget display (indicator) is overlaid over the streaming video content, where upon user selection of the widget display, the interactive video gaming environment is displayed as represented in Figs. 3 and 4; (¶0020) the interactive video gaming environment is an entertainment application that is a standalone application, which is different from the web browser application; (¶0104) the display of the user equipment device is displayed with the initial navigation screen after the user starts up the interactive video gaming environment as represented in Fig. 4. As to “in response to the receiving the selection, generating an interactive game session, wherein the interactive game session comprises interactive media content and an advertisement” Chung discloses (¶0104-¶0106) that after the user starts up the interactive video gaming environment, the user is provided with the display of interactive video game along with the interactive advertisement. As to “causing display of, on a display device associated with the media device, the interactive game session” Chung discloses (¶0104) that the display of the user equipment device is displayed with the initial navigation screen after the user starts up the interactive video gaming environment as represented in Fig. 4. As to “receiving a user input to interact with the advertisement in the interactive game session” Chung discloses (¶0106) that the interactive advertisement is displayed during the interactive video game to the user where the user equipment receives a user selection of advertisement and in response allows the user to interact/provide info about the product being advertised as represented in Fig. 4 (element 440). As to “…generating a reward…in the interactive game session” Chung discloses (¶0164) that the display includes a region that indicates the total number of rewards that is received/stored and available for the user/player to access as represented in Fig. 4 (elements 420, 424). Chung meets all the limitations of the claim except “receiving, by at least one computer processor, a selection of an indicator, wherein the indicator is displayed within a screen saver application.” However, Yulevich discloses (¶0014) that the application implemented as a screen saver displays updated stock quotes, game scores, news headlines, etc. on the screen saver of the device; (¶0026) the screensaver application is activated upon non-use of the device, and the content information, for example, news headlines, sport scores and stock price quotations are continuously displayed, where a determination made whether the user activates an internet link (indicator) displayed within the content information as represented in Fig. 4B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chung’s system by receiving a selection of an indicator displayed within a screen saver application as taught by Yulevich in order to display user selected content information and advertising while the device is in standby/non-use status (Yulevich - ¶0003). Combination of Chung and Yulevich meets all the limitations of the claim except “in response to receiving the user input, generating a reward for the interaction with the advertisement in the interactive game session.” However, Lempel discloses (¶0025-¶0026) that the user interacts with the game provider/other users during a gaming session as represented in Fig. 1B; (¶0050, ¶0055) certain game events trigger an issuance of points/rewards for working with sponsors, such as, e.g., advertising sponsors; (¶0027, claim 14) the user acquires points/rewards based on a variety of actions such as user clicking on ad or interacting with a publisher/sponsor’s webpage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chung and Yulevich’s systems by generating a reward for user interaction with an advertisement as taught by Lempel in order to experience ad content which is unique and incredibly effective marketing strategy. Regarding claim 2, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the receiving the selection, causing display of, on the display device associated with the media device, the indicator” Chung discloses (¶0088-¶0090) while the video is streaming on the web browser application, a widget display (indicator) is overlaid over the streaming video content, where upon user selection of the widget display, the interactive video gaming environment is displayed as represented in Figs. 3 and 4, and Yulevich discloses (¶0014, ¶0026) that the screensaver application is activated upon non-use of the device, and the content information, for example, news headlines, sport scores and stock price quotations are continuously displayed, where a determination made whether the user activates an internet link (indicator) displayed within the content information. Regarding claim 3, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the interactive media content comprises a character, the reward, or a display background associated with the interactive game session” Chung discloses (¶0105, ¶0101) that the interactive video game environment comprises rewards as represented in Fig. 4 (element 420), and Lempel discloses (¶0026-¶0027) that the users are provided with rewards/points for during interactive gaming session and/or sponsor ads. Regarding claim 4, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the interactive game session comprises: identifying a characteristic of a user based on the selection; and generating interactive game content or the advertisement based on the characteristic of the user” Chung discloses (¶0072) that the advertisement is selected based on player/user’s action where (¶0200, ¶0203) based on the user’s attributes/profile, the advertisement is selected. Regarding claim 5, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the interactive media content is associated with the advertisement based at least on contextual information” Chung discloses (¶0072, ¶0147) that the selection of the advertisement is directly related to the level of game play; (¶0106) interactive advertisement inform the payer about upcoming products to the interactive video game. Regarding claim 6, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the user input to interact with the advertisement in the interactive media game comprises: receiving the user input to interact with the interactive media content” Chung discloses (¶0106-¶0107) that the user is provided with the interactive video game environment where in response to receiving a user selection of chat option, the system provides chat room where the user may communicate with other users of the interactive video game. Regarding claim 7, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the user input to interact with the advertisement in the interactive media game comprises: receiving the user input from a remote control associated with the media device, wherein the remote control comprises a tablet, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a smartwatch, smart device, or a wearable device” Chung discloses (¶0081) that the user issues commands to the control circuitry using a remote control; (¶0090) the user interacts with the interactive video gaming environment using a gaming remote control, mobile phone, mobile device, etc. Regarding claim 8, see rejection similar to claim 1. Regarding claim 9, see rejection similar to claim 2. Regarding claim 10, see rejection similar to claim 3. Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 4. Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 5. Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 6. Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 7. Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Chung discloses (¶0080) that the circuitry implemented using software running on the general purpose processor. Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 2. Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 3. Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 4. Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 5. Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 6. Regarding claim 21, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the interactive game session comprises generating the interactive game session in a multi-user mode” Chung discloses (¶0002, ¶0054) that the video game system provides a multiplayer environment where multiple users can play the game together within the confines of the interactive video game system application. 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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm. 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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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. /PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 21, 2025
Response Filed
May 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598332
PROCESSING OF MULTI-VIEW VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593114
APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR SIGNALING INFORMATION IN A CONTAINER FILE FORMAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593084
VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEM AND VIDEO STREAMING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581144
A METHOD OF PROVIDING A TIME-SYNCHRONIZED MULTI-STREAM DATA TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574599
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REDACTING UNDESIRABLE DIGITAL CONTENT
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+29.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 505 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