Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/752,124

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SYNCHRONOUS GROUP DEVICE TRANSMISSION OF STREAMING MEDIA AND RELATED USER INTERFACES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 24, 2024
Examiner
HOANG, HIEU T
Art Unit
2449
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Discovery Com LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 637 resolved
+22.5% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This office action is in response to the communication filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20-23 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive in view of updated Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2002/0075304, “Thompson”) in view of Chhabra et al. (US 2020/0112450, “Chhabra”). As to claim 1, Thompson discloses a method for facilitating synchronous transmission of streaming media, the method comprising operations including: receiving, at a server (fig. 14, VTE server and presence server PS), a request from a first user device associated with a first user to invite a second user to a virtual media streaming session (fig. 1, [0026], an existing party (or user) adds by inviting a new party to join a communication session; [0010], such as a streaming video session); retrieving, using a processor associated with the server and in response to the request, a second user profile associated with the second user from a database associated with the server, the second user profile identifying a second user device associated with the second user (fig. 12, a server stores user profiles of parties and associated user devices); transmitting, using the processor and subsequent to the retrieving, instructions to the second user device to present a notification alerting the second user of the request; detecting, using the processor, a selection of a delayed acceptance option in response to display of the notification at the second user device; and connecting, using the processor, the second user profile to the virtual media streaming session ([0026], displaying a user interface on the invited party display an option to defer the session), wherein the connecting comprises enabling a synchronous streaming of multimedia content that is simultaneously viewable on the first user device and the second user device in the virtual media streaming session ([0149], real-time video conference session, real-time shared whiteboard session, real-time multimedia streaming session to participants). Thompson does not disclose the delayed acceptance option presented within the notification, wherein the delayed acceptance option comprises a session-specific anticipated join time selector for joining the virtual media streaming session; automatically connecting, using the processor, the second user profile to the virtual media streaming session at a time designated via an interaction with the session-specific anticipated join time selector. Chhabra discloses: the delayed acceptance option presented within the notification, wherein the delayed acceptance option comprises a session-specific anticipated join time selector for joining the virtual media streaming session (fig. 5, [0040], [0041], a notification of an invitation to a meeting seen at the invitee, here the delayed acceptance option is read as the Accept with Auto-connect to Meeting turned on, and settings in button 550 further shown in fig. 8 of selecting a time to join the specific meeting, see fig. 8, item 830); automatically connecting, using the processor, the second user profile to the virtual media streaming session at a time designated via an interaction with the session-specific anticipated join time selector (fig. 8, [0004], [0023], [0058], for each conference, providing a join option allowing user to select a time of auto-connect the user to the conference; [0024], real-time video conferencing.) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Chhabra’s teachings of auto-connect at a designated time to Thompson’s teachings in order to provide flexibility to users as to when they would like to be connected to a meeting/conference. As to claim 5, Thompson discloses the notification comprises an indication of: an article of multimedia content to be viewed in the virtual media streaming session, an identity of the first user from who the request originates, and one or more other user profiles invited to the virtual media streaming session ([0026], The invitation message preferably includes at least at one of: an identifier of the team member who sent the invitation; a topic of the communications session; a message related to the discussion; a list of participants in the communications session; and a list of invitees to the communications session, [0010], media streaming). As to claim 7, Thompson-Chhabra discloses operations comprising transmitting, responsive to detecting selection of the delayed acceptance option in the notification, display of an anticipated join time query at the second user device; and receiving, from the second user device, the time associated with the delayed acceptance option, the time indicating a time at which the second user desires to join the virtual media streaming session (Chhabra, (fig. 8, [0004], [0023], [0058], for each conference, providing a join option allowing user to select a time of auto-connect the user to the conference; [0024], real-time video conferencing.) Claims 8, 12, 14 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1, 5, 7. Thompson discloses a system for facilitating synchronous transmission of streaming media comprising: a memory including instructions; a database; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: the steps in claims 1, 5, 7 (fig. 12, 13, VTE server with database). Claims 15, 18, 20 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1, 5, 7. Thompson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a server in network communication with at least one database, cause the server to perform operations comprising: the steps in claims 1, 5, 7 (fig. 12, 13, VTE server with database). Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 16-17 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson-Chhabra in view of Bowne et al. (US 2005/0273372, “Bowne”). As to claims 2, 9, 16, Thompson-Chhabra does not disclose operations including: presenting, responsive to receiving the request, an interactive options menu on the first user device, wherein the interactive options menu comprises a scheduling feature configured to enable the first user to schedule a future time to conduct the virtual media streaming session with the second user; and receiving, at the server from the first user device, an indication of selection of the scheduling feature. Bowne discloses operations including: presenting, responsive to receiving the request, an interactive options menu on the first user device, wherein the interactive options menu comprises a scheduling feature configured to enable the first user to schedule a future time to conduct the virtual media streaming session with the second user; and receiving, at the server from the first user device, an indication of selection of the scheduling feature ([0005]-[0007], software can identify future times that all invitees are available for a meeting organizer for choosing). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Bowne’s teachings of meeting scheduling to Thompson-Chhabra’s teachings in order to enhance Thompson-Chhabra’s system/method with the capability of automatic suggesting meeting time for an organizer. As to claims 3, 10, Thompson-Chhabra-Bowne discloses operations including: receiving, at the server and in association with the indication of the selection of scheduling feature, a designation of the future time from the first user device (Bowne, [0007]). As to claims 4, 11, 17, Thompson-Chhabra-Bowne discloses operations including: accessing, using the server, availability information associated with the second user; identifying, using the processor, one or more possible future meeting times based on the availability information; and transmitting instructions to the first user device to present a recommendation showing the one or more possible future meeting times to designate as the future time (Bowne, [0006]). Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson-Chhabra in view of Malkin et al. (US 2012/0254305, “Malkin”). As to claims 21, 22, 23, Thompson-Chhabra does not disclose operations including: receiving, using the processor, instructions from the first user device to expand one or more invite permissions to the second user profile; enabling, using the processor, the second user profile to invite at least one other user profile to the virtual media streaming session based on the instructions; receiving, using the processor, a second request from the second user device to invite a third user profile to the virtual media streaming session; and transmitting, using the processor, instructions to a third user device associated with the third user profile to present a notification of the second request. Malkin discloses operations including: receiving, using the processor, instructions from the first user device to expand one or more invite permissions to the second user profile; enabling, using the processor, the second user profile to invite at least one other user profile to the virtual media streaming session based on the instructions; receiving, using the processor, a second request from the second user device to invite a third user profile to the virtual media streaming session; and transmitting, using the processor, instructions to a third user device associated with the third user profile to present a notification of the second request ([0027], various privileges and restrictions, or authorizations, may be set when a user invites another user to a meeting… a user may authorize an invitee to extend the invitation to others). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Malkin’s teachings of extending an invitation to Thompson-Chhabra’s teachings in order to allow/disallow invitees of certain privileges listed by Malkin ([0027]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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. /HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603909
NETWORK MONITORING WITH MULTIPLE ATTACK GRAPHS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598364
MEDIA ATTRIBUTION VERIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598213
LOCATION-BASED POLICY ENFORCEMENT FOR DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS USING OUT-OF-BAND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592947
Systems and Methods for Cyber Threat Detection Based on New and/or Updated Cyber Threat Intelligence
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592967
SYSTEMS FOR MALICIOUS WEBSITE DETECTION USING MACHINE LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+16.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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