Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/770,256

Video Conferencing Systems Featuring End-To-End Encryption Watchdog

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Examiner
TRAN, QUOC DUC
Art Unit
2691
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 841 resolved
+23.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§103
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the present claims are broader and similar in scope to that of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108 with different in wording variations. For example: Claim 1 of the present invention Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108 A computer-implemented method for improving reliability of end-to-end encryption in a video conference, the method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, content transmitted from a client computing device associated with one participants of the video conference; evaluating, by the computing system, one or more parameters or characteristics of the content received from the client computing device; detecting, by the computing system, an error event when the one or more parameters or characteristics of the content are unaligned with an encryption expectation associated with the client computing device, wherein the content comprises at least an encrypted stream, wherein the error event comprises detecting a known byte string within the encrypted stream received from the one or more client computing devices, wherein detecting the known byte string is indicative of the content being incorrectly encrypted; and performing, by the computing system, one or more remedial operations in response to detection of the error event. A computer-implemented method for improving reliability of end-to-end encryption in a video conference, the method comprising: receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, data descriptive of user input requesting initiation of a video conference comprising one or more participants; receiving, by the computing system, content transmitted from a client computing device associated with one of the participants of the video conference; evaluating, by the computing system, one or more parameters or characteristics of the content received from the client computing device; detecting, by the computing system, an error event when the one or more parameters or characteristics of the content are unaligned with an encryption expectation associated with the client computing device, wherein the content comprises at least an encrypted stream, wherein the error event comprises detecting a known byte string within the encrypted stream received from the one or more client computing devices, wherein detecting the known byte string is indicative of the content being incorrectly encrypted; and performing, by the computing system, one or more remedial operations in response to detection of the error event. From the above claim comparison, the limitations of the present claim 1 are covered/anticipated by that of the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108. Independent claims 11 and 16 are counterpart of method claim 1 and also corresponding to claims 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108, respectively. Therefore, rejected for the same reason addressed above. The remaining depending claims are directly or indirectly correspond to at least the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,108. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allow upon filing of a Terminal or eTerminal Disclaimer to and/or overcoming the above Double Patenting Rejection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.) Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Facsimile responses should be faxed to: (571) 273-8300 Hand-delivered responses should be brought to: Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC DUC TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7503. 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. /Quoc D Tran/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691 January 21, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598268
STAGE USER REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONFERENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598251
PREVENTING DEEP FAKE VOICEMAIL SCAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592989
DETECTING A SPOOFED CALL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593011
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR VISUAL SUMMARIZATION OF VIDEOS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581033
ENFORCING A LIVENESS REQUIREMENT ON AN ENCRYPTED VIDEOCONFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
86%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+4.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 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