Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/886,273

Content Playback Reminders

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 16, 2024
Examiner
THIEU, BENJAMIN M
Art Unit
2441
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sonos, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 611 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
623
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 611 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the original filing of September 16, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been considered as follows. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim Objections Claim(s) 6 objected to because of the following informalities: As to Claim 6, Claim 6 discloses “The computing device of claim 3, …”; the Examiner suggests “The computing system of claim 3, …”; Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,436 B2 and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,098 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-20 is/are generic to all that is recited in claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,436 B2 and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,098 B2. That is, claim(s) 1-20 is/are anticipated by claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,436 B2 and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,098 B2. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 1-20 is/are allowed upon filing and approval of a proper Terminal Disclaimer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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 Gillis can be reached at (571) 272-7952. 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. /BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 1.5.2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592995
SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AND SCREENING INCOMING CALLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587478
Software Assisted Implementation of Congestion Signaling
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581447
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580784
SHARED AUGMENTED REALITY EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO CHAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556609
COMMUNICATION METHOD, REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING-RELATED SYSTEM, AND COMMUNICATION NODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 611 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month