Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/892,796

SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DISPLAYING CONTENT BASED ON LOCATIONAL ACTIVITY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Examiner
DAVIS, CHENEA
Art Unit
2421
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Opentv Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
378 granted / 525 resolved
+14.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 525 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 Amendment This office action is in response to communications filed 12/2/2024. Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 2-16 are new. Claims 2-16 are pending in this action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims respectively recite “wherein the interactive interface includes a first interactive element that is interactive to allow the first user to join the viewed media item in progress by the second user; in response to a second interaction with the first interactive element included in the interactive interface, initiating, by the computing device, a first video chat between the first user, and at least the second user, the initiating of the first video chat including causing display, at the display device, of a second window and a second interactive element to present a second media item, wherein the second window, upon display, is interactive to enable to the first video chat between the first user and at least the second user”. However, there does not appear to be sufficient support for “a second interaction with the first interactive element included in the interactive interface” i.e., an interactive element that has 2 functions. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “wherein the interactive interface includes a first interactive element that is interactive to allow the first user to join the viewed media item in progress by the second user; in response to a second interaction with the first interactive element included in the interactive interface, initiating, by the computing device, a first video chat between the first user, and at least the second user, the initiating of the first video chat including causing display, at the display device, of a second window and a second interactive element to present a second media item, wherein the second window, upon display, is interactive to enable to the first video chat between the first user and at least the second user”. This limitation is vague and unclear because the applicant’s original disclosure, while indicating in at least Fig. 5G an option to “join viewing party”, there is no actual explanation of what joining a viewing party actually means, or how it is done. The applicant’s original disclosure teaches “initiation a viewing party” wherein the initiating enables the first user to access the first media item being presented to the second user. However, this is different from “joining a viewing party”. Additionally, it is unclear as how a “a second interaction with the first interactive element included in the interactive interface” initiates a first video chat between the first user, and at least the second user, the initiating of the first video chat including causing display, at the display device, of a second window and a second interactive element to present a second media item, wherein the second window, upon display, is interactive to enable to the first video chat between the first user and at least the second user because there does not appear to be disclosed details about any second interaction on a single element. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20120110621 to Gossweiler, US20090287790 to Upton, US20130133005 to Sakai, US20130293600 to Lemmey, US20150033253 to Yoshioka. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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. /CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604057
STREAMING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581147
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING QUALITY OF CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581169
UNDER-ADDRESSABLE ADVERTISEMENT MEASUREMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556762
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO CALIBRATE RETURN PATH DATA FOR AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549790
INTEGRATION OF PLATFORMS FOR MULTI-PLATFORM CONTENT ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+16.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 525 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