Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/917,798

DEEP REINFORCEMENT LEARNING FOR PERSONALIZED SCREEN CONTENT OPTIMIZATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 16, 2024
Examiner
MENGESHA, MULUGETA A
Art Unit
2424
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Adeia Guides Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
597 granted / 732 resolved
+23.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
755
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 732 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-4, 6-8,11-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-5,7-8,10-11,13-15,17-18 and 20 of US 10,715,869 B1 and 11,265,609 B2 respectively . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, if allowed would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See also MPEP § 804. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2018/0075137 A1 to LIFAR et al. US-10,438,114 B1 to Blundell et al. US-2016/0379123-A1 to Younessain et al. US-2017/0228385-A1 to Zheng et al. US-2018/0225710-A1 to Kar et al. US-2019/0332920-A1 to Sermanet et al. US-2019/0327139-A1 to Soderlind et al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET. 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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. MULUGETA MENGESHA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2424 /Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 16, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598355
SYSTEM AND METHOD ENABLING PRIVATE TO PUBLIC MEDIA EXPERIENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598342
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593090
GEOFENCING FOR MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTED ON A TRANSPORT CRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574603
DETERMINING A TIME POINT OF USER DISENGAGEMENT WITH A MEDIA ITEM USING AUDIOVISUAL INTERACTION EVENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568284
CONTENT DELIVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 732 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