Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/956,992

COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR OPERATING CUSTOMIZED TELEVISION STREAMING SERVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Examiner
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
355 granted / 590 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
629
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
69.9%
+29.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 590 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims rejections under-35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2; 5-6; 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts(US.Pub.No.20080274687). Regarding claim 1, Roberts et al disclose a method for managing a customized television streaming service using a computer system including one or more computers connected with each other through a global communication network, wherein a project manager and a client each include a computer system, the method including(see fig.1 to fig.2 for receiving contents from owner 101 and from media service provider 107 and an internet network 102 is used for transmitting video contents to user devices); tasking the project manager with creating a streaming channel for the client(see fig.1 to fig.2 with media packager 104 for creating channels for transmitting video contents to user devices; 0002;0049-0050); receiving content from the client at the project manager for streaming to an end viewer(see fig.1 to fig.2 for providing media contents the media packager 104 for streaming; 0029 ;0025-0026); receiving content from at least one content provider other than the client at the project manager for streaming to the end viewer(see fig.1 to fig.2 with media packager 104 for receiving media contents from service provider 107; 0025) ; and channeling the content from the client and the at least one content provider other than the client to a digital distribution service for streaming to the end viewer(see fig.1 to fig.2 for combining or mixing media contents received from media owner 101 and media provider 107 for transmission to the user devices via specific channels; 0025-0027;0002). Regarding claim 2, Roberts et al disclose wherein the project manager is in electronic communication with a finance provider(the system is able to generate revenues;0032; 0039), the content provider, an advertising provider and an editor(see fig.1 to fig.2; media service provider 107 may provide advertisements,0025; and the system is able to edit or alter video contents;0022). Regarding claim 5, Roberts et al disclose wherein the content is delivered to the end viewer via at least one of Free Advertising Supported Television (FAST), Authenticated Video On Demand (AUTHVOD), Advertising-Based Video On Demand (AVOD), Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD), and Transactional Video On Demand (TVOD)( Video on Demand services,0002). Regarding claim 6, Roberts et al disclose wherein the project manager performs analytics to identify top performing content and least performing content(the system is being capable of determining media contents being most popular and lees popular; 0031-0032; 0045;0039;0083). Regarding claim 8, Roberts et al disclose wherein the end viewer must subscribe and purchase the streaming channel to view(viewers or consumers need to buy or purchase membership to access media contents; 0027). Regarding claim 9, Roberts et al disclose further including transferring a bundle of rights from the client to the project manager(the owner of the media contents can provide right to the media packager 104 to a percentage of each package or membership being purchased by a media consumer;0040). Regarding claim 10, Roberts et al disclose wherein the bundle of rights includes intellectual property rights(rights ownership,0061). Claims rejections under-35 U.S.C. 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts(US.Pub.No.20080274687) in view of Loheide(US.Pub.No.20180343481) . Regarding claim 3, Roberts et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the streaming channel includes an over-the-top (OTT) platform for delivering streamed content over the global computer network. However, Loheide et al disclose wherein the streaming channel includes an over-the-top (OTT) platform for delivering streamed content over the global computer network(the system is able to OTT network or platform,0019;0167;0171). It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Loheide to modify Roberts by using OTT network or platform for the purpose of using specific protocols across the network accordingly. Claim(s) 4; 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts(US.Pub.No.20080274687) in view of Vannini (US.Pub.No.20220035822). Regarding claim 4, Roberts et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the client is an educational enterprise. However, Vannini et al disclose wherein the client is an educational enterprise(virtual classroom education delivery 93,0129). It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vannini to modify Roberts by providing educational contents for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly. Regarding claim 7, Roberts et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the project manager performs analytics to identify an amount of daily users and monthly users. However, Vannini et al disclose wherein the project manager performs analytics to identify an amount of daily users( system may begin monitoring the user on a daily basis,0071)and monthly users(observation data may be collected over a predetermined period of time (e.g., 1 week, 1 month, 60 days, etc.),0021). It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vannini to modify Roberts by collecting data for a predefined period of time resulting in “wherein the project manager performs analytics to identify an amount of daily users and monthly user” for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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. /JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425 /Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604064
METHOD AND SERVER FOR PROVIDING CONTENT RECOMMENDATION LIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604069
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEDIA PLAN GENERATION FOR A CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585333
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING VIDEO ON DEMAND IN AN INTELLIGENT TELEVISION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563248
REDUCING ACTIVE USER BIAS FOR CONTENT RECOMMENDATION MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12549820
PULL NOTIFICATIONS FOR APPLICATIONS
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
60%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+8.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 590 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