Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/202,272

INTERACTIVE ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 08, 2025
Examiner
OSMAN, RAMY M
Art Unit
2457
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Hytto Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
585 granted / 738 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -9% lift
Without
With
+-9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
773
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 738 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to amendment filed December 4, 2025. Status of Claims Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment, and canceled claims 2-4,6,8,9,12-14,16,18,19, and added new claims 21-32. Claims 1,5,7,10,11,15,17,20-32 remain pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/4/25, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made based on He in view of Baron. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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. Claims 1,5,7,10,11,15,17,20,22-27,29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US Publication 20230329962) in view of Baron et al (US Publication 20070206086). In reference to claim 1, He teaches an interactive online entertainment system, comprising: a processor; and a memory device having stored thereon a set of instructions wherein, the set of instructions which, when operating on the at least one processor, cause the system to: establish a session association between viewer terminals of a plurality of viewers and a live stream room of a host on a live stream platform, wherein the viewer terminals of the plurality of viewers establish corresponding communication connections with sexual stimulation devices of the plurality of viewers, respectively; (see at least ¶ 29,53,77, which teaches establishing a session between multiple viewers and a model device with a toy/stimulation device via a live streaming platform for establishing communication between the viewers and devices) establish a control connection between a host terminal of the host and one or more viewer terminals of one or more viewers, from among the plurality of viewers, who have provided a number of tokens to the host, for a preset duration of time that corresponds to the number of tokens, (see at least ¶s 47,57,59,65,78, which teaches establishing a control connection between the model and viewer devices when the user accesses the control link, where viewers provide tip tokens enabling access and control for a preset duration of time) in response to the number of tokens satisfying a predetermined threshold, wherein the control connection is configured to enable the host terminal to control the sexual stimulation device of the one or more viewers; in response to additional tokens being provided to the host during the preset duration of time by any viewer among the plurality of viewers, (see at least ¶s 59,64, which teaches viewers providing additional tokens) generate a control command in response to receiving a control input from the host terminal while the control connection is active; (see at least ¶ 72, which teaches generating the control link comprising a URL for a control interface) and transmit the control command to corresponding viewer terminals that are connected to the host terminal via the control connection, to cause the corresponding viewer terminals to forward the control command to corresponding sexual stimulation devices, thereby causing the corresponding sexual stimulation devices to perform a sexual stimulation operation (see at least ¶s 65,72-74 & Figs 12,13, which teaches transmitting the control link to the user device where the user device hosts live chat and video, and receiving activation/interactive commands from the user input, and relaying the command to the model device). He teaches applying the time duration to all viewers who have provided adequate tokens (as shown above). He fails to explicitly teach extend the control connection for an extended duration of time and apply the extended control connection to all viewer terminals of viewers who have provided tokens, wherein the extended duration of time is proportional to a number of the additional tokens. However, Baron teaches online sessions between devices (see Baron, at least Abstract), and discloses extending session time for users who provide additional payments (see Baron, at least ¶ 72). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify He based on the teachings of Baron for the purpose of enabling viewers to continue consuming content. In reference to claim 5, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 59,68,69, which teaches displaying connection status information of the device, and based on device queue; and also teaches the model user setting control parameters for the stimulation device. In reference to claim 7, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 29,31, which teaches providing a list of connected devices that can be controlled via the control page and for selecting target stimulation devices. In reference to claim 10, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 27,47, which teaches establishing bidirectional communication for chat and audio/video transmission between the model and second user devices. In reference to claim 22, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 34,39,50,59, which teaches receiving and transmitting text and audio messages. In reference to claim 23, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 34,39,50,59, which teaches confirmation message to the viewers regarding the amount of tokens based on the threshold token amount. In reference to claim 25, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 31,51,52,62, which teaches verifying the duration status of access and enabling the model device to approve the requesting user, and establishing a bidirectional connection between the model and user devices. In reference to claim 26, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 34,39,50,59, which teaches stimulation operations comprising a variety of actions. In reference to claim 27, this is taught by He, at least ¶s 34,39,50,59, which teaches a threshold amount of tokens for a predetermined amount of time. Claims 11,15,17,20,29-32 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1,5,7,10,22-27 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale. Claims 21,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US Publication 20230329962) in view of Baron et al (US Publication 20070206086) in further view of Metz et al (US Publication 20190213519). In reference to claim 21, this is taught by He fails to explicitly teach extend the control connection for an extended duration of time and apply the extended control connection to all viewer terminals of viewers who have provided tokens, wherein the extended duration of time is proportional to a number of the additional tokens. However, Metz teaches online sessions between devices (see Metz, at least Abstract), and discloses displaying a countdown timer for the session (see Metz, at least ¶s 69-71). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify He based on the teachings of Metz for the purpose of keeping viewers informed of when their service time expires. Claim 28 is a slight variation of the rejected claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification. In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892. Contact & Status Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. /Ramy M Osman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598093
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONNECTING A CONFERENCE ROOM TO AN ONGOING MEETING SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598119
PROGRAMMABLE SWITCHING DEVICE FOR NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568085
Systems and methods for generating sub-identities for workloads
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547693
USER IDENTITY VERIFICATION METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542773
REMOTE AUTHORIZATION METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERFORMING SAME METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (-9.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 738 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