Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/832,642

VIDEO-BASED SEARCH RESULTS WITHIN A COMMUNICATION SESSION

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 04, 2022
Examiner
FELIX, BRADLEY OBAS
Art Unit
2671
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
12%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 12% of cases
12%
Career Allow Rate
2 granted / 17 resolved
-50.2% vs TC avg
Strong +67% interview lift
Without
With
+66.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
46
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
62.9%
+22.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 17 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Application has canceled claims 10-12. Thus, application has pending claims 1-9 and 13-23. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot as the amendments now raise 112(b) issues which preclude the examiner from doing a reasonable prior art search. Please see the updated rejections in light of the amendments as detailed below. As such, the action is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “each piece of textual content comprising…” in the extracting step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation in the claim. Pieces of textual content were not defined in the limitation, but rather the textual content itself. It is unclear as to what a “piece” of textual content is supposed to be. In addition, in the response to the request step, “matching pieces of textual content” is determined. It is unclear if the matching pieces correlate to the extracted pieces of textual content or if the matching textual content is retrieved from elsewhere. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “the matching piece of textual content” in the newly amended ranking step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the matching piece of textual content” is corresponding to the matching pieces or if the piece is independent from the one or more pieces. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “…for each matching piece of textual content,” in the presenting step. It is unclear if “each matching piece of textual content” is corresponding to the “one or more matching pieces of textual content” in the presenting step, ranking step, or a new matching piece of textual content. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “…temporal location in the video content associated with the matching textual content” in the presenting step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the matching textual content” is corresponding to the “one or more matching pieces” of the presenting step, or if this matching textual content is a newly matched textual content. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “…wherein the presenting further comprises presenting a contextual portion of the textual content”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “text textual content” is referring to the extracted plurality of textual content or the matching pieces of the textual context. Examiner’s Comments The Office has established the rejection under 35 112(b) with regard to claims 1-9 and 13-23. The scope of claims 1-9 and 13-23 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-9 and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) render applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-9 and 13-23 are tied together and related to one another that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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. /BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671 /VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 08, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592076
OBJECT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12340540
AN IMAGING SENSOR, AN IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND AN IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 24, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
12%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+66.7%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 17 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