Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/986,084

PROVIDING RELEVANT INFORMATION DURING VIDEO PLAYBACK

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 14, 2022
Examiner
DUBASKY, GIGI L
Art Unit
2421
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Citrix Systems Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
451 granted / 610 resolved
+15.9% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
631
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 610 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Response to Arguments Claims 1-20 are pending. The objection to the claim has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendment. Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 02/10/2026 with regards to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the application” in line 8, which should be amended to --the video playback application-- to be consistent in the claim. Claim 9 recites “the application” in line 10, which should be amended to --the video playback application-- to be consistent in the claim. Claim 17 recites “the application” in line 10, which should be amended to --the video playback application-- to be consistent in the claim. Other dependent claims are objected the same Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2017/0147586) in view of Engineer (US 2018/0160189). Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: storing, in a storage medium, at least a first keyword corresponding to content of a video (¶ [0037]-[0043] for storing video plots information corresponding to content of a target video as pre-stored video plots information; and ¶ [0032] for video plot information including plot search keyword); after storing the first keyword, receiving, via a video playback application, an indication that playback of the video is initiated; in response to receipt of the indication, retrieving the first keyword from the storage medium (¶ [0027]-[0029], ¶ [0049]-[0051] and ¶ [0063]-[0064] for obtaining a first video plot information that matched the plot search keyword from pre-stored video plots information of the target video in response to receiving an indication that a plot search keyword of the video being playback is initiated); querying at least one data source for information corresponding to the first keyword (¶ [0032], ¶ [0052]-[0055] and ¶ [0065]-[0066] for querying a data source for pre-stored video plots information corresponding to the received plot search keyword); and causing a client device to display a representation of the information (¶ [0033]-[0034], ¶ [0056]-[0060] and ¶ [0067] for displaying information of a plurality of video plots matching the plot search keyword to be selected for replaying at a playback time of each matching video plot). Zhao discloses querying at least one data source for information corresponding to the first keyword (¶ [0032], ¶ [0052]-[0055] and ¶ [0065]-[0066]), but is silent about data source associated with a user of the application and by using login credentials of the user to access the at least one data source. Engineer discloses querying at least one data source associated with a user of a video playback application for information corresponding to the first keyword by using login credentials of the user to access the at least one data source (¶ [0081]-[0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao system with the teaching of Engineer about using login credentials of a user to access and query a data source for information corresponding to keyword search, so to facilitate security of data associated with a data source. Regarding claim 2, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses determining the first keyword corresponds to a time marker of the video; storing, in the storage medium, the first keyword and data identifying the time marker; determining, using the data identifying the time marker from the storage medium, that playback of the video is at a beginning of the time marker; and in response to determining that playback of the video is at a beginning of the time marker, causing the client device to display the representation of the information (taught by Zhao; ¶ [0032], ¶ [0044]-[0045], ¶ [0054]-[0060] and ¶ [0081]-[0082]; and Engineer’s Figure 3). Regarding claim 3, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses in response to querying the at least one data source, receiving a plurality of search results corresponding to the first keyword; determining a first search result, from the plurality of search results by ranking the plurality of search results based at least in part on contents of the video; and determining the representation of the information from the information included in the first search result (taught by Zhao; ¶ [0032]-[0034]; and taught by Engineer; ¶ [0039]). Regarding claim 4, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses generating a user interface element including the representation of the information and at least one selectable element, wherein the client device is caused to display the user interface element; receiving a user input selecting the at least one selectable element, the user input being indicative of feedback with respect to the information; based at least in part on the user input being indicative of the feedback, selecting a second search result from the plurality of search results; determining a representation of other information included in the second search result; and causing the client device to display the representation of the other information (taught by Zhao; ¶ [0028]-[0032], ¶ [0058]-[0061] and ¶ [0078]). Regarding claim 8, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses receiving video data for the video; processing the video data to determine a transcription of the video; and determining, using the transcription of the video, at least the first keyword (taught by Engineer; Figures 8-10; ¶ [0077]-[0078], ¶ [0095]-[0106] and ¶ [0111]-[0115]). Regarding claim 9, all functionalities of a computing system in claim 9 are analyzed and rejected corresponding claim 1. Zhao in view of Engineer discloses a system comprising at least one processor and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions (Zhao’s Figure 8; and Engineer’s Figure 11). Regarding claims 10-12 and 16, all limitations of claims 10-12 and 16 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 2-4 and 8 respectively. Regarding claims 17-20, all limitations of claims 17-20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1-4 respectively. Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2017/0147586) in view of Engineer (US 2018/0160189) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata et al (US 2021/0256972). Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system is silent about causing the client device to display a representation of at least the first keyword and at least one selectable user interface element to enable a user to provide feedback with respect to the first keyword; receiving a user input indicative of feedback with respect to the first keyword; and based at least in part on the user input being indicative of the feedback, storing updated keywords in the storage medium. Iwata discloses causing the client device to display a representation of at least the first keyword and at least one selectable user interface element to enable a user to provide feedback with respect to the first keyword; receiving a user input indicative of feedback with respect to the first keyword; and based at least in part on the user input being indicative of the feedback, storing updated keywords in the storage medium (Figures 3-4; ¶ [0052]-[0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao in view of Engineer system with the teaching of Iwata, so to provide an improved system with updating extracted keywords taking into account of user feedback to the keyword in order to make more appropriate keywords’ inquiry. Regarding claim 6, Zhao in view of Engineer and further in view of Iwata discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 5. The combined system further discloses after updating the keywords (Iwata’s Figures 3-4), receiving, via the video playback application, an additional indication that playback of the video is initiated; in response to the additional indication, retrieving the updated keywords from the storage medium; querying the at least one data source for additional information corresponding to the updated keywords; and causing the client device to display a representation of the additional information (taught by Zhao; ¶ [0027]-[0032], ¶ [0049]-[0055] and ¶ [0063]-[0067]). Regarding claims 13-14, all limitations of claims 13-14 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 5-6 respectively. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2017/0147586) in view of Engineer (US 2018/0160189) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fink et al (US 2009/0300475). Regarding claim 7, Zhao in view of Engineer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses generating a user interface element including the representation of the information and a selectable user interface element enabling a user to access the at least one data source; receiving a user input selecting the selectable user interface element (taught by Zhao; ¶ [0028]-[0032], ¶ [0058]-[0061] and ¶ [0078]), but is silent about in response to receiving the user input, causing the video playback application to pause playback of the video. Fink discloses generating a user interface element including the representation of the information and a selectable user interface element enabling a user to access the at least one data source; receiving a user input selecting the selectable user interface element; and in response to receiving the user input, causing the video playback application to pause playback of the video (Figures 2-3; ¶ [0028]-[0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao in view of Engineer system with the teaching of Fink, so to provide an alternative way of interactive user interface presenting other data source while pausing video as a matter of designed choices. Regarding claim 15, all limitations of claim 15 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 7. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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. /GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 10, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604046
SERVER AND TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593078
Live Video Playback
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587695
PER-SEGMENT PARAMETERS FOR CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587706
REBUFFERING REDUCTION IN ADAPTIVE BIT-RATE VIDEO STREAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581161
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO CREATE CANDIDATE REFERENCE SIGNATURES FROM SIGNATURE FRAGMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 610 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