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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 18/637,875 filed on February 27, 2026. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application. Claims 8 to 10 and 18 to 20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 7 recite calculating a buffer distance value, and calculating an average buffer distance value.
The limitation of calculating a buffer distance value, which specifically recites “calculating a buffer distance value of the pixels of the video frames by comparing buffer values for pixels of the video frames of the unknown video data to buffer values for pixels of the video frames of the known video data”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “calculating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally, with the aid of pen and paper, calculating a distance value by comparing values, which can be represented as numbers or letters in a sheet of paper and compared to each other mentally.
The limitation of calculating an average buffer distance value, which specifically recites “calculating an average buffer distance value, the average buffer distance value comprising a mean value of the buffer distance value of the pixels of all frames”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the at least one processor” language, “calculating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, calculating a mean value of the values calculated in the previous step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “receiving known video data comprising a first plurality of video frames and unknown video data comprising a second plurality of video frames, wherein a pixel of a video frame is associated with a pixel channel value”, “converting, by a processor, pixel channel values of the first plurality of video frames and the second plurality of video frames into buffer values according to a non-linear scale, wherein first ranges of pixel channel values at extremes of the scale are associated with less corresponding buffer values than second ranges of pixel channel values in a middle section of the scale”, and at least one processor. The limitation “receiving known video data comprising a first plurality of video frames and unknown video data comprising a second plurality of video frames, wherein a pixel of a video frame is associated with a pixel channel value” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “converting, by a processor, pixel channel values of the first plurality of video frames and the second plurality of video frames into buffer values according to a non-linear scale, wherein first ranges of pixel channel values at extremes of the scale are associated with less corresponding buffer values than second ranges of pixel channel values in a middle section of the scale” is recited at a high-level of generality, with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and is equivalent to merely saying “applying it”. The at least one processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activity identified above, which include the data gathering steps, is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “comparing the average buffer distance value to a distance threshold to generate a video similarity value and using the video similarity value to determine whether the known and unknown videos are deemed to match”, which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, since comparisons of values to thresholds and determinations based on values can be performed in the human mind, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Same rationale applies to claims 3 to 7, since they recite limitations that similarly are further elaborating on the abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims do not include a requirement of anything other than conventional, generic computer technology for executing the abstract idea, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Same rationale applies to claims 12 to 17 since they recite similar limitations.
Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to arguments filed on February 27, 2026. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “The present claims provide a clear improvement in computer functioning and in the technical fields of video matching and finding”, and more specifically “systems may also benefit from more optimized resource allocation as the system can allocate higher matching precision to the most visually significant data (mid-tones) while reducing the bit-depth requirements for less significant data (at the extremes)”. In particular, the claimed invention discloses particularly advantageous video matching techniques which are agnostic to file formats or manipulation, and which may be automated, such that human supervision is not required”, and further, that “the claimed techniques may require less processing power and resources to analyze the content and to determine if similar videos are identical as well”, where “the claimed combination is thus an unconventional sequence of steps, which does not merely calculate a distance. Rather, it transforms raw pixel data into a specialized buffer value map using a perceptually weighted, non-linear quantization scale”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully submits that it is not clear what are the improvements achieved with the invention, and how such improvements correlate with the claims, as presently presented. Examiner respectfully points out that “optimized resource allocation as the system can allocate higher matching precision to the most visually significant data (mid-tones) while reducing the bit-depth requirements for less significant data (at the extremes)”, “determining that similar videos are identical”, and “transforms raw pixel data into a specialized buffer value map using a perceptually weighted, non-linear quantization scale” are not recited in the claims, as presently presented, and therefore, it is not clear how these elements correlate with the invention. Furthermore, an automatic execution without human supervision is not required by the claims, as presently presented. The claims as presently presented, recite calculations that can be performed in the human mind, and therefore, are directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “as a single video frame may encompass millions of pixels, it would be not just impractical, but impossible for human operators to handle this manually. The independent claims are thus directed to a system and method which can be performed by a specific computing device and are not directed to a system and method which could be performed by a human. Therefore, improvements to computer functioning, computer technology and the technical field of video matching resulting from the claimed invention would be clear from the application as filed to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. Accordingly, given the improvements described above, Applicant respectfully submits the claims are integrated into a practical application”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully points out that adding a “computer-aided” limitation, computer components, or a neural network recited at a high-level of generality without significantly more, to a claim covering an abstract concept, is insufficient to render a claim eligible where the claims are silent as to how the computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of the computer to the performance of the method, and amounts to merely saying “apply-it”. In order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly” (See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); See MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)(v) Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Moreover, Examiner respectfully submits that it is still not clear how the improvements correlate with the claims, as presently presented, since the claims are directed to calculating buffer distance values, and the converting limitation is recited at a high level of generality. 101 Rejections are hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights