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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-14 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6-14 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claim invention does not recite a judicial exception. Examiner disagrees because “matching recursively each generated fingerprint hash of the audio stream against stored unique fingerprint hashes of the tracks using time offsets between the audio stream and each track in order to identify the audio stream” recite an mathematical calculation. The rest of the limitations are insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention.
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 1-3, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
• STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recite a machine (apparatus), claim 12 recites a machine (apparatus), claim 14 recites a machine (apparatus).
• STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite “matching recursively each generated fingerprint hash of the audio stream against stored unique fingerprint hashes of the tracks using time offsets between the audio stream and each track in order to identify the audio stream” which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The step of “matching fingerprint hashes” is defined in the specification as a mathematical calculation (Page 8, lines 6-19, the matching in 164 comprises two operations. First, a dividend and a remainder are obtained… Next, a location of the specific stored unique fingerprint hash is set so that the dividend is set as an ordinal number for the file 116…), and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite “wherein the fixed size entry element indicates a true number of tracks known to contain the stored unique fingerprint hash of the fixed size data item, even if the true number of the tracks exceeds the number of entries, and the true number is used as a weight coefficient for a relevance of the stored unique fingerprint hash in the matching” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation recites a mathematical algorithm for determining relevance, and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
• STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial
Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite “one or more hardware caches, each hardware cache configured to store one or more files, each file containing a part of a fixed size continuous data structure, and the fixed size continuous data structure containing fixed size data items, each fixed size data item representing a stored unique fingerprint hash; one or more random access memories; and one or more processors configured to cause performance of at least the following” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite “obtaining generated fingerprint hashes of an audio stream; retrieving, into the one or more random access memories from one of the one or more files, each stored unique fingerprint hash addressed by each generated fingerprint hash and represented by each fixed size data item, wherein each fixed size data item representing the stored unique fingerprint hash contains a fixed size entry element indicating a number of entries for the stored unique fingerprint hash, and a predetermined number of fixed size track entries, and each fixed size track entry contains a fixed size track identifier of a track containing the stored unique fingerprint hash, and a fixed size occurrence element indicating a number of times the track contains the stored unique fingerprint hash” which is mere data gathering and outputting because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the retrieving comprises using a single system call to access one hardware cache of the one or more hardware caches to retrieve the fixed size data item as a single fixed-size read operation that reads the entire fixed size data item into the random access memory, and wherein the matching comprises keeping a file descriptor open to each file, and the retrieving comprises performing the retrieving from the files in parallel using multiple concurrent I/O requests to different ones of the files stored on different hardware caches” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
• Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(f)).
Claims 1, 12, and 14 recite mere data gathering and outputting. The courts have determined mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea is not enough to qualify as "significantly more", as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(g)).
For the reasons above, claims 1, 12, and 14 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-3, 6-11. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 2 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 2 recites “wherein the fixed size continuous data structure comprises a fixed size array, and each fixed size data item comprises a fixed size row of the fixed size array representing each stored unique fingerprint hash” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 2 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 3 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 3 recites “wherein numerical representations of indexes of the fixed size data items in the fixed size continuous data structure represent stored unique fingerprint hashes” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 3 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 6 recites “wherein the fixed size data items in the fixed size continuous data structure are arranged in a numerical order running from one stored unique fingerprint hash to another stored unique fingerprint hash” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 7 recites “wherein the matching comprises obtaining a dividend and a remainder by dividing a numerical value of a specific stored unique fingerprint hash by a numerical value obtained by dividing a numerical value of a count of the stored unique fingerprint hashes by a numerical value of a count of the one or more files; and setting a location of the specific stored unique fingerprint hash so that the dividend is set as an ordinal number for the file, and the remainder is set as an ordinal number of a fixed size data item in a part of the fixed size continuous data structure in the file with the dividend as the ordinal number” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 8 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? Yes. Claim 8 recites “wherein the retrieving comprises using a single system call to access one hardware cache of the one or more hardware caches to retrieve the fixed size data item” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 8 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 9 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 9 recites “wherein the matching comprises keeping a file descriptor open to each file, and the retrieving comprises performing the retrieving from the files in parallel” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 9 recites mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 10 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 10 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 10 recites “wherein the one or more hardware caches comprise one or more solid-state drives” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 10 recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 11 recites a manufacture (apparatus).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 11 inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 11 recites “one or more read- only memories including computer program code; and wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer program code to cause performance of the apparatus” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 11 recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites an machine (apparatus).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “such that each fixed size row has a constant byte length and is retrievable by a single random-access read operation from the hardware cache” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
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 Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights