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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 19 March 2026.
These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 9, and 10 have been amended.
Claim 6 is canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the Examiner disagrees. See detailed 101 Rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “wherein the similarity is calculated using at least one of RMSE, PSNR, SSIM, UQI, SIFT, or a deep learning method”. While based on the context of the disclosure these abbreviations likely correspond to Root Mean Square Error, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Structural Similarity Index, Universal Quality Index, and Stop-Investigate-Find-Trace respectively, the Examiner strongly encourages at least initially fully defining these abbreviations to ensure that they do not in fact reflect other methods.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the concept of computing some quantitative score regarding live streams, which constitutes a Mental Process that could be performed in a Human Mind. Following the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, we analyze the claims:
STEP 1: IS THE CLAIM TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
YES. Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are directed to a process. Claim 9 is directed to a machine. Claim 10 is directed to manufacture.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE AN ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, OR NATURAL PHENOMENON?
Yes. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 10) recite ‘determining an idle score…’ and ‘determining a priority score…’, ‘calculating a similarly between at least two frames…”, and “determining the idle score based on the similarity of the frames’ which amount to mental steps of evaluation and judgment as a human is capable of observing and evaluating different video frames shown on a screen. It is noted that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The Claims also recite “wherein the similarity is calculated using at least one of RMSE, PSNY, SSIM, SIFT, or a deep learning method” which may comprise further mental steps of evaluation (SIFT being a purely evaluative method) and/or applying mathematical concepts (e.g., RMSE and PSNY).
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 further recite other determination steps which also amount to mental steps of evaluation and judgment.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
NO. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 10) recite “wherein the idle score increases as the distributor is less active in the live stream’. However, such a limitation merely describes an inverse relationship in distributor activity and idle score, but recited at such a high level of generality that fails to elevate the abstract ideas beyond the practical mental abilities of a human being (i.e., a person may observe a stream that is inactive where nothing is occurring for a period of time and determine that the stream deserves a very high idle score).
Claims 1, 9, and 10 further recite ‘obtaining a plurality of frames of the live stream within a time span’. However, this limitation amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity of data gather. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 9 and 10 respectively disclose a system comprising one or a plurality of processors that execute machine-readable instructions, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program. However, such limitations are recited at such a high level of generality to amount to saying ‘apply it’ to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Claim 8 further recites ‘reminding the distributor of the idle status in the live stream’. However, the limitation comprises an extra-solution activity of providing a notification to a user that is not even intrinsically tied to the various determination steps. Nor
As such, since the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it fails to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to other technologies or technical fields, or implements the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture.
STEP 2B: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION?
NO. The additional elements fail to amount to significantly more as they fail to amount to general implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer, or fail to recite anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409