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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments entered on January 6, 2026 for the patent application 19/035,672 originally filed on January 23, 2025. Claims 2-18 are cancelled. Claim 1 is pending. The first office action of June 25, 2025 and the second office action of October 7, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “creating video frames regarding an abstract environment topic,” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“interpreting a first set of knowledge bullet points of an abstract environment topic to produce a first piece of information regarding the abstract environment topic;
obtaining a first set of object representations of a group of object representations based on the first piece of information regarding the abstract environment topic, wherein at least some of the group of object representations are associated with corresponding three dimensional (3-D) conceptual objects;
interpreting a second set of knowledge bullet points of the abstract environment topic to produce a second piece of information regarding the abstract environment topic;
obtaining a second set of object representations of the group of object representations based on the second piece of information regarding the abstract environment topic, wherein the 3-D conceptual objects of the group of object representations collectively represent an abstract concept regarding the first and second pieces of information of the abstract environment topic;
interpreting the first and second pieces of information of the abstract environment topic to produce summary points that describe a candidate concept indicating, by the computing entity, that the candidate concept is the abstract concept when the summary points match more than a threshold number of knowledge bullet points of the abstract environment topic;
identifying a set of candidate objects corresponding to the first and second pieces of information of the abstract environment topic;
selecting a subset of the set of candidate objects that correspond to the abstract concept to produce selected objects;
generating 3-D models for the selected objects to produce the 3-D conceptual objects;
identifying, by the computing entity, a candidate asset that belongs to the first and second sets of object representations;
identifying a common object representation of the first and second sets of object representations as the common illustrative asset;
selecting the candidate asset as the common illustrative asset when the candidate asset depicts an aspect regarding the abstract concept regarding the first and second pieces of information of the abstract environment topic;
rendering a portion of the common illustrative asset to produce a set of common illustrative asset video frames;
selecting a subset of the set of common illustrative asset video frames to produce a common portion of video frames with regards to the first and second sets of object representations to reduce duplicative rendering, wherein the selecting the subset of the set of common illustrative asset video frames to produce a common portion of video frames comprises:
identifying a first common illustrative asset video frame of the set of common illustrative asset video frames that represents a first aspect of the first set of object representations,
identifying a second common illustrative asset video frame of the set of common illustrative asset video frames that represents a second aspect of the second set of object representations,
analyzing pixels of the first and second common illustrative asset video frames to count identical pixels between the first and second common illustrative asset video frames,
determining that more than a minimum threshold number of the pixels of the first and second common illustrative asset video frames are the same, and
establishing the common portion of video frames to include the first common illustrative asset video frame;
rendering a portion of at least one object representation of the first set of object representations to produce a first remaining portion of the video frames with regards to the first set of object representations;
rendering a portion of at least one object representation of the second set of object representations to produce a second remaining portion of the video frames with regards to the second set of object representations; and
linking the common portion, the first remaining portion, and the second remaining portion of the video frames.”
These limitations simply describe “a training program” (i.e. Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. PlayerLync LLC, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Likewise, the limitations describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a computing entity,” is merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “creating video frames regarding an abstract environment topic,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computing entity,” is claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known, that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computing entity,” as described in para. [0044] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0044] Computing devices include portable computing devices and fixed computing devices. Examples of portable computing devices include an embedded controller, a smart sensor, a social networking device, a gaming device, a smart phone, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a video game controller, and/or any other portable device that includes a computing core. Examples of fixed computing devices includes a personal computer, a computer server, a cable set-top box, a fixed display device, an appliance, and industrial controller, a video game counsel, a home entertainment controller, a critical infrastructure controller, and/or any type of home, office or cloud computing equipment that includes a computing core.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a computing entity,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element. Thus, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on January 6, 2026 related to claim 1 is fully considered, but is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Applicant respectfully submits that, Step 2B - The Claim Recites "Significantly More" Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
Even if the claim were considered to recite a judicial exception, under Step 2B the question is whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to "significantly more" than the exception itself. Here, claim 1 recites several specific additional elements that the Applicant submits are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in isolation or as an ordered combination:
1. Pixel-level comparison and thresholding to define reusable video segments
The claim does not merely detect that two assets are "similar." It recites:
1. Identifying two specific video frames representing different aspects;
2. Analyzing pixels of those two frames to count identical pixels;
3. Comparing that count to a minimum threshold; and
4. Based on that result, establishing the common portion of video frames (which includes at least that frame).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claimed “a computing entity,” as described in para. [0044] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element. Specifically, para. [0044] provides the following:
“Examples of fixed computing devices includes a personal computer, a computer server, a cable set-top box, a fixed display device, an appliance, and industrial controller, a video game counsel, a home entertainment controller, a critical infrastructure controller, and/or any type of home, office or cloud computing equipment that includes a computing core.”
As such, the Applicant’s commonly available list of computer products is reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data computing equipment. Thus, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous, commercially available equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully continues to argue “The Applicant respectfully submits this is a particular algorithmic technique implemented in a specific way, and is not simply a generic instruction to "compare and reuse frames." The ordered combination of these operations provides a concrete rule set that governs when frames are shared across different conceptual segments to provide an improvement of reduced rendering.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the Applicant’s “particular algorithmic technique,” was in fact claimed, it would further substantiate the Examiner’s position by further qualifying the abstract idea in the form of “mathematical concepts,” in terms of processes that can be performed as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully continues to argue further “The method creates 3-D models for selected objects that represent an "abstract concept" verified using summary points and a threshold of matching knowledge bullet points. The concept detection is therefore operationally linked to specific 3-D modeling and rendering steps, not simply to high-level categorization. This integration of semantic concept detection with concrete 3-D modeling and rendering is not conventional.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to perform tasks previously done in the analog by humans. Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed steps can reasonably be analogized with regard to the following subject-matter eligibility cases decided at the CAFC:
“a training program” (i.e. Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. PlayerLync LLC, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
“a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues still further “3. Ordered combination that optimizes rendering pipeline
The sequence of:
1. Interpreting multiple sets of bullet points;
2. Deriving first and second pieces of information;
3. Identifying a candidate concept and verifying it as an abstract concept;
4. Selecting candidate objects, generating 3-D models;
5. Identifying a common illustrative asset across sets;
6. Rendering common frames, performing pixel analysis and thresholding; and
7. Using that result to reduce duplicative rendering and link common and remaining video portions collectively defines a non-generic, technical pipeline for video frame generation. The improvement-reduction of redundant rendering through detection and reuse of pixel-similar frames at runtime-is a technical effect not present in routine content creation systems, and thus is more than simply using a generic computer as a tool.
Under the USPTO's guidance, such a "specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities" is sufficient to constitute "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. See Enfish; McRO; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims Specifically, the Applicant’s conclusory statement of “detection and reuse of pixel-similar frames at runtime-is a technical effect not present in routine content creation systems, and thus is more than simply using a generic computer as a tool,” is not supported anywhere in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Furthermore, the statement of “detection and reuse of pixel-similar frames at runtime-is a technical effect not present in routine content creation systems,” is best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully finally argues “The Examiner has not provided evidence or factual support showing that the particular combination of: (i) concept detection from multi-set knowledge bullet points, (ii) 3-D conceptual object generation, and (iii) pixel-level comparison to define reusable video frames for reduction of duplicative rendering, is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Absent such evidence, a mere characterization of the claim as "abstract" is insufficient under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration based on the above points.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is referring to the subsequent Berkheimer Memo provided by the office after the Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision.
The memo listed four (4) options to provide evidential support for basing a rejection under a step 2B analysis. These options include: Option 1 – Statement(s) by Applicant; Option 2 – Court Decisions in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); Option 3 – Publication(s); and Option 4 – Official Notice. In the present case, Option 1 was used, which required an explanation based on an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), since a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use. In Applicant’s case, it is the lack of information in the specification that demonstrates the additional elements being claimed must be sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As such, the Examiner has met his burden by factually supporting the step 2b analysis and concluding that the claims do not meet subject-matter eligibility. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715