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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 17/742,318 filed on June 11, 2025. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 15, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the final rejections. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 5 to 12, and 14 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 9 recite the limitations of “generating audio embeddings for the audio sequence at different time resolutions, including a song-level audio embedding and section-level audio embeddings, wherein the audio embeddings include musical attributes of the audio sequence, and wherein each of the section-level audio embeddings is a feature vector representation of a segment of the audio sequence”, which is a mathematical calculation written in text format, “generating a first set of candidate audio sequences from the pre-processed audio catalog based on a first nearest neighbor search comparing the song-level audio embedding and the section-level audio embeddings for the audio sequence with song-level audio embeddings for the catalog audio sequences” and “generating a second set of candidate audio sequences based on a second nearest neighbor search comparing the song-level audio embedding and the section-level audio embeddings for the audio sequence with section-level audio embeddings for the first set of candidate audio sequences” which are also mathematical calculations. Thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Finally, the claims recite the limitation “ranking the second set of candidate audio sequences based on the second nearest neighbor search, wherein the second set of candidate audio sequences are ranked based on a determination of similarities of sections within the second set of candidate audio sequences to the audio sequence”, which 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 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 at least one processor” language, “ranking”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally, with the aid of pen and paper, ranking or ordering the candidate audio sequences based on similarity values. 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. Therefore, the claims fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings 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 an input including an audio sequence and a request to determine similar audio sequences to the audio sequence from a pre-processed audio catalog”, “querying the pre-processed audio catalog to retrieve audio embeddings for catalog audio sequences at the different time resolutions”, “providing the ranked second set of candidate audio sequences”, a convolutional neural network, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a computing device, a memory, and at least one processor. The limitations “receiving an input including an audio sequence and a request to determine similar audio sequences to the audio sequence from a pre-processed audio catalog”, “querying the pre-processed audio catalog to retrieve audio embeddings for catalog audio sequences at the different time resolutions”, and “providing the ranked set of candidate audio sequences” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Continuing with the analysis, the “convolutional neural network” is recited at a high-level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, because it does no more than invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computing device, memory, and at least one processor in these steps, is 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 claim is 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, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). 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 limitation of “extracting a first set of audio embeddings for the audio sequence at a first resolution; and combining the extracted first set of audio embeddings to generate a second set of audio embeddings for the audio sequence at a second resolution, the second resolution longer than the first resolution”, which can be performed in the human mind, hence, are further elaborating on the abstract idea. Therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Same rationale applies to claims 6 and 8, since they are also reciting limitations that can be performed in the human mind, and therefore, are also further elaborating on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “retrieving the song-level audio embeddings for the catalog audio sequences from a first search index and the section-level audio embeddings for the set of candidate audio sequences from a second search index”, which amounts to data-gathering steps, and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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)). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “receiving the catalog audio sequences from an audio catalog; and for each catalog audio sequence of the catalog audio sequences from the audio catalog, extracting a first set of audio embeddings for the catalog audio sequence at a first fixed time resolution, combining neighboring audio embeddings of the extracted first set of audio embeddings to generate a second set of audio embeddings for the catalog audio sequence at a second fixed time resolution, wherein the second fixed time resolution is longer than the first fixed time resolution, and storing the first set of audio embeddings and the second set of audio embeddings in the pre-processed audio catalog”, where the extracting to generate, and the combining elements further elaborates on the abstract idea. The receiving element amounts to data-gathering steps, and the storing element amounts to data storing elements, both which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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); (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Mm., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites limitations that are similar to claim 5, and therefore, same rationale applies to the similar limitations. Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation “applying an automatic audio sectioning algorithm to segment the catalog audio sequence into self-consistent musical sections”, where, the segmenting limitation can be performed in the human mind, and therefore, further elaborates on the abstract idea; the applying an automatic audio sectioning algorithm element is recited at a high-level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, because it does no more than invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Additional elements that invoke computers, computer components, or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, merely as a tool, or simply add a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “receiving a selection of a musical attribute for filtering the set of candidate audio sequences; and identifying a subset of the set of candidate audio sequences having at least a portion with characteristics of the selected musical attribute most similar to the audio sequence”, where the identifying element further elaborates on the abstract idea, and the receiving element amounts to data-gathering steps, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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)). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than 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 11, 12, 14 to 18, and 20 since they recite similar limitations.
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 12, and 14 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to arguments filed on June 11, 2025. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered, but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the steps of amended claim 1 involves “generating, by a convolutional neural network, audio embeddings for the audio sequence at different time resolutions, including a song-level audio embedding and section-level audio embeddings, wherein the audio embeddings include musical attributes of the audio sequence, and wherein each of the section- level audio embeddings is a feature vector representation of a segment of the audio sequence.”, and further that “the use of a convolutional neural network to generate audio embeddings, which are “a feature vector representation of a segment of the audio sequence,” and where the feature vector representation includes “musical attributes of the audio sequence” is not something that a person can do in their mind or with a pencil and paper”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully points out that the limitations in the claims, as amended and as presently presented, recite mathematical calculations, and therefore, fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, and as further explained in the rejections above, Examiner respectfully submits that the use of a convolutional neural network for the generation of the embeddings 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”, therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “performing “a first nearest neighbor search” and “a second nearest neighbor search” using audio embeddings (e.g., feature vector representations) are not something that a person can do in their mind or with a pencil and paper, as this requires identifying the closest vectors (e.g., “audio embeddings for candidate audio sequences”) to a source vector (e.g., “audio embeddings for the audio sequence”) in a multi-dimensional space”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully points out that the limitations of “generating” candidate sets “based on” “a first nearest neighbor search” and “a second nearest neighbor search”, as amended and as presently presented, also recite mathematical calculations, and therefore, fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. In view of claim amendments, and Applicant’s arguments, rejections under 35 USC § 103 are hereby withdrawn.
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 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