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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-12 are 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea of constructing a machine learning model for evaluating the performance of a musical instrument by a performer
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
An estimation model construction method realized by a computer, the estimation model construction method comprising:
(S1) preparing a plurality of training data that include
first training data that include first feature amount data that represent a first feature amount of a performance sound of a musical instrument and first onset data that represent a pitch at which an onset exists, and
second training data that include second feature amount data that represent a second feature amount of sound generated by a sound source of a type different than the musical instrument, and second onset data that represent that an onset does not exist; and
(S2) constructing, by machine learning using the plurality of training data, an estimation model that estimates, from a feature amount data that represent a feature amount of a performance sound of the musical instrument, estimated onset data that represent a pitch at which an onset exists.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitation (S2) constructing, by machine learning using the plurality of training data, an estimation model that estimates, …, estimated onset data that represent a pitch at which an onset exists encompasses processes of manipulating existing training data and training a machine learning model using the training data. In light of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 47, claim 2), the limitation S2 requires specific mathematical calculations (see Spec. paragraph [0026]), and therefore recites a judicial exception. In particular, said training is recited at a high level of generality which may involve optimizing the estimation model using a series of mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the algorithms and/or parameter values of the models, therefore reads on mathematical concepts, namely an abstract idea.
As such, under its BRI, the bolded portion of claim 1 constitutes a judicial exception that falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping of abstract ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim mentions “ … method realized by a computer” in the preamble. The computer is recited a high level of generality. Under its BRI, this additional element covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes it from practically being performed in the mind and/or with paper/pen.
Under its BRI, the limitation S1 reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. The “preparing” does not appear to be done in any particular manner and the limitation merely describes the type of data obtained, not how it is obtained/prepared in any meaningful way. Therefore, the limitation S1 represents merely a pre-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
It is deemed that the focus of the claim is on an algorithm of constructing an AI model based on existing training data. The claim recites the limitation of applying the model for “estimates, from a feature amount data that represent a feature amount of a performance sound of the musical instrument, estimated onset data that represent a pitch at which an onset exists”. In view of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples), a "prediction using a machine learning model" is considered an "abstract idea" if the claim focuses solely on the concept of making predictions using a generic machine learning algorithm, without any specific technical improvements or applications that go beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions; essentially, if the claim is too high-level and does not describe a concrete, inventive implementation of the machine learning process. In the instant case, the estimation generally applies the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning model function. Rather, the claim only recites the outcome of the estimation/prediction but does not include any details about how the “estimate” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, generic algorithm of estimating from a feature amount data that represent a feature amount of a performance sound of the musical instrument, estimated onset data that represent a pitch at which an onset exists is well-known in the art (See cited prior art at section 6 below in this Office Action).
It does not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The dependent claims 1-6 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 7-12 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-6.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210241734 A1 -- SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR COMPUTER-GENERATED MUSICAL NOTE SEQUENCES
US 20170243571 A1 -- CONTEXT-DEPENDENT PIANO MUSIC TRANSCRIPTION WITH CONVOLUTIONAL SPARSE CODING
US 20150000505 A1 -- TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYZING PARAMETERS OF A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE
US 20180084362 A1 -- AUGMENTED PERFORMANCE SYNCHRONIZATION
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837