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 Election/Restrictions
2. Per Applicants' response dated 07/27/2026, an election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-12 and 24-34. Claims 13-23 and 35-40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 25, please change the status identifier “(Withdrawn)” into -- (Previously Presented) --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “input unit”, “a decomposition unit”, “a transforming unit”, “a timbre changing unit”, “a melody changing unit”, “a harmony detection unit”, “a pitch data generating unit”, “a pitch detection unit”, “a data conversion unit”, “a synthesizer unit”, and “a recombination unit” in claims 25-34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-12, 24, and 25-34 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, 24, and 25-34 are directed to an abstract idea of processing audio data.
Specifically, representative claim 25 recites:
A device for processing audio data, comprising:
(a) an input unit configured to receive input audio data containing a mixture of audio data including first audio data of a first musical timbre and second audio data of a second musical timbre different from said first musical timbre;
(b) a decomposition unit for decomposing the input audio data to provide decomposed data representative of the first audio data; and
(c) a transforming unit for transforming the decomposed data to obtain third audio data, wherein the transforming unit includes at least one of:
a timbre changing unit configured to change musical timbre such that the third audio data are of a third musical timbre different from the first musical timbre, or
a melody changing unit configured to change melody such that the third audio data represent a melody different from that of the decomposed data.
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.
Device/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations (b) recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (see Specification, US 20230120140 A1, [0037]), which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation and evaluation, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Under its BRI, the function/step of “transforming …” recited in limitation (c) encompasses mathematical concepts (e.g., a trained neural network, which is used like a “black box AI” whose internal workings are a mystery of math concepts to its users, see Specification, US 20230120140 A1, [0036]; also, no details about the training of the neural network are provided, while it is commonly known that the training of a neural network can be done by optimizing the AI model using a series of mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the algorithms and/or parameter values of the neural network), which also encompasses mental processes that can be performed by a human using the aid of pen/paper or a general-purpose computer.
Under the BRI, each of the limitations (i) and (ii) recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts (e.g., arithmetic operations, see Specification, US 20230120140 A1, [0047], [0051], [0055]), which also encompasses mental processes that can be performed by a human using the aid of pen/paper or a general-purpose computer.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations (b) and (c) from practically being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or a generic computer. Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 25 amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under its BRI, the limitation (a) encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to generate auxiliary battery usage state information for an external electronic device.
The various “unit(s)” recited in claim 25 are identified as the additional elements, but each of them is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, they encompass generic data input and processing components (hardware & software) of a general-purpose computer. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. Thus, the recitation of such generic computer components and/or the mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer in claim 25 cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitation of “audio data containing a mixture of audio data including first audio data of a first musical timbre and second audio data of a second musical timbre different from said first musical timbre” encompasses merely data characterization which can be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of music data processing.
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 affect 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.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea of processing audio data using conventional AI techniques. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two above, each or the combination of the additional limitations in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of music data processing. However, none of the additional limitations/elements amounts to “significantly more” such that the claim, as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or reflects an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 26-34 inherit attributes of the independent claim 25, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount to "significantly more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 30 and 33 recite: at least one of a synthesizer unit for synthesizer-based generation of audio signals based on ….; a recombination unit for recombining audio data obtained from the third audio data with audio data obtained from the second decomposed data to obtain recombined audio data. Under the BRI, each of these limitations encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity of outputting the results obtained from the identified abstract idea but does not amount to "significantly more" " to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. At most, they only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1-12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 25-34 as set forth above.
Claim 24 recite: wherein the input audio data are obtained from mixing a plurality of sets of source audio data including the first audio data and the second audio data; and wherein the first audio data are generated by or recorded from a first source selected from a first musical instrument, a first software instrument, a first synthesizer and a first vocalist, and the second audio data are generated by or recorded from a source selected from a second musical instrument, a second software instrument, a second synthesizer and a second vocalist. Under the BRI, each of these limitations encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea, outputting the results obtained from the identified abstract idea, and/or generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not amount to "significantly more" to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or reflect an “inventive concept”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 24-25, 28-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTEGI et al. (JP 4156252 B2, machine translation) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105374347 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, MOTEGI discloses a computer implemented device for processing audio data and a method of practicing the device (Abstract; para. 0003-0004, 0010), comprising: comprising an input unit configured to receive input audio data (para. 0068) containing a mixture of audio data including first audio data of a first musical timbre and second audio data of a second musical timbre different from said first musical timbre (para. 0006: “to separate and encode acoustic signals in which multiple timbres are mixed, according to their respective timbres”; para. 0065: “A timbre group is a grouping of timbres; for example, vocal sounds can be assigned to timbre group 1, piano sounds to timbre group 2, and so on”); and a decomposition unit for decomposing the input audio data to provide decomposed data (e.g., the linked timbre parameters, see discussion of step S9 in Fig. 5) representative of the first audio data (para. 0067: “in order to separate timbres from an acoustic signal containing a large number of timbres, it is necessary to register a corresponding number of timbre groups”; para. 0068-0069: “… The linked phoneme data is then classified into the timbre group with the highest distribution ratio of the timbre parameter combination”).
MOTEGI does not mention explicitly: a transforming unit for transforming the decomposed data to obtain third audio data, wherein the transforming unit includes at least one of: (i) a timbre changing unit configured to change musical timbre such that the third audio data are of a third musical timbre different from the first musical timbre, or (ii) a melody changing unit configured to change melody such that the third audio data represent a melody different from that of the decomposed data.
Wang discloses a device/method for processing audio data, comprising: obtaining acoustic feature data including characteristic parameters of a first musical timbre (para. 0022; see also para. 0019-0020); transforming said characteristic parameters of a first musical timbre to obtain third audio data, wherein said transforming includes changing melody such that the third audio data represent a melody different from that of the characteristic parameters of the first musical timbre (para. 0030, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply MOTEGI’s technique of timbre extraction to Wang’s folk song music composition method to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that such a combination/modification can be practiced merely as an intended use of the MOTEGI’s timbre extraction technique, in view of Wang’s teaching the general condition of feature parameter extraction (Wang, para. 0016). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for processing audio data since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, MOTEGI discloses: wherein the third audio data and the decomposed data have at least one of equal key or equal time-dependent harmony (para. 0040, 0054-0056).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 28-29, MOTEGI discloses: comprising detecting pitch data indicating musical pitches of the decomposed data or the first audio data (para. 0016, 0047); converting the decomposed data into event message data formed by a plurality of event messages of musical tones, wherein each event message at least specifies pitch data and velocity data of a corresponding musical tone (para. 0047).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 31-32, MOTEGI does not but Wang discloses: wherein the step of transforming the characteristic parameters of a first musical timbre involves processing of audio data obtained from the decomposed data within an artificial intelligence system (para. 0005, 0009); and decomposing the input audio data by processing the audio data obtained from the input audio data within an artificial intelligence system (para. 0005, 0009). As such, the combination of MOTEGI and Wang renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claim 24, MOTEGI discloses: wherein the input audio data are obtained from mixing a plurality of sets of source audio data including the first audio data and the second audio data (para. 0006, 0065).
MOTEGI is silent on: wherein the first audio data are generated by or recorded from a first source selected from a first musical instrument, a first software instrument, a first synthesizer and a first vocalist, and the second audio data are generated by or recorded from a source selected from a second musical instrument, a second software instrument, a second synthesizer and a second vocalist.
However, Examiner takes official notice that an audio data generated by or recorded from a first source selected from a first musical instrument, a first software instrument, a first synthesizer and a first vocalist, and the second audio data are generated by or recorded from a source selected from a second musical instrument, a second software instrument, a second synthesizer and a second vocalist is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply such well-known techniques of audio data generation into the combination of MOTEGI and Wang to arrive the claimed invention. The merely application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would be obvious and involve only routine skill in the art.
10. Claims 2, 4, 8 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTEGI et al. in view of Wang et al. and further in view of KAWAHARA et al. (JP 2010085737 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, MOTEGI does not but Wang disclose: wherein transforming the characteristic parameters of a first musical timbre includes changing musical timbre and wherein the third audio data and the decomposed data represent a same melody or represent no melody; wherein the third audio data and the decomposed data have the same timbre.
KAWAHARA discloses a device/method for processing audio data, comprising: obtaining acoustic feature data including characteristic data of a first musical timbre (para. 0025, 0031); transforming said characteristic parameters of a first musical timbre to obtain third audio data (para. 0037: “The sound information, with the watermark information superimposed in the manner adjusted as described above, is converted into sound by the speaker 200 and emitted”), wherein said transforming includes changing melody such that the third audio data represent a melody different from that of the characteristic parameters of the first musical timbre (para. 0032-0033); wherein the third audio data and the acoustic feature data have the same timbre (para. 0024-0025, 0028, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine MOTEGI with KAWAHARA to arrive the claimed invention by applying MOTEGI’s technique of timbre extraction to KAWAHARA’s device/method of superimposing watermark information onto sound. It is deemed that such a combination/modification can be practiced merely as an intended use of the MOTEGI’s timbre extraction technique, in view of KAWAHARA’s teaching the general condition of acoustic feature data including characteristic data of a selected musical timbre. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for processing audio data since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 8 and 30, MOTEGI does not but Wang disclose: wherein the step of transforming said characteristic parameters of the first musical timbre includes synthesizer-based or sample-based generation of audio signals based on the pitch data converted from the acoustic feature data (para. 0023, 0031). As such, the combination of MOTEGI, Wang and KAWAHARA renders the claimed invention obvious.
Examiner’s Note
11. While there are related references that discuss techniques of AI-based remixing music, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the limitations as recited in instant claims 5, 11-12, 26-27, and 33-34. It is those limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations as claimed in claim 1 or 25 that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make those claims distinguish over the prior art of record. As such, claims 5, 11-12, 26-27, and 33-34 would be allowable if rewritten/amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth in sections 6-7 above in this Office Action
Contact Information
12. 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
Prosecution Insights