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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments received 04/07/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 5-6 as set forth below in this Office action.
Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.11):
PNG
media_image1.png
451
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
222
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of the (USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples) Example 40 is eligible because the claimed method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data (emphasis added) to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. In the instant case, however, none of the claims recites, explicitly or implicitly, any additional element that is configured to perform additional “digital signal beat detection” by using or based on the one of a first range and a second range as being set or generated from the identified abstract idea. Accordingly, the decision in Example 40, which is fact specific, is not analogous to the instant claims of the present application.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim eligibility are reliant upon the issue discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analyses as set forth below in this Office Action.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102 in reference to the amended claims are deemed persuasive. The corresponding rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 3-6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20 recite the limitation “the wide range” or “the narrow range”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 3-6, 14 and 17 recite the limitation “the calculating part”, “the control part”, and/or “the detecting part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Therefore, the Examiner comprehends the claims based on his best interpretations to these phrases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17 and 20 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, 3-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of generating beat sound generation timing.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A beat sound generation timing generating device, comprising:
a processor configured to:
(S1) generate, from inputted data of a musical piece, a plurality of intensity data in a predetermined time interval, each of the plurality of intensity data indicating a timing governing a beat of the musical piece and a power at the timing;
(S2) calculate a cycle and a phase of the beat of the musical piece by using the plurality of intensity data for each of the time intervals;
(S3) detect a generation timing of a beat sound based on the cycle and the phase of the beat of the musical piece; and
(S4) set one of a first range and a second range as a BPM (beats per minute) numerical range to be used for calculation of the cycle and the phase of the beat for each of the time intervals, wherein the second range is narrower than the first range, a range within the first range, or a range overlap with the first range,
wherein the second range is:
a first predetermined range within the first range;
a second predetermined range centered on a BPM value when the BPM numerical range is changed from the first range to the second range; or
a third predetermined range centered on a BPM value to be used for calculation of the cycle and the phase of the beat when the BPM numerical range is changed from the first range to the second range.
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.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations S1, S3 and S4 recited in the bolded portion encompasses a mental process, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
Under its BRI, the limitations S2 recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the limitations.
Nothing in the claim precludes these limitations in the bolded portion from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. Even if the limitation of “a processor configured to” is included, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, 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.
Therefore, the bolded limitations fall within a combination of the mental process and the math concept groupings of abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including data observation, manipulation, evaluation, math calculations, judgment, and opinion.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 1 does not recite any additional element that can be considered to be qualified for being “significantly more” to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The “processor” is merely used as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, 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.
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. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is deemed that the “heart” of the representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract algorithm of generating beat sound generation timing. Under the 2019 PEG, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and the “Math Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the claim does not include any additional element to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, using a general-purpose computer to perform data manipulation/calculation with basic computing functionality is well-known/conventional. The claim does not recite any additional limitation/element that reflects an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 3-6 and 17 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, 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 for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 7, 9-11, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1, 3-6 and 17.
Examiner’s Note
7. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101/112 as set forth above in this Office action.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
9. 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