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 Objection
2. Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13-14 recite the limitation “bar-line/beat”. It is unclear whether the slash “/” refers to “and” or “or" or “and/or”. Therefore, the examiner comprehends the claims based on his best interpretations to these phrases.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-18 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 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea of evaluating musical piece inference using Al technology.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A musical piece inference device comprising:
L1: an electronic controller including at least one processor, the electronic controller being configured to execute a plurality of modules including
L1a: a data acquisition module configured to acquire target data including an input token sequence arranged to indicate at least a part of a musical piece, the input token sequence including a plurality of bar-line/beat tokens arranged to indicate bar-line/beat positions of at least the part of the musical piece, the bar-line/beat positions being positions of bar lines of at least the part of the musical piece, positions of beats of at least the part of the musical piece, or both;
L1b: an inference module configured to, by using a trained inference model, generate an output token sequence indicating a result of an inference with respect to the musical piece from the input token sequence included in the target data; and
L2: an output module configured to output the result of the inference.
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/device
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, limitation L1b encompasses a mental process of data manipulation that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an inference module,” nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitation L1b from practically being performed in the mind or with pen/paper.
In view of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), “generating/predicting 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 recited “generate an output token sequence” generally applies the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning models function. Rather, the claim only recites the outcome of the generation/prediction but does not include any details about how the “generate/predict” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the particulars of the data and information such as “output token sequence indicating a result of an inference with respect to the musical piece from the input token sequence included in the target data” are mere data characterization and descriptive of the information being determined/observed.
As such, the bolded limitation constitutes an abstract idea that falls within the “Mental Process” 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 limitation L1, including at least one processor, is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the limitation L1 encompasses 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.
The generic recitation of “the electronic controller being configured …” does not amount the abstract idea to be significantly more. Furthermore, performing an abstract algorithm using a general-purpose computer/circuitry would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.
The limitations L1a encompasses merely gathering the data/information necessary for performing the identified abstract idea. According to 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). As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The particulars of the data and information recited in L1a are considered mere data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment.
The limitation L2 is considered insignificant post-solution activities (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results), which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-6 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. The limitations to the plurality of bar-line/beat tokens are all well-understood/routine/conventional which extend the identified abstract idea but do not amount for "significant more".
Claims 7-13 are rejected for the same reason as for claims 1-6 discussed above.
In particular, claim 13 recites: “a plurality of training datasets each of which includes a combination of training data and a correct answer label …” Under its BRI, this limitation encompasses processes of binning/clustering/labelling a set of existing training data and training the Al model using the labelled training data. In light of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 47, claim 2), discretizing continuous training data to generate input data by processes including binning or clustering continuous data may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, while said training is recited at a high level of generality which may involve optimizing the AI models using a series of mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the algorithms and/or parameter values of the AI models, therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
Hence the claims 1-18 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AKAMA (US 20230135118 A1, US-PGPUB version of WO 2021220797 A1 published 2021-11-04, hereinafter AKAMA).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, AKAMA discloses a musical piece inference system (Fig. 4), a method and computer program products for practicing the system (para. 0006), comprising: an electronic controller (1 of Fig. 4) including at least one processor (para. 0096), the electronic controller being configured to execute a plurality of modules including a data acquisition module (10 of Fig. 4) configured to acquire target data (para. 0043, 0080) including an input token sequence arranged to indicate at least a part of a musical piece (para. 0072, 0083: “the token generation unit 32 generates an input token sequence corresponding to the input track that has been input in the previous Step S1”), the input token sequence including a plurality of bar-line or time-line tokens arranged to indicate bar-line (or time-line) positions of at least the part of the musical piece, the bar-line (or time-line) positions being positions of bar lines of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0047, 0068, 0111-0112; see also Fig. 11 and related discussion of the input token sequence input to the encoder 21a; note, the term “a plurality of bar-line” is given a broad interpretation); an inference module (33 of Fig. 4) configured to, by using a trained inference model (21), generate an output token sequence indicating a result of an inference (para. 0082) with respect to the musical piece from the input token sequence included in the target data (para. 0069, 0071-0073, 0111-0112, 0130), and an output module configured to output the result of the inference (para. 0084-0086).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKAMA.
Regarding claims 13, AKAMA discloses a model generation device (Fig. 4) comprising: an electronic controller (1 of Fig. 4) including at least one processor (para. 0096), the electronic controller being configured to execute a plurality of modules including a training data acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of training datasets (para. 0044, 0123), the training data including an input token sequence arranged to indicate at least a part of a musical piece for training (see discussion of Step S4 of Fig. 15), the input token sequence including a plurality of bar-line or time-line tokens arranged to indicate bar-line or time-line positions of at least the part of the musical piece, the bar-line or time-line positions being positions of bar or time lines of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0047, 0111-0112; see also Fig. 11 and related discussion of the input token sequence input to the encoder 21a; note, the term “a plurality of bar-line” is given a broad interpretation), wherein the training data is further configured to indicate a true value of an output token sequence corresponding to a result of an inference with respect to the musical piece (para. 0008: “using training data so as to output output data corresponding to the output track when input data corresponding to the first track is input”; para. 0071: “Learning of the encoder 21a may be performed … The parameters of the encoder 21a and the decoder 21b are adjusted by comparing the input token sequence in the encoder 21a with the output token sequence generated by the decoder 21b. By repeating the adjustment, the learned model 21 in which the parameters of the encoder 21a and the decoder 21b are optimized is generated”); and a training processing module (1 of Fig. 4) configured to execute machine learning of an inference model (21) by using the plurality of training datasets, the machine learning being configured by training the inference model such that, with respect to each of the training datasets, an output token sequence generated by the inference model from the input token sequence included in the training data matches the true value (para. 0069, 0071-0073, 0111-0112, 0130).
AKAMA is silent on: each of the plurality of training datasets includes a combination of training data and a correct answer label, the correct answer label being configured to indicate a true value of an output token sequence.
Examiner takes official notice that machine learning models, such as supervised learning models, which require labelling the training data to provide the algorithm with input data paired with the corresponding, correct output labels (ground truth), allowing the model to learn the relationship between them, are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a well-known supervised learning process to train AKAMA’s learned model (21 of Fig. 4) to arrive the claimed invention wherein each of the plurality of training datasets includes a combination of training data and a correct answer label, the correct answer label being configured to indicate a true value of an output token sequence. It is deemed such a modification is merely a design variation to AKAMA’s machine learning model, which the skilled person would conceive and apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances since it has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
9. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKAMA in view of Van Geenen et al. (US 20100043625 A1).
Regarding claims 2-5, 8-11 and 14, AKAMA is silent on: wherein each of the plurality of bar-line tokens is arranged at each of the positions of the bar lines and each of the positions of the beats in the input token sequence; wherein the input token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece, and the output token sequence indicates a sequence of notes of at least a part of an arranged musical piece; wherein the input token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece; wherein the input token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece, and the inference module is configured to generate the output token sequence such that the output token sequence indicates a musical score of at least the part of the musical piece, as the result of the inference with respect to the musical piece.
Van Geenen teaches a token sequence (e.g., tokens 5-7 of Fig. 1) including a plurality of bar-line or beat tokens arranged to indicate bar-line or beat positions of at least a part of a musical piece, the bar-line or beat positions being positions of bar lines of at least the part of the musical piece, positions of beats of at least the part of the musical piece, or both (Fig. 1; para. 0055, 0069); wherein each of the plurality of bar-line tokens (5-7) is arranged at each of the positions of the bar lines and each of the positions of the beats in said token sequence (para. 0055, 0069); wherein said token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0055, 0069); wherein said token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0055, 0069); wherein said token sequence is further configured to indicate a musical score of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0057: “… and stacking of tokens is used to indicate simultaneous notes on one instrument, e.g. the left and right hand parts of a piano score”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Van Geenen’s teaching of token sequence to the AKAMA’s input and output token sequences, as an intended use of the Van Geenen’s technique of token sequence arrangement, to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for representing aspects of at least a fragment of the musical piece, including a bar, a beat or a note of a particular duration, depending on the chosen granularity (Van Geenen, para. 0055). It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, AKAMA discloses: wherein the input token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of elements of at least the part of the musical piece (see discussion of input token sequence in Fig. 11); the inference module is configured to generate the output token sequence such that the output token sequence indicates a sequence of elements of at least a part of an arranged musical piece, as the result of the inference with respect to the musical piece (see discussion of output token sequence in Fig. 11).
AKAMA is silent on: said output token sequence indicates a sequence of notes of at least a part of an arranged musical piece.
The teaching of Van Geenen includes: said token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of notes of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0055, 0069). As such, the combination of AKAMA and Van Geenen discussed above renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 15-16, AKAMA, modified as discussed in section 8 above, teaches or renders obvious: wherein the input token sequence included in the training data is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of elements of at least the part of the musical piece, and the output token sequence of the correct answer label is configured so as to indicate a true value of a sequence of elements of at least a part of an arranged musical piece, as the true value of the result of the inference with respect to the musical piece (see discussion of input and output token sequences in Fig. 11); wherein the output token sequence of the correct answer label is configured to indicate a true value of a result of estimating local attributes (e.g., <ON, b, 24>, <ON, m, 60>, … ) of at least the part of the musical piece, as the true value of the result of the inference with respect to the musical piece (see discussion of the output token sequence in Fig. 11).
AKAMA is silent on: said elements of at least the part of the musical piece and said elements of at least a part of an arranged musical piece are musical notes.
The teaching of Van Geenen includes: said token sequence is configured so as to correspond to a sequence of musical notes of at least the part of the musical piece (para. 0055, 0069).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Van Geenen’s teaching of token sequence, corresponding to a sequence of musical notes, into the AKAMA’s input and output token sequences, as an intended use of the Van Geenen’s technique of token sequence arrangement, to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for representing aspects of at least a fragment of the musical piece, including a bar, a beat or a note of a particular duration, depending on the chosen granularity (Van Geenen, para. 0055). It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the combination of AKAMA and Van Geenen teaches or renders the claimed invention obvious (see discussion for claims 2-6 set forth above).
Contact Information
10. 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