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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 19, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is directed to the “information processing method according to claim 3, wherein” and further includes limitations pertaining to “the selected piece of music information”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the selected piece of music information” as this was introduced in claim 4. It is unclear whether applicant intends claim 6 to depend from claim 4, or introduce a new element into the claims. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to the “information processing method according to claim 4, wherein”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9 and 10 recite a step of generating music information by editing a part of elements forming the music information, and generating new music information on a basis of pieces of music information created. The claimed limitations are directed to a process, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, e.g., a musician thinking of a musical segment and mentally changing notes within said segment based on what was previously done. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only additional elements described in the claims are for an interface and a machine learning model, which are both described at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere components and instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and known processing algorithm to perform the process. Neither are described to require any unique components or steps in order to achieve applicant’s claimed limitations. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the interface which generates the music information is considered a generic computer component without requiring any additional specific elements, and the machine learning model is generically claimed without providing additional unique steps or features of the machine learning model. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept The dependent claims 2-8 only further define the abstract idea without significantly more, e.g. mapping the music information to a multidimensional space as in claim 8 is not described to require any additional unique component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kolen et al. (US 10,657,934 B1).
Claims 1, 9 and 10: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method for generating music information, an information processing program for causing a computer to function as an interface control unit, and an information processing device including an interface control unit for providing an interface capable of generating music information (musical phrase) according elements (set of constraints) (column 8 lines 10-17) by editing (updating) a part of elements (individual constraint) forming the music information (column 12 lines 9-13); and generating new music information by a machine learning model (column 8 lines 12-17) that is updated on a basis of a plurality of pieces of music information created using the interface (column 14 lines 51-58).
Claim 2: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, where the machine learning model is relearned on a basis of the plurality of pieces of music information (column 14 lines 51-58).
Claim 3: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method where an interface is provided, as stated above. Fixed feature amounts (characteristics) for a part of elements are acquired that correspond to certain generalities associated with that part of elements (column 2 lines 34-45), and a plurality of feature amounts for other elements included in the plurality of pieces of music information are acquired for learning a user’s preference and updating the machine learning model (column 14 lines 51-64).
Claim 4: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, where different pieces of music information are selectively displayed (presented) by the interface and a selection of a piece of music information is received from the different pieces of music information (column 4 lines 40-42). Corresponding feature amounts (notes) of a plurality of elements forming the selected piece of music information (column 14 lines 6-7) are displayed in a viewable manner, as shown in FIG. 1D.
Claim 5: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, where in a case where a feature amount of an element forming the selected piece of music information is updated, e.g. from ‘B’ to ‘B flat’ (132), new music information having an updated feature amount is generated (column 12 lines 56-66), as shown in FIGS. 1B-1D.
Claim 8: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, where a point (note) corresponding to the music information is mapped in a multidimensional space of user interface on a basis of a feature amount (scale and key) included in the music information, and the mapped point is displayed, as shown in FIG. 1C (column 12 lines 56-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolen et al. (US 10,657,934 B1) in view of Gartland-Jones (US 2005/0076772 A1).
Claim 6: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, where a feature amount of an element forming the selected piece of music information is specified, e.g. from ‘B’ to ‘B flat’ (132), the specified feature amount is arranged and generated as the new music information (column 12 lines 56-66), as shown in FIGS. 1B-1D. This reference fails to disclose a range to be specified for a feature amount of an element forming the selected piece of music information such that a feature amount included in the range is arranged and generated as the new music information.
However Gartland-Jones teaches an information processing method for generating music information, where a range (pitch range) is specified for a feature amount (notes) of an element forming a piece of music information (phrase) such that a feature amount included in the range is arranged and generated as a new music information (pages 18-19 paragraph [0263]).
Given the teachings of Gartland-Jones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing method disclosed in Kolen et al. with providing a range to be specified for a feature amount of an element forming the selected piece of music information such that a feature amount included in the range is arranged and generated as the new music information. Doing so would allow the generated music information to be in a comfortable playing range of the user, allowing the user to play along with the generated music information.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolen et al. (US 10,657,934 B1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 10,991,349 B2).
Claim 7: Kolen et al. discloses an information processing method as stated above, but fails to disclose that every time new music information is generated, the new music information to be stored in association with identification information of a user.
However Kumar et al. teaches an information processing method for generating music information, where new music information that is generated is stored in a storage module in association with (corresponding to) each of different users with identification information (profile) of each user (column 10 line 66 through column 11 line 2).
Given the teachings of Kumar et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing method disclosed in Kolen et al. with providing that every time new music information is generated, the new music information to be stored in association with identification information of a user. Doing so would allow different music information created for different users to be stored as taught in Kumar et al. (column 11 lines 1-2) and accessed later (column 9 lines 8-9) based on user authentication (column 9 lines 40-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0358285 A1, US 11,635,936 B2, US 12,205,565 B2 pertaining to generating music information using machine learning model, US 7,365,261 B2 pertaining to displaying mapped music information in a multidimensional space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 March 16, 2026