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
2. Applicant's arguments received 08/04/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-4 as set forth below in this Office action.
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 1-7 and 10-17 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 1-7 and 10-17 are directed to an abstract idea of adjusting a pitch of an accompaniment file of a target song.
Specifically, representative claim 10 recites:
A pitch adjustment apparatus, comprising:
a processor, a memory, a bus, input and output device, wherein the processor is connected to the memory and the input and output device; the bus is connected to the processor, the memory and the input and output device; and the processor is configured to:
(S1) obtain a plurality of candidate melody files, each of the plurality of candidate melody files is used to identify a pitch of each note in a melody of a target song, and pitches identified by the plurality of candidate melody files are different from each other;
(S2) obtain audio data of a singing sound of a user for singing the target song,
(S3) extract, from the audio data, a fundamental frequency of the singing sound to obtain a fundamental frequency sequence comprising a plurality of fundamental frequency points,
(S4) determine a target fundamental frequency point from all fundamental frequency points of the fundamental frequency sequence, and
(S5) convert, according to a preset algorithm, only a frequency at the target fundamental frequency point into a pitch without converting frequencies at the other fundamental frequency points of the fundamental frequency sequence, wherein the target fundamental frequency point comprises a fundamental frequency point corresponding to the note of the candidate melody file in time in the fundamental frequency sequence;
(S6) calculate, for each of the plurality of candidate melody files, a pitch difference between the candidate melody file and the fundamental frequency sequence at each corresponding time point, and calculate, for each of the plurality of candidate melody files, a sum of all pitch differences of the candidate melody file; and
(S7) determine a candidate melody file with a minimum sum as a target melody file, and
(S8) adjusting a pitch of an accompaniment file of the target song according to a pitch difference between the target melody file and an original melody file of the target song.
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 S3, S5 and S6 recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts and/or calculations, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (see Applicant’s Spec., paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0027], [0043], [0045]-[0046], etc.), which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Under its BRI, each of the limitations S4 and S7 recited in the bolded portion encompasses a mental process, i.e. data evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps or math calculations with the aid of 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 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitation S3-S7 from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper or a general-purpose computer. Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 10, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of “a processor, a memory, a bus, input and output device, wherein the processor is connected to the memory and the input and output device; the bus is connected to the processor, the memory and the input and output device” at a high level of generality, which reads on a general-purpose computer. 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.
Under its BRI, each of the limitations S1 and S2 of claim 10 encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The limitation of “each of the plurality of candidate melody files is used to identify a pitch of each note in a melody of a target song, and pitches identified by the plurality of candidate melody files are different from each other” is considered merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use.
Further, the claim does not specify how the fundamental frequency sequence of a singing sound of a user for singing the target song is obtained. As such, claim 10 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 10 recites the additional limitation S8. Under the BRI, step S8 reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. Further, the claim does not specify how the pitch of an accompaniment file of the target song is adjusted according to a pitch difference between the target melody file and an original melody file of the target song. As such, the post solution activity recited in limitation S6 encompasses merely instructions to apply a judicial exception for an intended use but does not amount to be “significantly more” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Parker v. Flook.
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 10 is directed to an (math + mental) algorithm of adjusting a pitch of an accompaniment file of a target song according to a pitch difference between the target melody file and an original melody file of the target song. Under the BRI, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, none of the recited additional elements in claim 10 is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, none of the recited additional elements in claim 10 reflects an inventive concept. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and well-known/conventional techniques. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1 and 11 are not eligible under 35 USC for the same reasons as for claim 10 set forth above.
The dependent claims 2-7 and 12-17 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1 or 10, 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 "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Conclusion
5. 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
6. The following prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
IWASE (US 20190096379 A1) -- ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, MUSICAL SOUND GENERATING METHOD OF ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
SAINO (US 20110000360 A1) -- Apparatus And Method For Creating Singing Synthesizing Database, And Pitch Curve Generation Apparatus And Method
SAINO et al. (JP 2013164609 A) -- SINGING SYNTHESIZING DATABASE GENERATION DEVICE, AND PITCH CURVE GENERATION DEVICE
Contact Information
7. 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